And have you stopped beating your wife? 
Depends upon your point of view. Was Lend-Lease or condemnation an act of war? Conventional definitions would probably say no, but it could be argued either way. But it’s pretty certain destruction of naval vessels qualifies.
The chronology is that the US declares war on Japan, Germany honoring a commitment to Japan declares war on the US, and the US declares war on Germany in kind. It’s difficult to extend the Iraq analogy very far in this respect unless you hold the premise that Iraq’s lack of cooperation equates to a declaration of war.
“The chronology is that the US declares war on Japan…”
Rereads… Just so we’re clear, Pearl Harbor was Dec. 7 (duh), US declares war on Japan Dec. 8, Germany & Italy declare war on US Dec. 11, US declares war back the same day.
The conclusion here is that while America had no love for the Nazis or what they were doing in Europe, the primary motive for actually entering the war was one of self-preservation rather than the defense of conquered peoples.
Well since you don’t have a wayback machine, I guess we will never know what would have happened if Germany never declared war on us. elucidator’s stated:
I am simply stating the obvious fact that the liberation of Europe did have our attention prior to Germany declaring war on us.
I don’t believe the OP implies liberating France was the prime objective of WWII. I believe the OP is simply using France as an example of a nation we liberated from a dictator. Perhaps the OP should have read “why is it only noble to remove a dictator after he declares war on you?”
Ridiculous. As far as that’s concerned, Italy, Libya, Tunisia and part of Germany were also “liberated from a brutal dictatorship.”
And some people were arguing that our armies should have kept going into Stalins Russia. But there are things we want to do and things we actually can do.
I wonder what would have happened if a preemptive strike was launched against Germany as they were getting ready to invade Poland? Of course it was a diferent world back then but I do see some similarities between Germany in the 30’s-40’s and Iraq in the 90’s+.
I don’t think the 'liberation of Europe" had our attention nearly as much as the possibility that we would be faced with a Germany, led by Hitler, who had control of all Europe.
Right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor, the lot of the national sentiment was in favor of staying out of Europe’s troubles. A military draft for 1 year of service was instituted and the first draftees were called up October of 1940. During the summer of 1941 there was talk in the Executive Department about extending that 1 year limit. The slogan among many of the draftees at the time was OHIO - “Over The Hill In October.”
Although the people were slowly beginning to back FDR’s support for Britain by mid 1941, the opposition to it wasn’t just from the finge kooks. Sens. Burton Wheeler, William Borah, Aurthur Vandenberg, Robert Taft, and Gerald Nye were active in opposition.
And, by the way, I don’t think that the Compassionate Conservative is all that het up about the liberation of the Iraqi population, but it does provide stalking horse, I guess.
Perhaps even more to the point, the United States Navy was already hunting and sinking German subs in the North Atlantic in 1941, well before the attack on Pearl Harbor–so we had already been engaged in military actions against Germany for some time before Hitler finally declared war.
Today, the peace creeps would insist that this meant the war with Germany was America’s fault.
Now I’m annoyed. I was dead certain that the US Navy had actually sunk some German subs prior to December 7, 1941, but I can’t seem to find a specific reference to an actual sinking on the web. I do find a couple of attacks on American destroyers and one attack on a German sub that didn’t result in a confirmed kill. Amend that previous statement to "the United States Navy was hunting and ** attacking ** German subs in the North Atlantic … "
And your point then is what exactly? I would say Iraq has had our attention too. Hell, it has not only had our attention but we have fought a war against it when it invaded another country, severely restricted its ability to procure any materials remotely useful for weapons (along with lots of other stuff), and had no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and so forth.
But, we are not arguing about something just having our attention now, are we? So, in other words, the evidence utterly fails to support the conclusion that we behaved differently in Europe in WW II than those against war in Iraq would have us behave now. And, of course, it is a poor parallel anyway since Hussein has not invaded multiple democratic neighboring nations (only 1 or 2 very non-democratic neighboring nations and not recently) and is by no means a credible military match for the U.S. let alone lots of other democratic nations.
So, in the end, we find an OP that is completely and utterly devoid of any rational or logical substance at all. But hey, I guess the poster is just taking his cues from the current Administration!
If what you say is true, then your conclussion is right. America was the agressor.
You can always trust a peace creep to side with our enemies.
“Today, the peace creeps would insist that this meant the war with Germany was America’s fault.”
Why would they insist that when all of the events you describe occured after 1939? Also, may I suggest that you find a different term to describe people who don’t happen to share your particular opinion?
And those are? I can see many important differences. For instance, Germany was a world power, Iraq tries to invade Iran for ten years and can’t do it. Germany quickly invades many democratic countries, Iraq unsuccessfully invades two in about twenty years, and hasn’t done anything in the past ten.
Lonesome Polecat: I believe, but cannot be certain, that these German subs were interfering with American shipping, making American attacks perfectly justified.
Y’know, to this Peace Creep, it seems that the Pro-War Pricks (we both need team names) are a little like Grampa Simpson, constantly seeing death (or Hitler) everywhere.
Grampa: Aaagh! Death!
Lisa: No, that’s Maggie.
Pro-War Prick: Aaaagh! Hitler!
Peace Creep: :rolleyes: No, that’s a tinpot dictator.
IMHO, had the various countries that eventually fully allied to defeat Hitler done so earlier, and had they not tried to appease him and his ilk for so long, much horror would have been prevented.
It would make an interesting alternative history to explore what would have happened had Chamberlin not promoted this appeasement for so long. At the time, he had the majority on his side, of course.
Even after Dec 7 1941 there were significant numbers of Americans, so my mother told me, who were opposed to any involvement. (This is not necessarily to the credit of the U.S., either.)
Perhaps some people are learning from this.
MLS, what is your point?
That it is a good idea to prevent SH from going further, just as (with 20/20 hindsight) to have acted against Hitler sooner. Well-intentioned people in both cases wanted to give peace (and appeasement) a chance. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
I was thinking more of the circumstances that led up to World War II (or as some people call it WWI part 2), Hitlers secret arming of Germany and the general atmosphere of isolationism and appeasement.
But you are right, there are also very many diferences. Instead of “being late to every war” (a statement I don’t get…either we are too aggressive or not aggressive enough? :rolleyes: ) the USA led the coalition to drive Sadaam out of Kuwait from day one (also under the protest of many a peacenik). Sadaam could have just as easily rolled into Saudi Arabia and then it would have been twice as hard to get him out.
Just as bad as not learning from history is making bad analogies from history and learning the wrong lessons.
Can someone try to explain how the current world policy toward Iraq of sanctions on military goods, inspections, etc. will allow Saddam Hussein to become a military might in the way Hitler did? If we think SH is so powerful, why the hell are we not even moving in enough to troops to match them one-for-one?
As I noted in my previous post, it just amazes me how the current Administration seems to have lowered the level of discourse on these issues to the point where the pro-war people are really making some pathetic arguments and thinking them profound.
I would just submit that these efforts were not working. SH did not even start to disarm (if in fact he did at all) until the US forces began to gather. He would just keep playing hide & seek. BTW there is current concern that he is going to unleash those bio-chem weapons that he doesn’t have on the US troops.
Constant, constant inspections and threats might keep him at bay and keep him from invading other countries. But it’s better, IMHO, to just get it over with all at once.
Sorry if you think I’m pathetic. I am not pro-war. But I want SH out of any position of control and if war is the quickest way to accomplish that, so be it. It would cost more in both lives and money to leave him alone. And the U.N. has proved itself impotent in this instance.
I don’t know. Is it racist that the Slovaks, Slovenes, Kosovans, Bosnias, Macedonians, Croatians all get their own countires, but the Kurds aren’t allowed to have one?
Any country’s foreign policy is always a mess of contradictions and hypocrisy. Why should France be any different than the US in this regard?
Okay, I’m an officer in the military. I’ll give y’all a few lessons.
One dramatic way in which the world is different now than it was back then is the role of the international terrorist.
The United States is the strongest conventional military power in the world. We do not fear Saddam Hussein’s conventional military arsenal. He has T-55’s and T-62’s for goshake!
No, we are concerned with the warfare of the late 20th and early 21st century, so-called Low Intensity Conflict (LIC), which is a fancy name for guerilla warfare and terrorist activities.
The morality of rescuing the Iraqi people from a modern day monster aside, I personally and professionally wouldn’t care if he wanted to build up as many T-62’s and Mirage-1S fighters as he could buy. However, with chemical and more especially biological weapons, he is able to act on his hatred of the United States in a way that Germany was unable to do way back when.
What’s more, he even has a method to do so with plausible deniability. All he has to do is develop these monstrous weapons, and then conveniently “lose” them where Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations can “find” them. Al Qaeda has stated publicly that they would love nothing better than to hit us with just such weapons.
Can Saddam Hussein match us in a conventional military war? Absolutely not.
Can Saddam Hussein kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians by providing chemical and biological weapons to terrorists? Absolutey.
Does Saddam Hussein have the will and desire to do so? If his tests of these weapons on his own people and his neighbors is any indication: yes, he does.
And that is why we need to stop him now. Because September 11, 2001 can and will happen again, if we don’t stop him.