To Fight or Not to Fight: When is the Question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pabst, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. Pabst


    Is the Iraq war more or less justified than the U.S. role in Europe during WWll? What are the parallels or differences?
  2. Hitler was on a path to take all of Europe (except perhaps the UK), the entire Soviet Union, plus northern Africa... and the US was already physically attacked by Germany's ally. I'm not saying Hitler was more evil or more racist than Saddam- but he was a hell of alot more powerful & dangerous.

    Any argument you can apply to attacking Saddam (WMD, human rights abuses, supporting terrorism,) can be applied to plenty of other countries which we didn't invade.

    I still have a slight hope that Iraq can be a new cornerstone of Arab freedom & Democracy...but the odds of that happening aren't looking so hot at present.
  3. ummmmm, not sure if poll premise is correct could be mistaken tho..:confused:


    You mean

    Germany invading Poland, a defenses country, on false pretenses, as a first step to rule the world, to apply German rules and "purity"?

    Germany being the prominent military power (thanks to US no less, Prescot Bush, Rockefeller, Morgans, etc). Best military power of their time?


    U.S. invading Iraq, a defenseless country, on false pretenses, as a first in the list? Read up on PNAC (Project New American Century) to force American rule "values", starting with Iraq and expanding to the region, rest of the world?

    U.S. being the prominent military power of our time?
    The list is long but you know what I mean:D :D:D

    Are these the parallels you are talking about? :confused:

    I read your posts in the main forums on trading (good job btw). I'd expect more realistic/balanced view of this sad Iraq Invasion at least from you.

    :) :)
  4. that's the whole problem, isn't it?
  5. "liberation" is subjective...

  6. This China issue highlights the whole debat over whether trade with adversaries is good or bad. Henry Kissinger popularized the notion that trading with odious regimes tends to liberalize them and make them less a threat, a view that neatly dovetailed with his highly lucrative international consulting business. In reality, the situation is more complex. Trade tends to limit the range of action of democratic governemtns, but not dictators. We have enormous financial interests in china now , and those companies and investors are highly motivated to parrott China's line in a conflict. By contrast, a repressive government like China is not swayed by opinion polls. The fact is our economy would be thrown into a terrible depression if we got into a conflict with china and they know it. They know we are not going to risk war for Taiwan, just as Taiwan would not risk war for us.
  7. lindq


    I don't think there is any doubt that China is less repressive, more progressive, and more aligned with our interests now than they were 30 years ago. And this is largely a result of trade, which helps to develop common interests. Trade has always been a good "Trojan Horse" to put us in the game in closed societies, as it also did in the former USSR republics. I also think this is precisely why the Islamic nations are so set against any trade with the U.S. They know well that once that door is opened, it is very hard to close it. For better or worse, capitalism is a very potent force in opening people's eyes to greater possibilities when they have lived in repressive societies.
  8. Maverick74


    Hitler posed no threat to the US. He had no notions of attacking America and He never would have gotten the Soviet Union. He admitted this to his own top commanders. They would never be able to survive a russian winter long enough to get to moscow. However he would appear weak if he didn't try.

    So the US is attacked by Japan and we go to fight Germany. Japan was the reason we got in the war but not the focus. Hmm, I see a lot of similarities here between WWII and Iraq. Oh and Hitler had no dreams of blowing up the world or even conquering the world. He wanted occupation of Europe.

    Oh and good old England was our ally in that war too. Looks like these two situations have a lot in common. Hell, Hitler didn't even have any WMD.
  9. ElCubano


    Neither does Saddam...yeah ur right very similar

    the past is the past and not the same as the present.....why try comparing..when in fact we are fighting something we have never gone to war before for...that is TERRORISM...and im not a war startegist, but this aint the way to fight it.....we fight terrorism at our borders not 8000 miles away spending billions and human life to get 2 guys, thats just absurd....when in fact it takes any towel head with a suitcase full of gooides about $1500 bones to cross the rio grande...peace

    this is a WAR on terrorism boys ( according to the man himself, of course it changes as the polls change) not a WAR agaisnt human rights voilation why do we always overlook that....
  10. lindq


    Where did you learn your history? From the back of a Cherios box?

    If Hitler had succeeded in his plans, the Japanese would have opened a Soviet front, and he would have taken Moscow. Then he would have been free to turn his attention to the British, and they would NOT have survived without our involvement.

    So, with Germany in total conquest of Europe, the Med and North Africa, and Japan controlling the Pacific, you are saying that we would not have been threatened?

    #10     Dec 11, 2003