A different kind of Pearl Harbor thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 7 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]359014[/snapback]</div>

The late great Herb Caen of San Francisco Chronicle fame beat you to it: (paraphrased)
"It's a good thing we won WWII because if we hadn't we'd all be driving German and Japanese cars now."

 

At the time, many Americans were upset that the war in Europe took precedence over the war in the Pacific for that very fact. The Japanese attacked us, and we invaded Europe. To hear them tell it, we abandoned our men on the islands to certain death, and focused instead on saving Europe. The times I heard this from "old timers" it was a bitter, bitter comment, and I simply listened and did not answer. Someone who still has three gold stars hanging above their mantle deserves to be heard.

There was less linkage in that time to make the case that invading Europe and fighting someone else's war made any sense, especially after the Japanese attacked us. Our entry into the European theater was a strategic move, because it was thought that Hitler was more of a threat to us later on than the Japanese would be ... and I think history has proven that out. Germany did have a technological edge on rockets and airplanes, and Hitler was working toward weapons of mass destruction (although we never found any, there were "heavy water" facilities ... or was that drinking water?)

History does repeat itself, its just that its darn hard to figure out which part of history is repeating itself until its over, and too late.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 8 2006, 02:44 AM) [snapback]359179[/snapback]</div>

There's a really interesting account of the destructions of Germany's heavy water here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage.

For me, the most telling analogy between then and now is the way that war involved everyone in the country. You had the draft, you had rationing, you had the entire population mobilized into a war machine. During the current crisis, we have been asked to shop. And cut taxes on the rich. Instead of Harry Truman investigating defense contractor corruption, we have no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 06:31 AM) [snapback]359252[/snapback]</div>

The other big difference is that in WW II we attacked the aggressors. In this war we are the aggressor. Germany attacked and annexed Poland and then the rest of its neighbors and was bombing cities in England (then our ally) and elsewhere. Japan attacked us.

In this war, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us, while remaining fast friends with the major supporter of our enemy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 8 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]359281[/snapback]</div>

How are we the aggressor? Did we not bury thousands of Americans over the past several decades whose grissly deaths were at the hands of Islamofascism. Are you trying to say that Saddam did not support terror that he was the lone voice of reason in a sea of death and destruction? Did he not invade two neighboring countries? Did he not use WMD's against humans? Did he not directly support Palestinian terror organizations? He had in fact WMD programs going that could have beeneasily reconsistuted, no? Are you saying the only terror group which Saddam was not affiliated with was al-Qaeda?

We attacked Germany who had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, no?

You try to reduce a very complicated geopolitical equation to a mere sentance or two - you are being cute and not intelligent.

And by the way, did not Iraqi forces under Saddam attack US Air Force planes multiple times while patroling the no-fly zone? That in your scenario above would constitute a basis of an act of war on us and allow us to defend ourselves. And aiding the attacks on an ally of ours (Israel) Iraq becomes complicit in the attacks themselves - again justifying our defending an ally of ours by attacking Iraq.

 

daniel's statement was correct - there's no indication that Iraq was directly linked with the attacks on 9/11. If there is, please post the proof for us, as i'm sure the world is dieing to see it.

WWII was a different story than this conflict. in WWII, there were established alliances between countries that came into play. Germany was attacking our allies, which we chose to not offer direct military aid. we were then attacked by Germany's ally. given the situation, we chose to come to the aid of our allies first as a strategic decision. The situation does not apply to the war in Iraq, period.

You say they aided attacks on an ally of ours - did that ally decide to go to war? are we supporting our ally in a war? or did we unilaterally decide on entering a war, and then dragged our allies kicking and screaming behind us?

I truly hope you can see the huge differences between Iraq and WWII.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 12:13 PM) [snapback]359302[/snapback]</div>

From CNN:
The 9/11 commission, appointed by Bush, in its final report, said that Osama bin Laden had been "willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq" at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader "had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."
The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any "contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," it said.
President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
And I think we all know how many WMDs we found in Iraq.
Islamofascism is a handy little construction, but pre-supposes a unity among Arab countries that does not exist. Islam is no more unified among all its branches than Christianity. Iran and Iraq had a war not too long ago with nearly a million casualties.
The trouble with going to war on false pretenses is it eventually forces you to question why your soldiers are dying. As soon as you're doing that, you know you're in trouble. Especially when you're fighting people on their home turf.
We got into Vietnam on the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, and into Iraq on fake WMD claims (though mainly because we were just plain ticked off about 9/11).
Was Saddam a lousy no good tyrant? You bet.
Did Saddam help keep Iran in check? You bet.
Is Iran stronger now that Saddam's not there? You bet.
It is a complicated world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]359310[/snapback]</div>

I see, as we move forward in time we are stuck responding to threats internal and external using an operating system from half a century ago. Our allies chose to give away Sudentanland - no. Almost like Chamberlain did not exist - kind of like the Iraq Study Group of today - my how history tends to repeat itself if we cannot adopt to our changing geopolitical environment.

My hope is you see the folly of your thoughts that could lead us to a NUCLEAR nightmare once you allow Iran to acquire WMD's. At least in in the mid part of the last century the mistake Chamberlain made only cost what 400,000 American lives - surely easily surpassed when iran has a stable of nuclear tipped missiles heading this way.

You my friend should wake up to this NEW, more MODERN, more DANGEROUS threat (they want to die). If I am wrong the consequences pale in comparison to if YOU ARE WRONG.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]359312[/snapback]</div>

You make the world much more complicated. Tell me who killed my friends and neighbors on 9/11? Last I checked it was Islamofascists - that neat little "construct" posses a real and serious threat. To not recognize it is to aid and abet it - to enable them to complete their tasks. Iran going nuclear - is that a little "construct" in your opinion?

War is an unfortunate reality - has been and will been - as long as you believe that you and your society/culture are worth fighting for.

Your Vietnam history is also clouded I am sure by neat little constructs that allows you to minimize threats real and present and active.

Hitler was a tyrant too -- and a good one -- got the German economy back on its feet, solved massive German unemployment and inflation. You would have let him slaughter German Jews if he had not invaded a neighboring country or made war on another - I really am looking forward to this answer - or you little "construct" to make it neat and clean...???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]359315[/snapback]</div>

Wait... where did Iran come from (in the context of this thread)? We were comparing Iraq and WWII, and you go off into left field with a response about Iran... Is that because you had nothing to say to support your stance against my statements about Iraq and WWII?

I've got an idea... why don't we draft another 50,000 people into the army so we can start another war, establish another government, and fight another insurgency, tying up our resources more and more? Or better yet, if everyone in the middle east is so interested in WMD's, why don't we withdraw all our troops and show them the business end of a few, just to help them get their design process started?

Lets try to stay on topic here, comparing Iraq and WWII, and not stray off into realms where you think you have the upper hand.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 12:48 PM) [snapback]359315[/snapback]</div>

Frankly, at the time, yes, America would have. Most Americans then didn't like Jews. See the history of the America First party. We wouldn't even let the Jews fleeing Germany come here. So if Hitler hadn't overreached, yes, he probably would have been able to have his genocide in peace. In fact, if he hadn't been so arrogant, so full of hubris, so certain of his infallibility that he attacked the Soviet Union, God only knows what the world might look like today.

For a more recent example, see Rwanda.
There are plenty of tyrants in the world we ignore everyday.
See Darfur.
Stalin was in many ways worse than Hitler. We left him in power.

If we'd had hotheads at the controls during the Cuban Missle Crisis, North America might be a slab of glass now. Thankfully, we had a leader who was knowledgeable and could imagine the consequences to his actions, both at that time and during World War II.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]359326[/snapback]</div>

You are doing it again - hiding behind "America" - what would YOU have done with that "good tyrant" Hitler?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]359325[/snapback]</div>

If you could not see my point and questions thereof, then so be it. At this point the defense rests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]359338[/snapback]</div>

Because it has no good point to make about the topic at hand, IRAQ? the defense can rest all it wants, it doesn't mean it said anything worthwhile or even (with regards to the issue at hand) intelligent. Just think... all those court cases where the defense rests, and then ends up losing - resting doesn't prove a point, but thank you for taking yourself out of the discussion.

 

Just a little historical perspective.

Once Japan attacked us, Germany decided to declare war on the US. According to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, Hitler was afraid that we would declare war on Germany first. It was only after Germany declared war that we declared war on Germany. The declaration was delivered to Roosevelt and he got a Congressional declaration a few hours later.

Up to this point, Hitler had been doing everything in his power to keep the US out of the war in Europe. Whether Roosevelt would have been able to get a Congressional declaration of war against Germany if Hitler hadn't declared war first is unknown.

It's possible (though, admittedly not likely) that we could have gone to war only with Japan.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]359338[/snapback]</div>

You question is meaningless. Anyone who says they wouldn't kill Hitler is either a saint or liar or Kato Kalin asking "Who?" This I assume is some handy rhetorical device so you can say gotcha!...but what it proves is beyond me. I, as a person, don't get to choose which tyrants die.

And for the record, I had no love for Saddam. I thought the sanctions were just likely to turn Iraq into a sort of post WWI-Germany, where people are starved, watch their children go hungry and suffer from disease, and become fertile ground for ideologies of hate.

I, at the time, and with some shame, admit that I felt a little gladness at the start of the war. Partly from anger left from 9/11. But then, at that time, I was believing the lies they told us to whip the country up into a war fervor.

But this war has been prosecuted in a way that has repeatedly ignored the advice of the department of state and defense. It's been war on the cheap. And the consequence is a disaster. So to return the thread on topic a bit:

Our World War II/Iraq analogy:

World War II: You wait till provoked to enter the fray. The side of right is forever after on your side. All the best minds brought to bear on the task at hand. We even invented an atomic bomb.
Iraq: You lie about why you're going to war. You attack. You exclude those who don't agree with your narrow ideology. We don't need the advice of the military. 450,000 troops? Why that's ridiculous. And the oil will pay for the cost. Those state department people who've studied Iraq for decades, we'll ignore them. We'll staff the occupation with young Republican party loyalists.

One way you win a war. One way you don't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 12:38 PM) [snapback]359354[/snapback]</div>

You cannot answer a simple question with known and defined consequences on either side of the answer spectrum. Sad that you cannot defferentiate evil from good and you see evil where there is good.

Says a lot about you unfortunately.

 

You know, you're good and evil rants are getting kind of annoying... not to mention they don't make sense. you tell her she can't distinguish good from evil and sees evil where this is good... all in response to her stating truths and that we didn't handle the war properly?

she answered your question, it just wasn't what you wanted. live with it, and learn to debate like the adult you claim to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]359369[/snapback]</div>

Well, I just thought it was a non-question. One of those questions like, If someone gave you a Million dollars would you take it? One of those questions where the answer is, Duh! I actually thought my anwer was pretty clear, but didn't realize it might be too subtle. As I consider myself neither a saint (ever), liar (most of the time), nor Kato Kalin (all the time), the answer is yes. You bet I'd pop Hitler. I have even done so in a number of video games. And while your personal assessment of my character is no doubt fascinating to you, it's still off-topic in comparing the differences between Iraq and World War II.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]359393[/snapback]</div>

Now that we have established that you would have "popped" Hitler, when would you have done so? You can choose any year of his reign. If you could or want, I would love to know why that particular year. Thanks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 8 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]359399[/snapback]</div>

Sorry but ... off-topic. Me no play.