• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

You're a bit off target there. For quite some time during the early stages of WW2 (before Germany declared war on us), the Kriegsmarine pretty much went out of their way to avoid sinking any US ship, particularly warships. With 30s technology, most of it recycled from WW1 uboats, it wasn't always easy to tell one merchant ship from another.

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier. It'd be like if we were in a serious war against an enemy here in our hemisphere, and they kept getting war supplies from Japan, most of us would say we would have a right to destroy those vessels.

There are numerous occasions where u-boat commanders would allow the crew to disembark vessels before sinking the ship, or to otherwise offer aid and assistance.

Read this and be astonished :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

U-156 remained on the surface at the scene for the next two and a half days. At 11:30am on September 15, she was joined by U-506 commanded by Kptlt. Erich Würdemann and a few hours later by both U-507 under Korvettenkapitän Harro Schacht and the Italian submarine Cappellini. The four boats, with lifeboats in tow and hundreds of survivors standing on their decks, headed for the African coastline and a rendezvous with Vichy French surface warships which had set out from Senegal and Dahomey.[1]

American bombing

The next morning, September 16, at 11:25am, the four submarines, with Red Cross flags draped across their gun decks, were spotted by an American B-24 Liberator bomber from Ascension Island. Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III, replied with the order "Sink sub."

Harden flew back to the scene of the rescue effort and at 12:32pm attacked with bombs and depth charges. One landed among the lifeboats in tow behind U-156 while others straddled the submarine itself. Hartenstein cast adrift those lifeboats still afloat and ordered the survivors on his deck into the water. The submarines dived and escaped. Hundreds of Laconia survivors perished, but French vessels managed to re-rescue about a thousand later that day. In all, some 1,500 passengers survived.

Under the Hague Conventions, hospital ships are protected from attack, but their identity must be communicated to belligerents (III, 1-3), they must be painted white with a Red Cross emblem (III, 5), and must not be used for other purposes (III, 4). Since a submarine remained a military vessel even if hors de combat, the Red Cross emblem did not confer automatic protection, although in many cases it would have been allowed as a practical matter. The order given by Richardson has been called a possible war crime, but the use of a Red Cross flag by an armed military vessel would be a violation under the Geneva Convention of 1949 (II, 44). There is no provision in either convention for temporary designation of a hospital or rescue ship. Under the informal rules of war at sea, however, ships engaged in rescue operations are held immune from attack.

The Laconia incident had far-reaching consequences. Until then, as indicated in point #1 of the "Laconia Order," it was common for U-boats to assist torpedoed survivors with food, water and directions to the nearest land. Now that it was apparent the Americans would attack rescue missions under the Red Cross flag, Dönitz prohibited rescues; survivors were to be left in the sea.
 
I spit in your face.

I know exactly where your type stands in this world, and I will not support your American jihad.

Besides, you're comparing apples to avalanches, here. Plus the apple didn't even attack us. You're a fool among fools.
 
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?
Oh, you mean the American ships that were carrying war supplies to prevent England from falling to the Nazis? America was hardly a neutral bystander of WW2, even before we officially declared war.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?
Oh, you mean the American ships that were carrying war supplies to prevent England from falling to the Nazis? America was hardly a neutral bystander of WW2, even before we officially declared war.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. Long before any official declaration was made, US destroyers were escorting merchant ships about 1/2 way across the Atlantic and attacking any German U-Boats encountered. That being said, there is still absolutely no similarities between Normandy and Iraq or the War on Terror and World War II.
 
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Hitler's declaration of war was nice and all.. ask Ahmadinejad, he makes them every other day against Israel
Ahmadinejad has never declared war on Israel.

This is your second epic fail in this thread so far.

Three strikes and you're out.
 
The Iraq fiasco has become so unpopular... everyone is piling on board the hate train.

I don't approve of the Iraq war... because it doesn't make sense based upon the information i have at hand.

But it can imagine many very real national/world security reasons why Iraq would/could be necessary. The problem is that none of those scenarios are openly apparent.
 
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
The Iraq fiasco has become so unpopular... everyone is piling on board the hate train.

I don't approve of the Iraq war... because it doesn't make sense based upon the information i have at hand.

But it can imagine many very real national/world security reasons why Iraq would/could be necessary. The problem is that none of those scenarios are openly apparent.

If you could please elaborate..what is your litmus test for pre-emptive invasion?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
One could easily make the point that the currently rabid anti-war zealots and the facts-aren't-important media would have made waging WWII tremendously different. I can only imagine the headlines against the Allies after Dieppe -- D-Day would have been called off.

:roll: <^>

Some of us "rabid anti-war zealots" believe that our military should be used for defending our country, and not attacking countries that have never attacked us purely for the sake of war profiteers, or for "nation building."

How stupid are you... really? Should we attack Ethiopia to make you happy?

So, after Pearl Harbor we should have sat back and defended the homeland? Good plan. If you have any military experience, it was either making cookies in the mess hall, or you forgot everything you learned. Further, the calculus of whom to attack is not as simplistic as liberals would like it, perhaps to match their capability of understanding. US interests span the globe, if you never bothered to travel beyond our borders.

Iraq didn't attack us before the first Gulf War -- should we have done nothing then as well?

Africa is a waste of time for any foreign power, including the conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, DROC, Kenya, etc. There is oil in Nigeria, but the entire continent is too mired in ethnic conflict to make any foray fruitless -- look to Somalia for guidance.
 
Congratulations, hellokeith !
You have at least tied the record for the most self defeating post ever in P&N by not knowing the simple history that Germany declared war on the United States first.

Which explains the complete lack of insight and just plain wrongness of most of your posts.

I agree.

EPIC FAIL
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR

So, after Pearl Harbor we should have sat back and defended the homeland? Good plan. If you have any military experience, it was either making cookies in the mess hall, or you forgot everything you learned. Further, the calculus of whom to attack is not as simplistic as liberals would like it, perhaps to match their capability of understanding. US interests span the globe, if you never bothered to travel beyond our borders.

Iraq didn't attack us before the first Gulf War -- should we have done nothing then as well?

Africa is a waste of time for any foreign power, including the conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, DROC, Kenya, etc. There is oil in Nigeria, but the entire continent is too mired in ethnic conflict to make any foray fruitless -- look to Somalia for guidance.

Hrmm, I have years of military experience and none of it was in baking cookies. (actually that's not true. I had to mess crank for 3 months and I did help bake some cookies. haha!) I agree with Vic. I've also traveled to more then thirty countries on every continent but Antarctica. Please educate me on what I was supposed to learn about attacking countries that never attacked us.

EDIT: Oh, and your comparison to Pearl Harbor is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
One could easily make the point that the currently rabid anti-war zealots and the facts-aren't-important media would have made waging WWII tremendously different. I can only imagine the headlines against the Allies after Dieppe -- D-Day would have been called off.

:roll: <^>

Some of us "rabid anti-war zealots" believe that our military should be used for defending our country, and not attacking countries that have never attacked us purely for the sake of war profiteers, or for "nation building."

How stupid are you... really? Should we attack Ethiopia to make you happy?

So, after Pearl Harbor we should have sat back and defended the homeland? Good plan. If you have any military experience, it was either making cookies in the mess hall, or you forgot everything you learned. Further, the calculus of whom to attack is not as simplistic as liberals would like it, perhaps to match their capability of understanding. US interests span the globe, if you never bothered to travel beyond our borders.

Iraq didn't attack us before the first Gulf War -- should we have done nothing then as well?

Africa is a waste of time for any foreign power, including the conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, DROC, Kenya, etc. There is oil in Nigeria, but the entire continent is too mired in ethnic conflict to make any foray fruitless -- look to Somalia for guidance.

Wow... look! Your response is pure slanted hyperbole that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic! Nor is it relevant or accurate to anything I've posted in this entire thread! But you pretend to be smart and elitist! What a surprise! But extra bonus point for the "liberal" comment :roll:

Here's a challenge: prove how attacking Iraq in 2003 and maintaining an occupation there has been beneficial to US interests. Or shut up.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?

Funny, he didn't say or imply that. He just said that it's rather surprising, given the circumstances, that Germany didn't declare war sooner. Anything else you want to make up?
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?

A bit different there. Before Hitler declared war on the US, many US ships had been sunk by U-Boats, and our closest ally, Great Britain, was suffering near annihilation under economic pressure.

Iran's support for militants in Iraq is absolutely pathetic in comparison.

Further note that I didn't agree with Hitler's war declaration, just that it was surprising that it was so late in the game.

Proxy support is not really an excuse for a global war. Should China and the USSR have started WW3 over our incursions into Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
One could easily make the point that the currently rabid anti-war zealots and the facts-aren't-important media would have made waging WWII tremendously different. I can only imagine the headlines against the Allies after Dieppe -- D-Day would have been called off.

:roll: <^>

Some of us "rabid anti-war zealots" believe that our military should be used for defending our country, and not attacking countries that have never attacked us purely for the sake of war profiteers, or for "nation building."

How stupid are you... really? Should we attack Ethiopia to make you happy?

So, after Pearl Harbor we should have sat back and defended the homeland? Good plan. If you have any military experience, it was either making cookies in the mess hall, or you forgot everything you learned. Further, the calculus of whom to attack is not as simplistic as liberals would like it, perhaps to match their capability of understanding. US interests span the globe, if you never bothered to travel beyond our borders.

Iraq didn't attack us before the first Gulf War -- should we have done nothing then as well?

Africa is a waste of time for any foreign power, including the conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, DROC, Kenya, etc. There is oil in Nigeria, but the entire continent is too mired in ethnic conflict to make any foray fruitless -- look to Somalia for guidance.

Wow... look! Your response is pure slanted hyperbole that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic! Nor is it relevant or accurate to anything I've posted in this entire thread! But you pretend to be smart and elitist! What a surprise! But extra bonus point for the "liberal" comment :roll:

Here's a challenge: prove how attacking Iraq in 2003 and maintaining an occupation there has been beneficial to US interests. Or shut up.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that "I posted in this entire thread" was justification for anything other than you enjoy seeing your name in pretty colors.

And there's no hyperbole in "war profiteers"? It's not elitist to call people stupid? Pot. Meet the kettle.

I withdraw the liberal moniker, unless you would like to wear it with honor -- I should have put "anti-war zealot", but I was remiss in my typing.

Obviously, no one can offer any sort of proof based on incomplete information. Nevertheless, here are some questions for you to consider. How many AQ attacks have hit the United States since Mar 2003? How many foreign jihadists have traveled to Iraq to fight and die there at the hands of the US military? "AQ wasn't there when we started" True, but they are there now and losing. They have lost followers and admirers among the Iraqi Sunnis and have alienated Muslims throughout the Middle East with their vicious and indiscriminate attacks against Muslim civilians. AQ is being defeated in Iraq, plain and simple. Was that a foreseeable result of the invasion? Perhaps.

Prove that Saddam was not a threat to the region before we invaded. Or shut up.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?

Funny, he didn't say or imply that. He just said that it's rather surprising, given the circumstances, that Germany didn't declare war sooner. Anything else you want to make up?

Your inability to understand an analogy is breathtaking. Congrats. :beer:
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?

A bit different there. Before Hitler declared war on the US, many US ships had been sunk by U-Boats, and our closest ally, Great Britain, was suffering near annihilation under economic pressure.

Iran's support for militants in Iraq is absolutely pathetic in comparison.

Further note that I didn't agree with Hitler's war declaration, just that it was surprising that it was so late in the game.

Proxy support is not really an excuse for a global war. Should China and the USSR have started WW3 over our incursions into Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos?

You address the WWII issues but ignore the parallels, based on your statement, with JAM and Hizbullah. I'd like to see how you differentiate them.

Iran's support may be small in absolute terms, but the people dying from Iranian artillery and anti-armor weapons might beg to differ on the efficacy.

You have it reversed in SE Asia. Should the US have gone to war with China and USSR over their material support to the side opposing us? They were not providing significant support (definitely USSR, I'd have to look back at China's support for VM) prior to our involvement.
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess you are conveniently forgetting the german U-boats trying to sink our ships?

Considering that the US was the backbone of material support to keep the UK in the war, it's rather surprising they didn't declare open hostilities earlier.

So you think that the US should attack Iran for being the "backbone of material support to keep the [Jaysh Al-Mahdi] in the war"? Or, if you want to argue about location of hostilities, by your logic, Israel is well within its rights to attack Iran based on Iranian support for the Lebanese Hizbullah, correct?

Funny, he didn't say or imply that. He just said that it's rather surprising, given the circumstances, that Germany didn't declare war sooner. Anything else you want to make up?

Your inability to understand an analogy is breathtaking. Congrats. :beer:

The analogy you made was wrong. That was the problem. Arkaign was saying that Germany's lack of a declaration of war surprised him based on the strategic realities, not if Germany was within its 'rights'. In addition the scale of the two operations is ludicrously different. By the time Germany declared war, the US had provided Britain with about $20 billion dollars (in today's terms) of direct aid in 1941, along with 50... fifty warships to fight Germany with in the Atlantic. Now compare that to the $100 million or so a year that Iran gives Hezbollah (a very generous estimate), and you'll see that you're only off in the scale of aid by a factor of 200 or so. Oh, and those 50 destroyers.
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that "I posted in this entire thread" was justification for anything other than you enjoy seeing your name in pretty colors.

And there's no hyperbole in "war profiteers"? It's not elitist to call people stupid? Pot. Meet the kettle.

I withdraw the liberal moniker, unless you would like to wear it with honor -- I should have put "anti-war zealot", but I was remiss in my typing.

Obviously, no one can offer any sort of proof based on incomplete information. Nevertheless, here are some questions for you to consider. How many AQ attacks have hit the United States since Mar 2003? How many foreign jihadists have traveled to Iraq to fight and die there at the hands of the US military? "AQ wasn't there when we started" True, but they are there now and losing. They have lost followers and admirers among the Iraqi Sunnis and have alienated Muslims throughout the Middle East with their vicious and indiscriminate attacks against Muslim civilians. AQ is being defeated in Iraq, plain and simple. Was that a foreseeable result of the invasion? Perhaps.

Prove that Saddam was not a threat to the region before we invaded. Or shut up.

That's easy. Iraq was literally bankrupt and impoverished after 20+ years of war and economic sanctions, and didn't even have the wherewithal. How quickly did we defeat Saddam's government again?
AQ was being defeated in Afghanistan before we even drew them into Iraq.

The "war profiteers" comment is simple. The military is costing our nation almost $1 trillion per year. In taxpayers dollars and $9 trillion in staggering debt. I'm sure you whine and cry about socialism, all the while deluding yourself that that isn't socialism itself. But don't worry... I'm sure you can get a job in social services cleaning up this domestic mess that Bush has made when your government job in the military gets cut.
 
Back
Top