More civilian attacks, zero coalition casualties

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was anything like Hitler's invasions. But there are a few frightening parallels from which we should draw very valuable lessons.

Yes, and the lesson we must first learn is that by doing nothing to stop countries when we have the ability to, we risk years of war, death and destruction, hoping against hope that some other powerful country will come to our aid. I, for one, do not wish to repeat the mistakes learned in WWII by England, France and the other countries whom we had to save from Germany, Italy and Japan.

Up until the point the United States entered that war, it looked as if the Axis powers would overcome. Do you think those who died in WWI ever believed that these countries should have or would have armed themselves to the extent they did? I think not.

If we allowed the middle eastern countries to arm themselves greatly against us, sneakily attack our citizenry rather than declearing military war and in other ways threaten us, what country on this earth do you suppose would have the moral integrity and strength to come to our aid: Africa? France? Russia?

Can't think of a one....

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I don't think the invasion of Iraq was anything like Hitler's invasions.

See, then this can all easily be avoided. If you truly believe that, then why continually label their missions the same way the nazis did?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
Yes, and the lesson we must first learn is that by doing nothing to stop countries when we have the ability to, we risk years of war, death and destruction, hoping against hope that some other powerful country will come to our aid. I, for one, do not wish to repeat the mistakes learned in WWII by England, France and the other countries whom we had to save from Germany, Italy and Japan.

Up until the point the United States entered that war, it looked as if the Axis powers would overcome. Do you think those who died in WWI ever believed that these countries should have or would have armed themselves to the extent they did? I think not.

If we allowed the middle eastern countries to arm themselves greatly against us, sneakily attack our citizenry rather than declearing military war and in other ways threaten us, what country on this earth do you suppose would have the moral integrity and strength to come to our aid: Africa? France? Russia?

Can't think of a one....

Just what Middle Eastern countries have sneakily attacked our citizenry? The problem is that we're dealing with a non-state or in many cases an anti-state threat. Hitler had almost full control over his populace and how they reacted to other countries, and thus could be successfully eliminated as an enemy. Many Middle-Eastern regimes apparently do not. Afghanistan supported a group that did sneakily attack us, but this was not a case of a country employing nationalism to wage war, as Hitler did. Hitler did not co-operate with anti-American terrorist groups to wage sneak attacks because there were none. There were many anti-communist groups he could work with to attack his communist enemies, however. Why was that? Why have all these terrorist organizations sprung up, and why are a few of them seeking to attack the USA now, finding lots of anti-American recruits?

What we're doing today, as a former National Security Advisor recently pointed out, is like trying to fight Nazi Germany by waging war on blitzkrieg. We're fighting a means, not dealing with the source of the problem. In so doing we're becoming more and more like what we hate.

 

[eric]

Because German society gave their leaders a blank check to do as they liked waging war, believing this served the nation's greater good, they became a tool that could be used to accomplish almost anything, good or bad - in this case only bad.

I am sorry if you believe this you are way, way, off base. Is this something you read in a history book? I assure you this could not be further from the truth. My entire family was in Germany at this point in time, they know first hand what went on, and this statement is just blatently false.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
I am sorry if you believe this you are way, way, off base. Is this something you read in a history book? I assure you this could not be further from the truth. My entire family was in Germany at this point in time, they know first hand what went on, and this statement is just blatently false.

What part do you think is false and why? That German society gave Hitler a blank check? That the thought they were serving a common good? That they were a tool for Hitler's sick ambitions?

Hitler never got elected by a majority, but he did get enough support from society to do as he pleased and remove all checks to his power.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Hitler had almost full control over his populace and how they reacted to other countries, and thus could be successfully eliminated as an enemy. We're fighting a means, not dealing with the source of the problem. In so doing we're becoming more and more like what we hate.

On the first point, Hitler did not have full control over his populace- there were many people who worked against him in many countries and places his forces occupied. Secondly, Hitler had power over many because he controlled their lives through coercion, violence and blackmail-sounds an awful lot like the military dictators in the Middle East.

Lastly, as for fighting means, let me just state that I don't care what we fight or how it is a means. The fact remains that those who do nothing are just as guilty as those that do something against us. By letting people in certain factions of countries take over and threaten us, than the only way to oppose them is to do something. Much of the reason many of us support this war is becuase we believe, for whatever reason, that the majority of the Iraqi people and other middle easterners do not understand how to regain control themselves. Are there middle easterners who support a freer society not only in their own country but abroad? I believe the answer to that is yes and whatever we can do to allow them to rule is worth it.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
On the first point, Hitler did not have full control over his populace- there were many people who worked against him in many countries and places his forces occupied. Secondly, Hitler had power over many because he controlled their lives through coercion, violence and blackmail-sounds an awful lot like the military dictators in the Middle East.

Lastly, as for fighting means, let me just state that I don't care what we fight or how it is a means. The fact remains that those who do nothing are just as guilty as those that do something against us. By letting people in certain factions of countries take over and threaten us, than the only way to oppose them is to do something. Much of the reason many of us support this war is becuase we believe, for whatever reason, that the majority of the Iraqi people and other middle easterners do not understand how to regain control themselves. Are there middle easterners who support a freer society not only in their own country but abroad? I believe the answer to that is yes and whatever we can do to allow them to rule is worth it.

Hitler did not have full control over his populace but he did, as I wrote, have almost full control, especially over how they acted towards other states. Once he started to occupy terroritories, however, this control slipped dramatically.

"By letting people in certain factions of countries take over and threaten us, than the only way to oppose them is to do something."

What about giving them reasons to want to threaten us? Is that a possibility?

"Much of the reason many of us support this war is becuase we believe, for whatever reason, that the majority of the Iraqi people and other middle easterners do not understand how to regain control themselves. Are there middle easterners who support a freer society not only in their own country but abroad? I believe the answer to that is yes and whatever we can do to allow them to rule is worth it."

But what if, as you suggest, the majority of Middle Easterners do not understand this? Won't that mean installing dictatorships more to our liking, if we can't trust the will of the majorities of their populations? We've already tried this, by the way, and it generally doesn't work so well.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

** It's only a matter of time before the citizens realize who the true enemy is. They'll eventually grow tired of watching their brothers and sisters die at the hands of terrorists and realize the USA is fighting against those bringing their country down. Once (and I understand that's a big "if") the public stands behind the US the edge will clearly be in our favor **

Yeah and when is that going to happen?