Do anti-Iraq war people think Normandy/Europe was a mistake?

[justly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I sincerely doubt that Bush based his decision to attack Iraq on what Clinton did. There is also a large difference in the size of the response, and therefore the evidence needed to justify that response.

Clinton sent some jets to bomb Iraq. This almost certainly killed some people and so it should not have been done lightly. To somehow compare that response to perceived Iraqi violations to the 150,000 man armed invasion and 5 year (and counting!) occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will end up costing trillions of dollars... is not a good comparison.

My intent was not to say that these are the same, but to indicate that one presidents actions,decissions,public aproval or disaproval can often be linked to his predecessor. IF you don't believe this then I must assume you will blame the next president for every problem that occures durring his administration be it on his last day in office or his first.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: justly


My intent was not to say that these are the same, but to indicate that one presidents actions,decissions,public aproval or disaproval can often be linked to his predecessor. IF you don't believe this then I must assume you will blame the next president for every problem that occures durring his administration be it on his last day in office or his first.

They can be in many cases, but not really this one. Nothing Clinton did forced Bush to invade and occupy Iraq.

 

[orangat]

helloKeith,
You'd better be more careful about using WW2 Germany as your stalking horse. It was the conservatives in US (who even had lobby group America First Movement) and UK (except for Churchill) who were at the forefront of appeasement politics and allowed Hitler to blitzkreig through Europe.

And you totally wrong if you think the simultaneous nothern entry would have helped turn Iraqi's around. Iraqi's aren't unhappy because the invasion and capitulation took too long.
Quick Cliff notes how US screwed Iraq:-
- Invalidating local elections which spontaneously erupted when US took over
- Structuring elections to resemble appointocracy to get 'safe' front men elected
- Implemented neo-liberal economic restructuring which killed local industry and benefited foreign corps
- Emphasized high visibility useless (new money/flag) or big war profiteer projects while overlooking simple tasks like stocking local clinics hospitals and rebuilding basic infrastructure
- Before the war, imposed harsh sanctions which denied very basic supplies like graphite pencils, chlorine to incite population to overthrow Saddam but greatly reduced living standards

US soldiers are relatively trigger happy, if the British can get by with less shooting so can the US army. Heck even PMCs state that the US military are their biggest danger.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: orangat
helloKeith,
You'd better be more careful about using WW2 Germany as your stalking horse. It was the conservatives in US (who even had lobby group America First Movement) and UK (except for Churchill) who were at the forefront of appeasement politics and allowed Hitler to blitzkreig through Europe.

And you totally wrong if you think the simultaneous nothern entry would have helped turn Iraqi's around. Iraqi's aren't unhappy because the invasion and capitulation took too long.
Quick Cliff notes how US screwed Iraq:-
- Invalidating local elections which spontaneously erupted when US took over
- Structuring elections to resemble appointocracy to get 'safe' front men elected
- Implemented neo-liberal economic restructuring which killed local industry and benefited foreign corps
- Emphasized high visibility useless (new money/flag) or big war profiteer projects while overlooking simple tasks like stocking local clinics hospitals and rebuilding basic infrastructure
- Before the war, imposed harsh sanctions which denied very basic supplies like graphite pencils, chlorine to incite population to overthrow Saddam but greatly reduced living standards

US soldiers are relatively trigger happy, if the British can get by with less shooting so can the US army. Heck even PMCs state that the US military are their biggest danger.

Stop confusing hellokittykeith with facts, or he WILL invade you! 😉

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
The US actually had a decent opportunity to stabilize Iraq quickly, but Turkey (a supposed ally) turned tail at the first sign of Muslim criticism and chose the politically correct avenue (anyone remember France/Libya/Gaddafi?), preventing a very strategically important simultaneous northern entry into Iraq (quite interesting that Turkey recently complained about being left out of the Surge, which has to their dismay worked quite well.)

Completely incorrect. From day one, every qualified commander with experience in war planning in the Middle East said that troop levels were half of what they should have been, and that the exiles brought in to rule in the post-Saddam era were not the right people for the job. The planning was abysmal from day one.

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

From 1997 to 2000, [Retired General Anthony Zinni] was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

He wasn?t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni?s plan call for? ?We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,? says Zinni. ?We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.?

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

?I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,? says Zinni.

You know, from day one I was in favour of NATO/the UN/someone going into Iraq and deposing Saddam - I still am, in fact. And I think that with the invasion in the past, the world needs to pitch in and help stabilize Iraq - not pull out. But I know a terrible plan when I see one, and this was arguably the worst planning the U.S. has done in a military campaign since Vietnam. Don't try to blame others for the Bush administration's colossal screwup.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Here's a question.

Suppose Hitler had not declared war? For that matter, suppose Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor? Should we have gone to war in such a circumstance?

Here is another question.

Suppose Saddam had no WMD? Suppose Saddam posed to threat to the US? Suppose Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Should we have gone to war in such a cicumstance?

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: hellokeith
The US actually had a decent opportunity to stabilize Iraq quickly, but Turkey (a supposed ally) turned tail at the first sign of Muslim criticism and chose the politically correct avenue (anyone remember France/Libya/Gaddafi?), preventing a very strategically important simultaneous northern entry into Iraq (quite interesting that Turkey recently complained about being left out of the Surge, which has to their dismay worked quite well.)

Completely incorrect. From day one, every qualified commander with experience in war planning in the Middle East said that troop levels were half of what they should have been, and that the exiles brought in to rule in the post-Saddam era were not the right people for the job. The planning was abysmal from day one.

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

From 1997 to 2000, [Retired General Anthony Zinni] was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

He wasn?t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni?s plan call for? ?We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,? says Zinni. ?We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.?

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

?I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,? says Zinni.

You know, from day one I was in favour of NATO/the UN/someone going into Iraq and deposing Saddam - I still am, in fact. And I think that with the invasion in the past, the world needs to pitch in and help stabilize Iraq - not pull out. But I know a terrible plan when I see one, and this was arguably the worst planning the U.S. has done in a military campaign since Vietnam. Don't try to blame others for the Bush administration's colossal screwup.

I agree 100%, I just wish we could get rid of all the evil dictators who are just as deserving as Saddam of a head stomping.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

They can be in many cases, but not really this one. Nothing Clinton did forced Bush to invade and occupy Iraq.

I agree that it didn't force an invasion. However, the Clinton administrations intel that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction had to have some influance on the decission, don't you think?

If I wanted to argue, just for the sake of arguement, the invasion could have been influanced by the idea Iraq was weakened from the Clinton administrations bombings. This could mean if they did posess WOMD it could have been a prime target for terrorists to try and obtain those WOMD, or for a invasion from a even less desirable country. So it could be said (again, for arguements sake) that a US invasion was the lessor evil of the other possibilities.

I'm not claiming the above to be true (I have no proof) but I don't rule out the possibility that it could have been one of the things that influanced the invasion.

BTW here is something reguarding the amount of bombing done by Clinton and GWB.

"In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombs?just shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war."

It would appear clinton did bomb quite heavily, but I welcome any rebuttals to this.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I sincerely doubt that Bush based his decision to attack Iraq on what Clinton did. There is also a large difference in the size of the response, and therefore the evidence needed to justify that response.

Clinton sent some jets to bomb Iraq. This almost certainly killed some people and so it should not have been done lightly. To somehow compare that response to perceived Iraqi violations to the 150,000 man armed invasion and 5 year (and counting!) occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will end up costing trillions of dollars... is not a good comparison.

My intent was not to say that these are the same, but to indicate that one presidents actions,decissions,public aproval or disaproval can often be linked to his predecessor. IF you don't believe this then I must assume you will blame the next president for every problem that occures durring his administration be it on his last day in office or his first.

Slow down Seabiscuit. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had mobile weapons labs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger. Clinton wasn't claiming Saddam was seeking aluminum tubes for rockets. Clinton never launched an invasion of Iraq. Bush did all those things, and it wasn't because Clinton started down that path. Shit, if you want to make that ridiculous argument, then Clinton was only there because GHW Bush launched Desert Storm.

If everything a President does is dependent on his predecessor, where on Earth does personal responsibility come in? That is the most ignorant thing I've read on a political forum in a long time (and I'm responding in a thread where the OP thinks Iraq is comparable to Hitler's Germany). That entire line of reasoning is a cop out to avoid accepting responsibility for anything bad that happens. Notice it's never Clinton's fault when something good happens on GWB's watch. "Oh, the stock market broke records, that's all thanks to the policies Clinton started." You never hear that. It's only negative shit. Which makes me think that you're only out to villify Clinton and prop up Bush. You're like the athlete who thanks God when he catches the touchdown pass, but doesn't say anything about God when he fumbles. If you're going to go putting everything on Clinton's shoulders, at least have some consistency.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Here's a question.

Suppose Hitler had not declared war? For that matter, suppose Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor? Should we have gone to war in such a circumstance?

Here is another question.

Suppose Saddam had no WMD? Suppose Saddam posed to threat to the US? Suppose Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Should we have gone to war in such a cicumstance?

Too hypothetical!


😉

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had mobile weapons labs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger. Clinton wasn't claiming Saddam was seeking aluminum tubes for rockets. Clinton never launched an invasion of Iraq. Bush did all those things, and it wasn't because Clinton started down that path.

You're wrong on most of this. Was I the only one watching television in '98?

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance (Dec 16, 1998)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton most certainly set the stage, but you're right in that it falls completely on President Bush's shoulders to make sure a preponderance of proof exists before ordering troops forward.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had mobile weapons labs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger. Clinton wasn't claiming Saddam was seeking aluminum tubes for rockets. Clinton never launched an invasion of Iraq. Bush did all those things, and it wasn't because Clinton started down that path.

You're wrong on most of this. Was I the only one watching television in '98?

OK, I was wrong on one point: Clinton was claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't make any of the other claims. That was Bush's intelligence, not Clinton's.

But I agree with you, it absolutely falls on Bush to ensure the veracity of the intelligence gathered before beating the drums of war.

 

[Vic]

Yeah, the only tie-ins between Iraq and Germany are that Bush I treated Saddam like France/Britain did the Kaiser, then Clinton tried to turn bomb, sanction, and embargo Iraq into the Wiemar Republic, and then when that failed, Bush II just said Saddam was Hitler anyway and attacked. Mission Accomplished!

 

[conehead433]

This is the most idiotic thread I have ever seen on P&N.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I sincerely doubt that Bush based his decision to attack Iraq on what Clinton did. There is also a large difference in the size of the response, and therefore the evidence needed to justify that response.

Clinton sent some jets to bomb Iraq. This almost certainly killed some people and so it should not have been done lightly. To somehow compare that response to perceived Iraqi violations to the 150,000 man armed invasion and 5 year (and counting!) occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will end up costing trillions of dollars... is not a good comparison.

My intent was not to say that these are the same, but to indicate that one presidents actions,decissions,public aproval or disaproval can often be linked to his predecessor. IF you don't believe this then I must assume you will blame the next president for every problem that occures durring his administration be it on his last day in office or his first.

Slow down Seabiscuit. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had mobile weapons labs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger. Clinton wasn't claiming Saddam was seeking aluminum tubes for rockets. Clinton never launched an invasion of Iraq. Bush did all those things, and it wasn't because Clinton started down that path. Shit, if you want to make that ridiculous argument, then Clinton was only there because GHW Bush launched Desert Storm.

If everything a President does is dependent on his predecessor, where on Earth does personal responsibility come in? That is the most ignorant thing I've read on a political forum in a long time (and I'm responding in a thread where the OP thinks Iraq is comparable to Hitler's Germany). That entire line of reasoning is a cop out to avoid accepting responsibility for anything bad that happens. Notice it's never Clinton's fault when something good happens on GWB's watch. "Oh, the stock market broke records, that's all thanks to the policies Clinton started." You never hear that. It's only negative shit. Which makes me think that you're only out to villify Clinton and prop up Bush. You're like the athlete who thanks God when he catches the touchdown pass, but doesn't say anything about God when he fumbles. If you're going to go putting everything on Clinton's shoulders, at least have some consistency.

QFT, excellent post! It always annoys me when I see Bush supporters blaming Clinton for anything wrong with the economy, but of course when anything positive occurs in the economy they conveniently forget about Clinton. And even more ridiculous are those who that claim Clinton is responsible for the Iraq War because he made some strong statements about Iraq and authorized some tactical strikes against it.

Certainly no administration operates in a vacuum, and just because something bad happens on their watch doesn't mean its solely their fault. However, as you aptly put it, those who lack any consistency (i.e. only attribute goods things to Bush, and bad things to Clinton or others) obviously are just using it to not accept responsibility for anything negative.

 

[conehead433]

Actually if you do a little research you'll find that the Bush family is quite well tied to Hitler.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Slow down Seabiscuit. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam had mobile weapons labs. Clinton wasn't claiming that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger. Clinton wasn't claiming Saddam was seeking aluminum tubes for rockets. Clinton never launched an invasion of Iraq.

Your right only about the part that Clinton didn't launch a land based invasion.
Maybe you need to read the CNN.com Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike you do trust CNN don't you?

Bush did all those things, and it wasn't because Clinton started down that path. Shit, if you want to make that ridiculous argument, then Clinton was only there because GHW Bush launched Desert Storm.

Do I need to go back to your other post? Didn't you claim that GWB attacked Iraq for no reason?
Just to make sure I looked again and this is what you said.

"Al Qaeda and Saddam hated each other. They were never allies. So it's not like, "You attacked us, we will declare war on you and your allies," it's "you attacked us, we're gonna go bomb this guy."

Maybe you need to clairify that statment for me, because it sure sounds like you didn't understand there was already a conflict involving Iraq.

If everything a President does is dependent on his predecessor, where on Earth does personal responsibility come in?

Is it that hard to understand that there is no way you can claim all or nothing for everything that happens on a presidents watch? The simple truth is that it takes time for things to develope be it a hostile action against another country, the economic health of the country or any number of other things. Some changes can be faster than others, but no one can asssume another persons job and make sweeping changes overnight without some residual influance from their predecessor.

That is the most ignorant thing I've read on a political forum in a long time (and I'm responding in a thread where the OP thinks Iraq is comparable to Hitler's Germany). That entire line of reasoning is a cop out to avoid accepting responsibility for anything bad that happens. Notice it's never Clinton's fault when something good happens on GWB's watch. "Oh, the stock market broke records, that's all thanks to the policies Clinton started." You never hear that. It's only negative shit. Which makes me think that you're only out to villify Clinton and prop up Bush.

So by passing the buck back to Bush senior you want to clear Clinton of all responsibility, using your own words, this sounds like a cop out to avoid accepting responsibility for anything bad that happened on Clintons watch.

You're like the athlete who thanks God when he catches the touchdown pass, but doesn't say anything about God when he fumbles. If you're going to go putting everything on Clinton's shoulders, at least have some consistency.

Its obvious you think I wont listen to reason and since you dont want to tarnish your party by admitting their mistakes, so I see no need to continue responding to you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: justly
So by passing the buck back to Bush senior you want to clear Clinton of all responsibility, using your own words, this sounds like a cop out to avoid accepting responsibility for anything bad that happened on Clintons watch.

Ummm... Let's re-read exactly what I posted (and I know you couldn't have missed it, you went so far as to quote it back to me): "if you want to make that ridiculous argument, then Clinton was only there because GHW Bush launched Desert Storm."

I don't know what you think I meant by ridiculous argument, but let me make it very clear that I do not believe that anything that happened when Clinton was president was entirely Bush Sr.'s fault any more than I believe anything that happened on Bush Jr.'s watch was entirely Clinton's fault. It was you who made the claim that Clinton should share the responsibility for invading Iraq. I was merely pointing out that this claim was silly because it could be extended ad nauseum.

By the way, I read that article you posted, and it did not once contain reference to mobile weapons labs, yellow cake or alumnium tubes. These were all used as justifications for the invasion by George Bush. They are specific claims from Bush's intelligence, not Clinton's.

Originally posted by: justly
Do I need to go back to your other post? Didn't you claim that GWB attacked Iraq for no reason?
Just to make sure I looked again and this is what you said.

"Al Qaeda and Saddam hated each other. They were never allies. So it's not like, "You attacked us, we will declare war on you and your allies," it's "you attacked us, we're gonna go bomb this guy."

Maybe you need to clairify that statment for me, because it sure sounds like you didn't understand there was already a conflict involving Iraq.

In retrospect, I should have used the word "invade," not "bomb." However, I think the point stands, at least in reference to the OP. He asked why we attacked Germany for Pearl Harbor, and compared it to attacking Iraq for the actions of Al Qaeda. My response directly tied in to his query. And, for the record, I do think the invasion of Iraq was wrong, just as I think Clinton was wrong in his continued bombing campaign. Oh snap, did I just say I thought Clinton was wrong? Maybe it's because I don't subscribe to party politics. The Democrats make mistakes, as do the Republicans, and at the end of the day, neither party represents the direction I would like to see America go. I have slightly more in common with Democrats, so I vote for them before I vote for Republicans, but they are not my party.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

QFT, excellent post! It always annoys me when I see Bush supporters blaming Clinton for anything wrong with the economy, but of course when anything positive occurs in the economy they conveniently forget about Clinton. And even more ridiculous are those who that claim Clinton is responsible for the Iraq War because he made some strong statements about Iraq and authorized some tactical strikes against it.

Certainly no administration operates in a vacuum, and just because something bad happens on their watch doesn't mean its solely their fault. However, as you aptly put it, those who lack any consistency (i.e. only attribute goods things to Bush, and bad things to Clinton or others) obviously are just using it to not accept responsibility for anything negative.

I find that by stereotyping me without any attempt to engage in a disscussion speaks more of you than it does of me.

I do agree with some of what you said.
It is annoying when I see someone spin somthing to blame one party (or one president) over another without just cause.
I also agree (in fact that was one of my main arguements) that "no administration operates in a vacuum".

I think most people would also agree that almost everything happens in cycles. There are good economic times that are followed by bad then good again. Because these things happen in cycles its hard to say exactly what or who caused them Clinton got to ride a VERY good cycle. Was that luck, something he did or something his predecessor caused, we may never know. What disturbes me is some people assume it must be the sitting president that caused good times or bad but these same people have no explaination, no theory, nothing except thier good or bad fortune as a reason to praise or discredit the sitting president.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I don't know what you think I meant by ridiculous argument, but let me make it very clear that I do not believe that anything that happened when Clinton was president was entirely Bush Sr.'s fault any more than I believe anything that happened on Bush Jr.'s watch was entirely Clinton's fault. It was you who made the claim that Clinton should share the responsibility for invading Iraq. I was merely pointing out that this claim was silly because it could be extended ad nauseum.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Let me also clear one thing up. I did not (or at least intend to) imply that Clinton should share the responsibility for the ground invasion. Clintons part was more of a catalyst that made the decission to invade possible. I dont blame Clinton, at the time I'm sure everything he did looked appropriate and it probably was, but the same can be said of GWB.

By the way, I read that article you posted, and it did not once contain reference to mobile weapons labs, yellow cake or alumnium tubes. These were all used as justifications for the invasion by George Bush. They are specific claims from Bush's intelligence, not Clinton's.

Your right, it didn't mention everything. As for "Bush's intelligence" what makes you believe he had time to overhaul the intelligence gathering methods when he had only been in office for a realitivly short period of time? I would think he was still utilizing the same intelligence gathering that Clinton was using.

I know people get caught up and emotional in this type of topic, so I really do appreciate that you took the time to explain yourself.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I have never seen a more uneducated OP than this one...

 

[Arkaign]

Read this thread, lose 10% IQ. Fair warning.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Here's a question.

Suppose Hitler had not declared war? For that matter, suppose Japan had never bombed Pearl Harbor? Should we have gone to war in such a circumstance?

What if, what if? 🙂

It's one thing to ask whether or not an actual historical choice was correct, it's quite another to ask about alternative histories. There's no absolute way of saying what would have happened under such a circumstance.

The thinly veiled guise of the OP (an obvious hard-core [R] kind of guy), is to try to paint anti-Iraq-war people as either unpatriotic or of being 'appeasers'. Diverting this into 'what-if' land is only going to muddle an already preposterous thread.

The interesting thing is that if the OP had been posted five years ago a lot of people here would have agreed that anyone against the war was unpatriotic or an appeaser.

 

[PrinceofWands]

WTF do they have to do with one another???

 

[piasabird]

I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Trying? That's an understatement.

They were succeeding with impunity.

Cruising off the East Coast, picking off our ships which were perfectly silhouetted by the non blacked-out city lights, the U-Boat service was in the midst of what they called "The Happy Time."