Yet Another Sad Day for Republicans

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Actually from the 4 semesters of college US history courses I took, I remember that Hitler actually declared war on us before we declared it on him. Germany and Japan were in a pact, and when our Congress declared war on Japan (yes, they actually followed the Constitution back then), it started a chain effect which led to the US entering the European war.

I was trying to keep it simple. However, it's a good thing the liberals of today weren't running the country during WWII:

"Germany has declared war against us, but they haven't attacked us yet. Perhaps Hitler is bluffing. If not, we can always try the appeasement route. Not to mention, the League of Nations hasn't given us permission to act. I guess we'll just have to sit back and hope nothing bad happens."

A) The fact that you try to keep complicated issues of war and foreign policy simple is quite telling.

B) Saddam attacked us or declared war against us when?

 

[daniel1113]

I wasn't able to edit the previous post before you posted (slow connection), so I will repost what I added above:

By declaring war on Japan, we knew that Germany, in return, would be forced to declare war on us. In other words, the U.S. effectively declared war on both Germany and Japan on December 8th.

I will also add the following:

If anything, World War II should provide an invaluable lesson in the necessity for preemption.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I wasn't able to edit the previous post before you posted (slow connection), so I will repost what I added above:

By declaring war on Japan, we knew that Germany, in return, would be forced to declare war on us. In other words, the U.S. effectively declared war on both Germany and Japan on December 8th.

I will also add the following:

If anything, World War II should provide an invaluable lesson in the necessity for preemption.

I should think so. The Japanese and Germans learned their lesson will and haven't attacked anybody since.

 

[Miramonti]

So far it appears the only confirmed weapon of mass destruction is the one running our country.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Bwahahaha! I'm sure glad I'm not a Republican right now.
"Bu-but, we found WMD in Ir-"
"Uh, no we didn't"
"bu-bu-but Saddam was an iminent threat"
"With sticks and stones?"
Hehe, teh funnay!

Hitler wasn't exactly an iminent threat to the USA. Sure he invaded his neighbors and killed millions of people, including his own people; but he never attacked us. Why in the hell would we go to war against him? A war that cost our country more men and money than any other in US history. Think about it... or are you too brainwashed to see the justification?

Hitler and Saddam are just a bit different.

 

[daniel1113]

You're right. I guess we should have waited until Saddam killed 7 million people...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
You're right. I guess we should have waited until Saddam killed 7 million people...

Are you sure we wouldn't have without this little WMD threat?

 

[Chris A]

How could this discovery make anyone sad???

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
wow--how noble your thoughts are, cad

lets just forget we destroyed a country and killed thousands of innocent iraqi & american lives over this WMD lie

lets just be glad that none have been found

that's a GREAT spin on it - why not go to each of our dead american soldiers' families and explain that one to them! perhaps they'll serve you tea and crimpets

GREAT SPIN!! Yeah let me tell you, we went there to kill innocent iraqis!

And Saddam would never kill innocent iraqis. As he said, he "was a firm but just leader." And all of those mass graves are in hollywood right?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Chris A
How could this discovery make anyone sad???

Maybe 'upset' would be a better word. Upset that this isn't a smoking gun.

 

[Chris A]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Chris A
How could this discovery make anyone sad???

Maybe 'upset' would be a better word. Upset that this isn't a smoking gun.

Do you think any Republican would suddenly change there veiws or motivation due to the lack of a smoking gun...


About as much chance of a Democrat changing their veiws after finding that Clinton did Lie about getting A BJ.

Bottom line is that people will follow the person that closely matches what they stand for. Even though they dont agree with everything they do.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I wasn't able to edit the previous post before you posted (slow connection), so I will repost what I added above: By declaring war on Japan, we knew that Germany, in return, would be forced to declare war on us. In other words, the U.S. effectively declared war on both Germany and Japan on December 8th. I will also add the following: If anything, World War II should provide an invaluable lesson in the necessity for preemption.

It can be a mistake to use one of the extremes of human history as a general guide for behaviour, but many very useful lessons can, and should have been, learned from the example you choose - Germany in the Second world war.

However, it would be a greater mistake to take this out of context - without considering the First World War and its aftermath as well. You are trying to make a point about preventing and avoiding future conflicts. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a far better thing if we had stopped WW2, not by an earlier pre-emptive attack, but by more judicious action at the end of the WW1.

One of the major causes for the second world war, one of the major factors that granted Hitler with popular support, and, initially, international sympathy that enabled him to rearm and occupy his first conquests, was the unjust way that Germany had been treated at the end of WW1. This would have been radically different if Wilson had been able to draw popular support in America for his ideas.

At the end of the war there were two camps of thought on how to deal with the defeated nations. The French were baying for blood, as were the American population and vocal segments of the British population. While the French government were in agreement with their population, the British government were torn between public opinion, and a longer view that this would mean more trouble in the medium term.

The most interesting case, however, is that of America. Unlike France, the US hadn't suffered massive destruction of its country and its people. Unlike Britain, the US hadn't had nearly an entire generation of young men wiped out. America was positioned to be the voice of restraint - the voice of reason. All involved believed that this must be the last war, but while the french wanted to ensure this by practically keeping the germans as prisoners indefinately, Woodrow Wilson pushed for a future where international cooperation would avoid the build up to conflicts, and allow disputes to be settled peacefully. He was one of the chief proponants of a society of nations, which he incorporated into his Fourteen Points, and helped create as the League of Nations. He also believed that treating Germany humanly now would lead to dividends in the future.

Sadly, Wilson was undermined at home, as he campaigned for the LON abroad, and although he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, was unable to put them into fruition. The will of the angry mob was written up as the Treaty of Versailles, which became one of the major causes of the Second World War, and was unable to achieve America's entry into the LON, when he could not get America's entry ratified at home.

The fact that the founder member, and one of the most important nations in the world, did not join the LON undermined its legitamacy from the start, as did the fact that Germany, as a defeated power, was not allowed to join an organisation dedicated to ensuring justice for all nations. Despite an early string of successes, the LON withered and lost its way and could not prevent WWII.

If you want to draw a lesson from all this, and apply it to Iraq, well, thats not an easy or simple task. There are certainly lessons there about the importance of commiting yourself properly to international organisations, about the ends of wars being as important as the fighting in them, about not being led by hatred or the desire for revenge.
Just something to think about.

 

[chess9]

DPM:

Very nice post. Wilson was, and still is, a woefully underappreciated President.

The lessons on international cooperation should be more important today than they were in 1919, but technology has given us the impression that we can live like islanders and hate with impunity.

-Robert

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Bwahahaha! I'm sure glad I'm not a Republican right now.
"Bu-but, we found WMD in Ir-"
"Uh, no we didn't"
"bu-bu-but Saddam was an iminent threat"
"With sticks and stones?"
Hehe, teh funnay!

Hitler wasn't exactly an iminent threat to the USA. Sure he invaded his neighbors and killed millions of people, including his own people; but he never attacked us. Why in the hell would we go to war against him? A war that cost our country more men and money than any other in US history. Think about it... or are you too brainwashed to see the justification?

Why did we go to war against him? Well for starters because he declared war against us!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Bwahahaha! I'm sure glad I'm not a Republican right now.
"Bu-but, we found WMD in Ir-"
"Uh, no we didn't"
"bu-bu-but Saddam was an iminent threat"
"With sticks and stones?"
Hehe, teh funnay!

Hitler wasn't exactly an iminent threat to the USA. Sure he invaded his neighbors and killed millions of people, including his own people; but he never attacked us. Why in the hell would we go to war against him? A war that cost our country more men and money than any other in US history. Think about it... or are you too brainwashed to see the justification?

Why did we go to war against him? Well for starters because he declared war against us!

Very good Red Dawn. Perhaps you should read the previous posts before you make a post yourself.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I wasn't able to edit the previous post before you posted (slow connection), so I will repost what I added above: By declaring war on Japan, we knew that Germany, in return, would be forced to declare war on us. In other words, the U.S. effectively declared war on both Germany and Japan on December 8th. I will also add the following: If anything, World War II should provide an invaluable lesson in the necessity for preemption.

It can be a mistake to use one of the extremes of human history as a general guide for behaviour, but many very useful lessons can, and should have been, learned from the example you choose - Germany in the Second world war.

However, it would be a greater mistake to take this out of context - without considering the First World War and its aftermath as well. You are trying to make a point about preventing and avoiding future conflicts. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a far better thing if we had stopped WW2, not by an earlier pre-emptive attack, but by more judicious action at the end of the WW1.

One of the major causes for the second world war, one of the major factors that granted Hitler with popular support, and, initially, international sympathy that enabled him to rearm and occupy his first conquests, was the unjust way that Germany had been treated at the end of WW1. This would have been radically different if Wilson had been able to draw popular support in America for his ideas.

At the end of the war there were two camps of thought on how to deal with the defeated nations. The French were baying for blood, as were the American population and vocal segments of the British population. While the French government were in agreement with their population, the British government were torn between public opinion, and a longer view that this would mean more trouble in the medium term.

The most interesting case, however, is that of America. Unlike France, the US hadn't suffered massive destruction of its country and its people. Unlike Britain, the US hadn't had nearly an entire generation of young men wiped out. America was positioned to be the voice of restraint - the voice of reason. All involved believed that this must be the last war, but while the french wanted to ensure this by practically keeping the germans as prisoners indefinately, Woodrow Wilson pushed for a future where international cooperation would avoid the build up to conflicts, and allow disputes to be settled peacefully. He was one of the chief proponants of a society of nations, which he incorporated into his Fourteen Points, and helped create as the League of Nations. He also believed that treating Germany humanly now would lead to dividends in the future.

Sadly, Wilson was undermined at home, as he campaigned for the LON abroad, and although he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, was unable to put them into fruition. The will of the angry mob was written up as the Treaty of Versailles, which became one of the major causes of the Second World War, and was unable to achieve America's entry into the LON, when he could not get America's entry ratified at home.

The fact that the founder member, and one of the most important nations in the world, did not join the LON undermined its legitamacy from the start, as did the fact that Germany, as a defeated power, was not allowed to join an organisation dedicated to ensuring justice for all nations. Despite an early string of successes, the LON withered and lost its way and could not prevent WWII.

If you want to draw a lesson from all this, and apply it to Iraq, well, thats not an easy or simple task. There are certainly lessons there about the importance of commiting yourself properly to international organisations, about the ends of wars being as important as the fighting in them, about not being led by hatred or the desire for revenge.
Just something to think about.

also, dont forget that we were at war with Germany for a few years after WWI [we didnt sign the treaty of versailles, which officially ended the war] so, its not that we couldnt get an entry into the LoN ratified, its that we didnt ratify the treaty of versailles.

so, anyway, i see that the UN is losing its way, just like the Lon, so i propose a new Extrodinary League of United Nations!