Micronesian Bites The Hand That Feeds Him

On Apr 24, 12:30 am, "Android" <androv...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> "Doug Jacobs" <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>
> news:132qm0rrm78i536@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Android <androv...@nospamcomcast.net>
> wrote:
> > Whether you support Bush's idea to go into Iraq in the first place or not,
> > you cannot deny the fact that he and his apointees have done a horrible
> job
> > managing it.
>
> > And don't you dare try to compare Iraq with Germany, Japan, or anything of
> > WW2... In the first place, the US was largely isolationist despite FDR's
> > desire to do something for our friends over in Europe against Germany.
> > Second, UNLIKE Iraq, both Germany and Japan not only had a sufficient
> > build up of military force, but they had clear intentions to use it
> > against their neighbors. With Japan, this arguably could go back to the
> > end of WW1 when they ended up claiming Korea and chunks of China in the
> > name of their empire.
>
> Saddam's Iraq had a build up of military force, and it did use it against
> its neighbors...first against Iran (in which we were wrong to support him,
> under the axiom that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend") and against
> Kuwait, which prompted us to intervene in the first Gulf War.

Which is why the only people who were against the invasion of Iraq
were those who thought that we did it only for our oil interests. The
first President Bush was at least able to justify moving the troops in
- Saddam was invading another country.

> > When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR used this as a slam dunk to declare
> > war against Japan...AND ITS ALLIES (namely, Germany and Italy) While the
> > European theater was FDR's larger concern, he knew there was no way he
> > could ignore Japan's attack - nor would the American public let him.
>
> Just as Bush used 9/11 to declare war against the Taliban in Afghanistan as
> well as against Hussein in Iraq, which he thought was equally willing to do
> us harm.

Invading Afghanistan was justifiable because that's the country bin
Laden used as his base of operations. The Taliban were unwilling to
help us get him so it was our duty to go in there and get him. We
definitely could not let an attack on U.S. soil go unpunished.

However, 9/11 did not give us any justifiable reason to go to war with
Iraq. Saddam did not fund bin Laden as far as we know. It was not
Saddam's weapons that they used against us.

Saddam was not threatening us with weapons of mass destruction and did
not claim to have them.

> Sixty years later we have this "greatest generation" patriotic
> notion that the entire country was united after Pearl Harbor, but there was
> opposition against war then even as there is now.
>
> > I guess if you really stretched, you could say Bush was like FDR in that
> > both wanted to go to war against a country that not every American saw as
> > a threat, or thought was someone else's problem. Furthermore, declaring
> > war on Germany/Italy could be seen as ignoring what many Americans saw as
> > the "true" enemy - Japan. Just as Bush declaring war on Iraq seems to
> > ignore the terrorist problems elsewhere in the area, to say nothing of the
> > larger threats of Iran, and N. Korea... However, I'm really, really
> > stretching here.
>
> Yes, it is somewhat of a stretch, but I do think that there are some
> parallels. Americans were isolationists until Pearl Harbor, but even then
> many Americans opposed the war and thought it was none of our business to
> get involved in European affairs. WWII took a huge toll in American lives,
> but in retrospect, it seems that we think that ridding the world of a
> dangerous despot was important.

Saddam Hussein is nowhere near the danger that Adolf Hitler was.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. The train of thought that we
shouldn't get involved because it was "over there" in Europe was
simplya lack of care on the part of Americans. I don't think
isolationist is the correct word --> we just didn't give a sh1t until
the war came to us.

It was a stupid mindset... if Germany had conquered all of Europe, it
would have used all those resources to come after us next.

Saddam has hardly the ability to even conquer his neighbors. He had
invaded Kuwait but Kuwait is a small little country. Hell, the Pope
and Vatican City could have successfully invaded Kuwait.

The German army was far more advanced than Saddam's troops. You're
talking Major Leagues versus Little League here.

> Likewise, Americans seemed to be
> isolationists (against action in Somalia, in the Baltic's, etc.) until 9/11,
> but even afterwards many Americans opposed the war and thought it was none
> of our business to get involved.
> Personally, I do think we should have removed Hussein. We should never have
> supported him in the past, and leaving him in power during the Gulf War was
> a big mistake. He wasn't about to go quietly--European countries were
> buying oil from him in violation of UN resolutions, helping to keep him in
> power, and the evidence suggested he was pursuing WMD (or at least wanted us
> to think so) and was behind an assassination attempt on a former president.
> Yes, there was no direct link to 9/11, but if that day taught us anything,
> it should have taught us that we ignore threats at our own peril.

Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States... or even our allies for
the most part (except maybe Israel but Israel could have taken him
down very easily).

> Before
> 9/11, we did nothing despite the bombings and repeated threats (USS Cole,
> embassies). That just emboldened our enemies.

We had no evidence that he was at all linked with any of the
terrorists attacks against the United States. Just because he talked a
lot of sh1t doesn't mean he had the b@lls to do anything. And just
because he verbally supported those actions doesn't mean he was
involved at all.

> The problem, of course, is that once Saddam is removed, what fills the void?
> What stops age-old enemies from going at each other again? We removed a
> dictator, but the country remains in shambles. The cost has been high, but
> nowhere near the toll of WWII. Should we have left a ruthless dictator in
> power just because we didn't know what the full consequences would be?
> Wouldn't that have stopped us from acting against Germany, knowing that once
> we removed Hitler, Russia was likely to come in and take over?

Russia was one of our allies at the time. We didn't go into Germany
with the mindset that Russia would try to take their place.

> We ended up
> occupying Japan and Germany, and spent billions to help rebuild
> countries...and none of them had oil.

Many Germans were thankful we got rid of the Nazis. Many Iraqis are
happy Saddam's gone as well, but many more are trying to kill our
troops. I don't recall stories of German citizens setting up roadside
bombs to kill the United States.

While there are some similarities in the situations, I think there are
way too many differences to call them parallels.

> We probably won't ever know what the right decision would have been. If we
> hadn't done anything, would Saddam have continued to pursue WMD or not?
> Would he, like Iran, still be trying to obtain nuclear weapons? We've been
> told that our use of force has disrupted Islamic terrorists and helped us
> thwart further attacks against the U.S., but does that mean if Bush had not
> done anything after 9/11 we would have been hit again? He can't win no
> matter what happens next--if there are no further attacks, critics will say
> that the threat has been exaggerated; if there is another attack, critics
> will say it was *because* we got involved in Iraq and exacerbated the
> situation.

I don't think anybody's saying we should have just let the terrorist
attacks slide and that the threat was exaggerated. One camp of thought
is that we should be focusing on finding bin Laden and the terrorist
groups trying to attack the United States.

Instead, we're fighting with the Iraqi locals and not making any
headway.