# Parallels: League of Nations 1930s, UN today

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parallels-league-of-nations-1930s-un-today/156066>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 19, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parallels-league-of-nations-1930s-un-today/156066 "2003-02-19T04:36:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parallels-league-of-nations-1930s-un-today/156066/1 "2003-02-19T04:36:28Z")

</div>

Per request, I am moving a debate that developed between myself and **Desertgeezer** in [this IMHO thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160123&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) to GD. The title of the thread is “Should the US invade Iraq? Yes or no, folks…” My intitial post was this (for people who don’t want to read through the whole thing here, my position is best summed up by the paragraph I have put in bold):

Yes, absolutely. In fact, Bush has been much too timid about this for my taste. No, I am not kidding.

Although actually, my real preference would be for Mr. Hussein to be targeted for assasination. If he is too well protected, target the organizational layer directly under him, with the understanding that if he were deposed, the assasinations would stop. I think that once we got one or two of them, the rest would get together and depose Saddam straight away. If they go to ground and become as difficult to get as Saddam, then we go to the next layer. And so on down the line.

I think a strategy like this, perhaps along with selective incursions if and when Saddam tries to mass force, say in order to bring the northern territoies back under his control, and we can fight the kind of open desert battle we’re good at, and also special forces operations and precision bombing of strategic targets, would be the most efficient way to acheive the desired result.

Of course, Bush is not going to rescind the directive forbidding the US to get involved with assasinations. And he is not going to do that because he is, imo, too concerned about world opinion. Again, no I am not kidding.

\*\*I find the parallels between the western democracies and the League of Nations vs Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and the western democracies and the UN vs Saddam, to be compelling. If there is anything that episode of history taught us, it is that it is both necessary and right to pre-emptively take down insane dictators before they become too powerful. In fact given the existence of nuclear weapons it is even more true today than it was then. \*\*

Furthermore, I have this idea. I haven’t yet fully worked it out yet, but so far no one I have shared it with has been able to refute it. It is this: That if slavery exists, and people are being held as slaves by a slave owner somewhere, and we are capable of setting those slaves free comparatively very easily (comparatively meaning compared to, say, WWII, in which the moral pretext for us going to war was to free people from Nazi oppresion), then we have a moral obligation to do so. And, even though the label is not typically applied to them, the people of Iraq are Saddam Hussein’s slaves.

So, I care not one whit whether or not Mr. Hussein is or is not in compliance with, or “moving toward” compliance with, UN resolutions. I don’t care if there is an Al Queda connection or not. I don’t care if Mr. Bush is doing this to some extent for the wrong reasons, such as to avenge his father or please the oil companies (though I think that last one is silly).

I say: Free the Iraqi people. Depose Saddam Hussein

**DesertGeezer** replied as follows:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > - Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*  
> > If there is anything that episode of history taught us, it is that it is both necessary and right to pre-emptively take down insane dictators before they become too powerful. … WWII, in which the moral pretext for us going to war was to free people from Nazi oppresion
> 
> Are you kidding? I know this is IMHO, but please, a cite? My history says the reason we went to war with Germany was that their ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor. Spare me the “FDR set it up” argument please, I’ve heard it (and used it). But we did not make a _pre-emptive_ strike on Germany or anyone else on any pretext whatever. We were attacked by the Axis, of which Germany was a part. And we formally declared war on Germany, Japan and Italy as members of the Tripartite Pact. We _should_ have declared war against Germany in 1940 when they started bombing Britain, but the best we did for the Brits was Lend Lease until we had our backs against the wall.
> 
> All that is irrelevant anyway. What Bush proposes (and nobody who’s paid attention imagines he ever had any other idea) is to attack Iraq without a declaration on the pretext (unproven) that Saddam has WMDs, and the pretext (unproven) that Saddam is in cahoots with Al Queida. Even if those allegations were proven it would not excuse raining bombs on a civilian population. That will only make us the aggressors in the eyes of the whole world, some of whom don’t like us already.
> 
> But thanks for your opinion. I’ll put you in the “yes” column. \*\*

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parallels-league-of-nations-1930s-un-today/156066/2 "2003-02-19T04:38:04Z")

</div>

(_…continued_)

I responded:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> \*\*Are you kidding? I know this is IMHO, but please, a cite? My history says the reason we went to war with Germany was that their ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor. \*\*

Perhaps I was unclear. The immediate cause of our entry into the war was the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s declaration of war against us. But the _moral justification_ for sending the boys across the Atlantic to Europe was to free the people thereof who had been enslaved by the Nazis. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, while we didn’t actually join the war until Pearl Harbor, imo we clearly _should have_ acted against Germany much sooner. You seem to agree:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> **We _should_ have declared war against Germany in 1940 when they started bombing Britain**

I _agree_ with you (and the history books) that we didn’t hit Germany before 1942 (although actually we _were_ fighting an undeclared war against their subs in the North Atlantic by 1940), and I _agree_ with you that we _should have_ done something before that. Of course, I would say (in hindsight) that a pre-emptive strike against Germany would have been justified much earlier than 1940, but…you are familiar with the anecdote in which Winston Churchill asks a woman if she would have sex with him for $100?\*

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> **All that is irrelevant anyway. What Bush proposes (and nobody who’s paid attention imagines he ever had any other idea) is to attack Iraq without a declaration on the pretext (unproven) that Saddam has WMDs, and the pretext (unproven) that Saddam is in cahoots with Al Queida.**

I believe there was also something about a Mr. Hussein’s defiance of a UN resolution, one which places the burden of proving he _does not_ have WMDs _on him_. But, as this is irrelevent to you, it is also irrelevent to me, as I said in my previous post.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> \*\*Even if those allegations were proven it would not excuse raining bombs on a civilian population. That will only make us the aggressors in the eyes of the whole world, some of whom don’t like us already. \*\*

Clearly you are indulging in hyperbole when you talk about “raining bombs on a civilian population”. Nonetheless, in modern warfare on the scale we are contemplating, civilian casualties will be inevitable, not in the least because Mr. Hussein will doubtless use some of them as human shields. Also you are again correct in saying that the rest of the world will perceive us as aggressors. And the perception will be right!

What I am saying is that, in my opinion, none of these things relieve us of the moral obligation to stop Mr. Hussein _before_ he becomes a major threat, the way Hitler was in 1941, ie by acquiring WMDs, and while we’re at it, to free the those civilians you were referring to, which he has enslaved. Civilians died during the fighting to liberate France, from D-Day until the Nazis surrendered, but that did not relieve us of our moral obligation to prosecute that war.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*  
> \*\*But thanks for your opinion. I’ll put you in the “yes” column. \*\*

It’s where I belong.  
\*[sub]Just in case: Churchill asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. She says yes. He then asks if she would do it for one hundred dollars. She says no, and angrily asks, “What kind of woman do you think I am?” He replies, “We’ve already settled that, now we are haggling over the price.” So, if you agree in principle that a pre-emptive attack _can_ be justified, then we are now arguing over whether the present situation fulfills the requirements.[/sub]

**DesertGeezer** replied:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*\*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_\*\*  
> > Perhaps I was unclear. The immediate cause of our entry into the war was the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s declaration of war against us. But the _moral justification_ for sending the boys across the Atlantic to Europe was to free the people thereof who had been enslaved by the Nazis. Do you disagree?\*\*
> 
> I do. Isolationists, some as high-profile as Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy (then Ambassador to the Court of St. James) were against American involvement in Europe. I don’t know the figures (perhaps you can enlighten me) but I think the ratio of people for and against American involvement were about on a par with the polls being taken now re: Iraq.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Furthermore, while we didn’t actually join the war until Pearl Harbor, imo we clearly _should have_ acted against Germany much sooner. You seem to agree\*\*
> 
> I do in principle, but we should have joined our British allies in defense of their islands, _not_ pre-emptively attacked Hitler. Both Hitler and American isolationists thought the Atlantic was much bigger than it was.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > I agree with you (and the history books) that we didn’t hit Germany before 1942 (although actually we were fighting an undeclared war against their subs in the North Atlantic by 1940), and I _agree_ with you that we _should have_ done something before that. Of course, I would say (in hindsight) that a pre-emptive strike against Germany would have been justified much earlier than 1940 \*\*
> 
> This is the sticking point with me. I would agree that military action should have been taken earlier to aid our allies who had been attacked. But I don’t believe a pre-emptive strike would have been justified.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > I believe there was also something about a Mr. Hussein’s defiance of a UN resolution, one which places the burden of proving he _does not_ have WMDs _on him_. But, as this is irrelevent to you, it is also irrelevent to me, as I said in my previous post. \*\*
> 
> Hussein is defying a _ **UN** _ resolution, and so far the UN is not ready to take military action. George W. Bush is gung-ho to go it alone, even in the face of a UN veto. He has told the UN, first through Colin Powell and then in a speech of his own, that that body is, in effect, irrelevant if they disagree with American (read Bush) policy. He’s not ready to pull America out of the UN, but he expects the world community to go along with anything he wants.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Clearly you are indulging in hyperbole when you talk about “raining bombs on a civilian population”. Nonetheless, in modern warfare on the scale we are contemplating, civilian casualties will be inevitable, not in the least because Mr. Hussein will doubtless use some of them as human shields. \*\*
> 
> I don’t think you would regard it as hyperbole if the bombs were dropping on New York. It’s not as if Saddam Hussein were propping people up in front of him for protection. We will be bombing where his people live, and on a much larger scale than the attack launched by George I to prove that he wasn’t a wimp.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Also you are again correct in saying that the rest of the world will perceive us as aggressors. And the perception will be right! \*\*
> 
> And you regard that as a good thing?
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > What I am saying is that, in my opinion, none of these things relieve us of the moral obligation to stop Mr. Hussein _before_ he becomes a major threat, the way Hitler was in 1941, ie by acquiring WMDs, and while we’re at it, to free the those civilians you were referring to, which he has enslaved. \*\*
> 
> I think we have a moral obligation to protect our own people, not to bully other countries into doing things the American way.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Civilians died during the fighting to liberate France, from D-Day until the Nazis surrendered, but that did not relieve us of our moral obligation to prosecute that war\*\*
> 
> The Free French were fighthing to liberate France, and, at the time at least, were glad to have our help, even at the cost of civilian lives. The Iraqui people are not our allies. We are not pledged to defend them. Most of them hate America. The French didn’t hate us until _after_ the war.
> 
> \*\*

Herewith my response, which brings us up to date:

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Perhaps I was unclear. The immediate cause of our entry into the war was the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s declaration of war against us. But the moral justification for sending the boys across the Atlantic to Europe was to free the people thereof who had been enslaved by the Nazis. Do you disagree?\*\*
> 
> \*\*  
> I do. Isolationists, some as high-profile as Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy (then Ambassador to the Court of St. James) were against American involvement in Europe. I don’t know the figures (perhaps you can enlighten me) but I think the ratio of people for and against American involvement were about on a par with the polls being taken now re: Iraq. \*\*

Several days later, and I’m still scratching my head over this one. I understand that you disagree with me, but I have no idea how what you wrote above is supposed to explain your position. People were opposed to going to war in the 40s both before and even after Pearl Harbor. The people who were _for_ it justified their position, at least in part, by claiming that we had a moral responsibility to free the oppressed people of Europe from the Nazis. I honestly don’t see how you can disagree with that.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Furthermore, while we didn’t actually join the war until Pearl Harbor, imo we clearly _should have_ acted against Germany much sooner. You seem to agree\*\*
> 
> \*\*  
> I do in principle, but we should have joined our British allies in defense of their islands, _not_ pre-emptively attacked Hitler. \*\*

But the British _weren’t_ formally our allies until after Hitler’s declaration of war against us. You appear to be shifting your position here. At what point do you think an American response to Nazi aggression would have been justified?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > I agree with you (and the history books) that we didn’t hit Germany before 1942 (although actually we were fighting an undeclared war against their subs in the North Atlantic by 1940), and I _agree_ with you that we should have done something before that. Of course, I would say (in hindsight) that a pre-emptive strike against Germany would have been justified much earlier than 1940 \*\*
> 
> \*\*  
> This is the sticking point with me. I would agree that military action should have been taken earlier to aid our allies who had been attacked. But I don’t believe a pre-emptive strike would have been justified. \*\*

Once again, none of the European countries were our allies at the time they were initially attacked.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > I believe there was also something about a Mr. Hussein’s defiance of a UN resolution, one which places the burden of proving he _does not_ have WMDs _on him_. But, as this is irrelevent to you, it is also irrelevent to me, as I said in my previous post. \*\*
> 
> \*\*Hussein is defying a _ **UN** _ resolution, and so far the UN is not ready to take military action. George W. Bush is gung-ho to go it alone, even in the face of a UN veto. He has told the UN, first through Colin Powell and then in a speech of his own, that that body is, in effect, irrelevant if they disagree with American (read Bush) policy. \*\*

Let me ask you this. Would you agree with me that, in principle, there is some point at which the refusal of the UN to enforce it’s own resolutions makes that body irrelevent, regardless of what Bush says? If so, when do we reach that point? Bear in mind when you answer that the original resolutions calling on Saddam to disarm are now twelve years old.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Clearly you are indulging in hyperbole when you talk about “raining bombs on a civilian population”. Nonetheless, in modern warfare on the scale we are contemplating, civilian casualties will be inevitable, not in the least because Mr. Hussein will doubtless use some of them as human shields. \*\*
> 
> \*\*I don’t think you would regard it as hyperbole if the bombs were dropping on New York. It’s not as if Saddam Hussein were propping people up in front of him for protection. We will be bombing where his people live \*\*

We will be bombing where his _military_ lives, and works. Though I wouldn’t put it past the man to put civilians at military installations as human shields.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Also you are again correct in saying that the rest of the world will perceive us as aggressors. And the perception will be right! \*\*
> 
> \*\*And you regard that as a good thing? \*\*

No, as I said before, I don’t think this relieves us of our obligation to remove Mr. Hussein from power.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_\*\*  
> > What I am saying is that, in my opinion, none of these things relieve us of the moral obligation to stop Mr. Hussein before he becomes a major threat, the way Hitler was in 1941, ie by acquiring WMDs, and while we’re at it, to free the those civilians you were referring to, which he has enslaved. \*\*
> 
> \*\*I think we have a moral obligation to protect our own people, not to bully other countries into doing things the American way. \*\*

I don’t think that’s very responsive to what I said. Do you or do you not think it is under _any_ circumstances the right thing to do for us to prevent an evil dictator from acquiring WMDs, or otherwise (as with Hitler) just becoming too powerful, and free the people he has enslaved?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DesertGeezer \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein_ \*\*  
> > Civilians died during the fighting to liberate France, from D-Day until the Nazis surrendered, but that did not relieve us of our moral obligation to prosecute that war\*\*
> 
> \*\*The Free French were fighthing to liberate France, and, at the time at least, were glad to have our help, even at the cost of civilian lives. The Iraqui people are not our allies. We are not pledged to defend them. Most of them hate America. The French didn’t hate us until _after_ the war.  
> \*\*

One more time, the French were not our allies until _after_ they were overrun by the Nazis.