|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
 Re: War people, why do you support the war?  [Re: Phred]
#1413692 - 03/27/03 07:13 AM (21 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
As I pointed out, the US was in no danger of losing any access
So by this logic there would have been no problem in the soviet union invading countries in the middle east? Then why was the US so desperate to prevent russian influence in the middle east?
today with the benefit of sixty years of hindsight
It's an idea I've read in several biographies of Hitler - "The Psychopathic God" being one. Certainly explains why he decided to start the holocaust at that particular moment. Why put such a massive drain on your war effort if you really thought you had a chance to win anytime soon?. He knew the war was lost so he decided to at least make sure he won the war against the jews.
To say that the US feared, in 1941, that Stalin would eventually defeat Hitler and conquer all of Europe is incorrect.
Well it was late 1941 remember - Dec. The german advance in the east hadn't resulted in the success Hitler anticipated and it was pretty clear it was going to be a long drawn out war with little chance of success for germany. The US didn't really have a choice in the matter anyway - Hitler declared war on them. It's hardly likely Roosevelt could have withstood public opinion by not even declaring war back.
Could i repeat my question "What reasons are you talking about"? You didn't answer this.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (03/27/03 07:40 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1413712 - 03/27/03 07:19 AM (21 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Do you believe the US was justified in entering WWII and actively taking the battle to Hitler rather than waiting to repel any threat to the territory of the US?
What are you talking about "threat to territory"? There is a 3000 mile ocean between Europe and america remember so the threat to territory was pretty non-existent. Do i agree with stopping a dictator intent on invading Europe and asia and installing brutal slave states in each? Yes.
But what has this to do with Saddam? Since when has he invaded half the world?
You mean similar to the way the Russians invaded half the sovereign countries of Europe while the US stood by and did nothing?
Hang on, hang on. Try and stick to one point for a change. Your initial position was the US doesn't mind if anyone invades Kuwait cos it could just buy oil off the invader instead. So why didn't the US want the Russians invading the middle east? They could have just bought oil from the Russians in your theory.
You mean similar to the way the Russians invaded half the sovereign countries of Europe while the US stood by and did nothing?
I wouldn't call D-Day "nothing".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
 Absolut_B
Just some guy
Registered: 01/26/03
Posts: 113
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
#1415104 - 03/27/03 05:12 PM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Thanks Johnny, you posted exactly what I wanted: a list of reasons why this war is bad.
The thought of creating more hatred and terrorist will always be a threat. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to deal with arab countries, we could be trade partners and not concern ourselves with their governments. You are also correct in the fact that Saddam has not directly funded terrorism, that we know of. However he has turned a blind eye to it. I look at Saddam as a madman, pure and simple. At one point he was just another ruler in a region of non-democratic nations. He crossed too many lines. I think we should have taken care of his leadership back in 1991. However even then with all our allies(including arab nations) there was not enough support for it. This is the fatal flaw in post-vietnam world politics. During the cold war the mere threat of a powerful military prevented most nations from firing a shot. What has happened since this time is a change in the perception of America and the other great nations of the world. Minor tyrants poke and prod major forces, knowing they will do nothing. The US is a paper tiger.
This war should have been prevented years ago. America should have followed an all or nothing stategy in every war. Instead politics ruled, and bastards like LBJ sent troops, a few thousand at a time, to their deaths. Several new nations have violated international law and become nuclear powers. North Korea now openly mocks us. The USA isn't in this alone, but is only the main target because of its status as the last remaining superpower. If the US wasn't in this position some other nation would be, such as the UK, Russia, or Germany. These nations are now playing the same politics game the US played in the past. Their asses are on the line too, but they're too short sighted to see it
I think, or at least hope, that Bush is trying to make a point of this war. Threats against peaceful, free nations will be dealt with. It's too bad Bush is an idiot, so I can only guess at his reasons for this war. I won't defend him, but I will defend what we ought to do. Nobody wants this war and death, and I think both sides can agree on that.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1415531 - 03/27/03 08:05 PM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I think if Hitler had been given a free reign in Europe, once he had consolidated his power he would definitely have been a threat to the US as they too would more than likely have developed an atom bomb. Its fairly obvious that trading with a fascist regime would not yeild the spectacular profits of trading with fellow capitalist nations.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
 
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: GazzBut]
#1415617 - 03/27/03 08:58 PM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
They found out later that HItler's plan was to take over Europe along with that whole hemisphere and keeping peace with US so they wouldn't pose a threat and then after everything was conquered, to then focus on the US with nukes that would supposedly have been done and V rockets that's could reach the US.
--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
Absolut_B
Just some guy
Registered: 01/26/03
Posts: 113
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: GazzBut]
#1415628 - 03/27/03 09:05 PM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I think if Hitler had been given a free reign in Europe, once he had consolidated his power he would definitely have been a threat to the US as they too would more than likely have developed an atom bomb. Its fairly obvious that trading with a fascist regime would not yeild the spectacular profits of trading with fellow capitalist nations.
Just a small sidenote to the discussion. The concept of the atomic bomb was well understood before WWII. In what could be called an act of paranoia the US tried to build one before the Germans. While the power of the atom was understood, very few scientists in the field thought they would see the day when the A-bomb was made. The manhatten project was, especially at first, concerned with showing how impossible the A-bomb construction would be. The great work they did surpased even their worst nightmares when the bomb was made. They were hoping for failure. Would the Germans have been able to build the bomb? Maybe, but it could have been years in the future. There were great leaps in science in the mahatten project that came from individuals around the world. The Germans had great scientists, but maybe they didn't have the genius of the (sometimes Jewish) team which was needed to make that final leap from abstract to concrete.
Hitler was a madman, but one hell of a leader. He was pretty pissed when Japan threw us into the war. I think he would have set his sights on the US, but he would have never started the conflict until he was in solid control of europe. I'd guess( who knows for sure ) that he would try and trade with the US had we been of that disposition. We're lucky he didn't hold back a few years to build his forces or we all would be talking German right now.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Xlea321]
#1415830 - 03/28/03 08:56 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
So by this logic there would have been no problem in the soviet union invading countries in the middle east?
As usual, you are deliberately evading the point under discussion by introducing irrelevancies that become ever more removed from the point with each successive post.
The point under discussion is whether or not there are legitimate reasons for going to war other than the defense of one's soil. Silversoul7 pointed out correctly that Hussein is not a direct threat to the US, therefore the "self-defense" justification for taking military action against him is invalid.
I then pointed out correctly that Hitler was never a direct threat to the US either, therefore the "self-defense" justification for taking military action against him was equally invalid. Did Hitler attack America? Nope. All he did was reluctantly issue a pro forma declaration of war on America because his status as Japan's ally required him to do so or lose Japan as an ally -- something he most definitely did not want to do once he had turned on Russia . The declaration was a hollow one, and need not have been acted on immediately, or ever, for that matter.
You have failed to address this point. Instead you have tried to conflate "self-defense" with economic interest, claimed that somehow Roosevelt was prescient enough to know that Hitler was already regretting attacking the Russians; prescient enough to know that the Russians could defeat Hitler all by themselves and then conquer all of Europe (despite the fact that in December of 1941 there was not even the slightest hint of such a startling turnaround); prescient enough to know somehow that decades after the war had ended, Russia would eye Middle Eastern countries avariciously.
You are going to absurd lengths to make it appear as if somehow Hitler was a direct threat to the US because you can't admit that at times there are legitimate reasons other than self-defense which justify a nation's going to war.
Either that or you do believe that there were legitimate reasons other than defending American soil which justified America's invasion of Hitler's Europe, i.e.
1) Potential loss of revenue from former foreign trading partners conquered by Hitler
2) Potential loss of revenue from former foreign trading partners conquered by Hitler's enemy, Russia
Which is it?
Could i repeat my question "What reasons are you talking about"?
I'll answer that question once you have answered my unanswered questions that are now months old. Shall I post them here again to make it easier for you?
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: GazzBut]
#1415834 - 03/28/03 09:03 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
I think if Hitler had been given a free reign in Europe, once he had consolidated his power he would definitely have been a threat to the US as they too would more than likely have developed an atom bomb.
I disagree. I believe Hitler would have been eager to conduct trade with North America, and even if he had developed atomic weaponry, he would not have attacked North America. However, note that both of us are discussing scenarios based on our knowledge of six decades of post WWII history -- something that Roosevelt didn't possess in 1941.
To claim that Roosevelt had the psychic powers to see the future course of history is absurd. The whole "atomic bomb" theory, for example, is completely irrelevant, because in 1941 it appeared as if it was an impossibility anyway.
Its fairly obvious that trading with a fascist regime would not yeild the spectacular profits of trading with fellow capitalist nations.
It's not obvious at all, but let's pretend it is for the sake of argument. You are still arguing that the US was justified in entering WWII not for the noble reason of self-defense, but for the greedy reason of economic advantage.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1415850 - 03/28/03 09:23 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Where have I said anything about justification? All I have talked about is motivation.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: GazzBut]
#1415865 - 03/28/03 09:45 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Where have I said anything about justification? All I have talked about is motivation.
So what, in your opinion, was the moral justification for the US attacking Hitler's Europe?
pinky
--------------------
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1415873 - 03/28/03 09:55 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Hitler lashed out at the world. He struck everyone who was in reach. He did so to his own detriment. He overextended himself against the advice of his military leaders.
You talk as though he were a rational person with rational aims. He was a maniac that seemed to want to take over the world. The german scientists were working on the same technology as we were. And we knew it.
Our military leaders knew what the future held as far as technological developement. And they knew what Hitler would do with this technology. They were not prophets of course, But they knew based on how irrationally he had attacked his neighbors. He could not be trusted. Not only could he not be trusted, but he was a powerful force that HAD to be reckoned with.
It was pretty obvious, based on his actions towards all of his neighbors, that Hitler would have eventually been a threat to the security of the U.S. This seems like a silly debate that is fueled by a desire to win.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: sirreal]
#1415895 - 03/28/03 10:32 AM (21 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
sirreal writes:
Our military leaders knew what the future held as far as technological developement. And they knew what Hitler would do with this technology. They were not prophets of course, But they knew based on how irrationally he had attacked his neighbors. He could not be trusted. Not only could he not be trusted, but he was a powerful force that HAD to be reckoned with.
It was pretty obvious, based on his actions towards all of his neighbors, that Hitler would have eventually been a threat to the security of the U.S.
Substitute Hussein for Hitler when reading the above. Note that Hussein isn't even developing bio and chem weapons, he has them already. The Bush administration aren't prophets either, but they have a lot more intel on Hussein today than Roosevelt had on Hitler in 1941.
pinky
--------------------
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1415915 - 03/28/03 11:12 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Hitler was threatening through force to conquer europe and some of our allies.He had already occupied France. Saddam made a move on one of his neighbors and was repelled. There is no comparison. If you choose to believe there is, then so be it.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: sirreal]
#1416593 - 03/29/03 07:09 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
sirreal writes:
Hitler was threatening through force to conquer europe and some of our allies.He had already occupied France.
But the relevant point, the whole point under discussion here, as I have tried repeatedly to point out, is that he was never a threat to the US. So he had occupied France and was bombing England. How does that show he was a threat to the USA? By December 1941 there was no one who believed he was capable of crossing the English channel in large enough numbers to occupy England. And even if he was capable, he certainly hadn't the slightest possibility of attacking America across the Atlantic Ocean. America was in no danger from Hitler, no matter how hard you try to claim it was.
America entered the war for reasons other than self-defense, it's that simple. Maybe they did so to help their allies. Maybe they did so for economic reasons. Maybe they did so to make sure Russia didn't occupy too many countries once Hitler had been defeated. But they didn't do it out of self-defense. That's all I am saying, and that's all I have ever said in this thread.
Saddam made a move on one of his neighbors and was repelled.
Incorrect. He made a move on one of his neighbors (Iran) and was repelled after 8 years of war. He made more than "a move" on Kuwait, he invaded it and occupied it, just as Hitler invaded and occupied France. The only significant difference was the length of the occupation.
There is no comparison.
Are the two situations identical? Of course not, and I never claimed they were. But the question I am asking is not all-encompassing, it is specific and narrowly-limited: were either Iraq or Nazi Germany a direct threat to the USA? Was the self-defense of the USA at stake in either case? Nope.
If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.
pinky
--------------------
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1416601 - 03/29/03 07:25 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
All this time arguing against these guys and and now I find myself arguing with them. It seems to me that after Hitler had all of the eastern hemisphere he might have sat for 10-20 years but eventually would have made a move towards the Americas. While I think the intention would have been there I wonder if with all the different nationalities Hitler would have been trying to control over there, he would have a difficult time maintaining that control. And therefor may not have been able to maintain that empire long enough to build up the forces needed to make an assault on the Americas.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1416603 - 03/29/03 07:29 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
But the relevant point, the whole point under discussion here, as I have tried repeatedly to point out, is that he was never a threat to the US.
Well he was an ally of Japan who had recently attacked Pearl Harbour.
America entered the war for reasons other than self-defense
Let me get this straight. You are trying to compare Hitler invading half of Europe and Saddam who hasn't invaded anyone for 12 years?
Was the self-defense of the USA at stake in either case? Nope.
What is your point? Are you trying to compare Hitler and Saddam or not?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Xlea321]
#1416623 - 03/29/03 07:54 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Well he was an ally of Japan who had recently attacked Pearl Harbour.
It was definitely correct for America to go to war with the Japanese. I never said otherwise.
Let me get this straight. You are trying to compare Hitler invading half of Europe and Saddam who hasn't invaded anyone for 12 years?
Nope. I am saying that America decided to go to war against Hitler for reasons other than self-defense.
What is your point? Are you trying to compare Hitler and Saddam or not?
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that America went to war against Hitler's Germany for reasons other than self-defense. Apparently, everyone in this forum believes that America was right to do so, therefore everyone in this forum believes that there are legitimate justifications for going to war other than self-defense. That is all I have been saying, and I find it instructive that so many people are having such a hard time grasping this simple fact when I have made it abundantly clear from the beginning.
Ignore how many countries Hussein has invaded vs how many Hitler invaded. The point is that neither invaded the US nor attempted to invade the US nor even had the capability to invade the US. The US was never directly threatened by either Irag or by Germany. How hard is that to understand?
Ignore the fact that by most people's reckoning, both Hussein and Hitler were imperialist megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur and a genuine threat to neighboring countries. No matter how large their megalomania, neither were a direct threat to the US. How hard is that to understand?
Ignore the fact that Hussein has persecuted minorities within the borders of Iraq just as Hitler persecutes minorities within the borders of Germany. Minorities within the borders of the US were in danger from neither Hitler nor Hussein. How hard is that to understand?
None of those parallels have any relevance whatsoever to my point (and note that it wasn't me who introduced them to the debate); they are merely interesting coincidences that don't change the fact that Hitler was no more a direct threat to the US in 1941 than Hussein is in 2003. The "justification" of self-defense in both cases is false.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Xlea321]
#1416624 - 03/29/03 07:55 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Well he was an ally of Japan who had recently attacked Pearl Harbour.
It was definitely correct for America to go to war with the Japanese. I never said otherwise.
Let me get this straight. You are trying to compare Hitler invading half of Europe and Saddam who hasn't invaded anyone for 12 years?
Nope. I am saying that America decided to go to war against Hitler for reasons other than self-defense.
What is your point? Are you trying to compare Hitler and Saddam or not?
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that America went to war against Hitler's Germany for reasons other than self-defense. Apparently, everyone in this forum believes that America was right to do so, therefore everyone in this forum believes that there are legitimate justifications for going to war other than self-defense. That is all I have been saying, and I find it instructive that so many people are having such a hard time grasping this simple fact when I have made it abundantly clear from the beginning.
Ignore how many countries Hussein has invaded vs how many Hitler invaded. The point is that neither invaded the US nor attempted to invade the US nor even had the capability to invade the US. The US was never directly threatened by either Irag or by Germany. How hard is that to understand?
Ignore the fact that by most people's reckoning, both Hussein and Hitler were imperialist megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur and a genuine threat to neighboring countries. No matter how large their megalomania, neither were a direct threat to the US. How hard is that to understand?
Ignore the fact that Hussein has persecuted minorities within the borders of Iraq just as Hitler persecutes minorities within the borders of Germany. Minorities within the borders of the US were in danger from neither Hitler nor Hussein. How hard is that to understand?
None of those parallels have any relevance whatsoever to my point (and note that it wasn't me who introduced them to the debate); they are merely interesting coincidences that don't change the fact that Hitler was no more a direct threat to the US in 1941 than Hussein is in 2003. The "justification" of self-defense in both cases is false.
pinky
--------------------
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1416674 - 03/29/03 09:25 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Hitler was much more powerful and capable of being a threat to the U.S.
His scientists were working on the same things that our scientists were working on. He was like gane green(sp?) that had to be amputated from the global body.
Saddam is more like a boil on the global ass.
I will concede that at that precise moment in time he was not a direct threat to the shores of America. Although He very well could have been in such a way that Saddam could never be.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: War people, why do you support the war? [Re: Phred]
#1416733 - 03/29/03 10:33 AM (21 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
It was definitely correct for America to go to war with the Japanese. I never said otherwise.
Yeah but Hitler declared war on the US. What choice did they have?
therefore everyone in this forum believes that there are legitimate justifications for going to war other than self-defense.
Sure. But that doesn't mean ANY reason other than self-defence is legimate. Taking on a guy intent on invading half the world is fair enough. I don't think anyone would have any problem with that.
Ignore the fact that by most people's reckoning, both Hussein and Hitler were imperialist megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur and a genuine threat to neighboring countries.
Saddam hasn't been a threat to anyone for a good 12 years.
both Hussein and Hitler were imperialist megalomaniacs
Slightly different scale tho. Hitler was at the head of the most powerful army assembled in human history. Saddam is at the head of an army about as powerful as the hare-krishnas. And they've already got our airports...
they are merely interesting coincidences
Suppose so. You could also look at the other way and find many coincidences between Hitlers invasion of Poland and Bush's invasion of Iraq. Both illegal, both insisting there was a clear threat to them, overwhelming disparity in forces etc etc.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
mabus
1 2 all )
germin8tionn8ion
silversoul7
Swami
Learyfan
Edame