Originally posted by Xwing1056 Say, for a moment, that removing Saddam Hussein from power does not constitute ‘liberation.’ In that case, we don’t need to look back too far to find other liberation-based conflicts. The most obvious: Gulf War I. Was that illegitimate too? No doubt. In fact, I’d probably have to go back to World War II to find an act of liberation that you’d support ( e.g. we saved France, for all their government cares ).
The first Gulf War was not about liberation; Kuwait was under attack, not occupation.
SK isn’t against liberation of other countries under tyrannical leadership, and I know he would be in favor of this war if it made any sense at all, and if it had gone through the proper channels, which it does neither of. The war was not approved of by congress, which is required by our constitution. The initial reason that we invaded Iraq was because they were a threat to us, which from our searches (which have come up empty handed), there has been no evidence to support the theory that Iraq is a threat to us; no chemical, nuclear, or biological weaponry have been found in Iraq. I see the “liberation” aspect of this war as simple propaganda to help raise the popularity of the war on the homefront, and to give it more reason since the whole threat theory was being shot down pretty quickly.
“Say, for a moment, that removing Saddam Hussein from power does not constitute ‘liberation.’ In that case, we don’t need to look back too far to find other liberation-based conflicts. The most obvious: Gulf War I.”
You mean that war we waged against our satrap after we helped him get into power, then sold him chemical weapons and encouraged him to use them against Iran and Iraqi rebels? The one that didn’t end in Kuwait getting a democratic government? Yeah, you’re right, you would have to go back to World War II to find a war that could justifiably be said to have been of liberation. (That’s because the Korean War was fought more in self-defence than liberation.) Additionally, while France is of course looking out for her own interests above all, their protest of the war, knee-jerk insults to France aside, happened to be far more in American interests than what the neoconservatives have done, are doing, and will continue to do.
““If this is how a liberation army acts,” she said.”
Right. The army was supposed to present itself as a liberation army to the Iraqis, but they don’t see it as such, which results in fighting. It’s a fairly simple observation.
“Pardon me, do I smell a vulture?”
Vulture? You’ve got the wrong man. I’m the one who is <i>against</i> killing people for no reason and lying about it to drum up support.
Originally posted by Merlin I don’t think America has yet allowed itself to submit to The Hague or those sort of things.
And yet we have no hesitancy in declaring our opponents to be war criminals. How should American pragmatism (which mistakenly leads us to spurn international efforts that would in any way limit our activities) be reconciled with something like the war crimes court?
Originally posted by Merlin I don’t think America has yet allowed itself to submit to The Hague or those sort of things.
The United States itself has rules governing the conduct of its military too, though.
“To the other posts, There is anti-Americanism everywhere. It isn’t going to go away if we let other countries push us around.”
You do realize that the majority of this is from fanatical religious people? The government pushes other countries around, but government and people are two quite different things. You’d be surprised at some Americans’ negative opinions on the government.
“And lets face it. Any government that is set up in Iraq is not going to be pro-American. That really isn’t the point. The government is going to be Pro-Iraqi. And since it is the recent fad to hate America (Comon man! Everyone is doing it!) it will come as no surprise if the new government doesn’t end up as a mini-America.”
Read Cless’s post; that statment about a fad isn’t exactly going to support your argument either.
“I may be in Iraq myself in 6 months or so. Does it bother me? No. Am I afraid to go? No. Am I angry at my leaders for getting involved in a situation that could put me at risk? Not at all. As a matter of fact I am quite pleased with thier actions. Let it be known though if someone starts shooting at me, though, I will shoot back. This is war.”
This is basically saying you WOULD enjoy being shipped off to Iraq and shooting at people, and being shot back in turn. You’re a strange person. While the war is a decision made by the government, I know you accept it, but I don’t see how you can be pleased either.
I’ll start of by thanking Sephiroth Katana for digging into my sentence in the first post.
I did not imply that they used the weapons wrongly, I implied that they used them: Which there hopefully was a reason to.
I can agree that America has liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein: There’s still a long way to go before Iraq becomes a democratic society, and if I’ve understood correctly that American officals have said that an anti-American Islamic Government will not be accepted, legally elected or not, I doubt the distance to the goal decreases.
Originally posted by Igatona You saved France after realizing that you wouldn’t get paid after the Germans kicked their asses. The same way the Americans interfered – ( cut off )
Do history teachers in Quebec spend much time on Pearl Harbor? Japanese leaders meant to damage our navy enough to scare us out of fighting, but they really didn’t think that one through. Not only did their attack fail to destroy some crucial air carriers, but it drew us into the war - whether there was money involved or not. But I don’t care to argue about our motives in WWII right now. They’re immaterial, given the reality that we did liberate France.
Just for the record, wasn’t the European theater given priority over the Pacific theater in WWII?
Oh, and by the way:
"Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perharps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. … As T.S. Eliot has said: ‘The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.’ "
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Originally posted by Xwing1056
[b]Do history teachers in Quebec spend much time on Pearl Harbor? Japanese leaders meant to damage our navy enough to scare us out of fighting, but they really didn’t think that one through. Not only did their attack fail to destroy some crucial air carriers, but it drew us into the war - whether there was money involved or not. But I don’t care to argue about our motives in WWII right now. They’re immaterial, given the reality that we did liberate France.
Xwing1056 [/b]
Yes, and the American forces’ve also liberated Iraq. I wouldn’t say that’s the issue: The issue is the things happening afterwards.
The japanese failed to destroy air craft carriers? 19 battleships were sunk, 2300 people died, with 1100 or so more wounded, along with almost every airfield on the island being reduced to smoldering rubble. The pourpose of the attack on pearl harbor was to decimate the United States Pacific fleet so that Japan could expand into the philipino islands, since FDR had publiclly stated that he was against the japanese advancement.
"Do history teachers in Quebec spend much time on Pearl Harbor? Japanese leaders meant to damage our navy enough to scare us out of fighting, but they really didn’t think that one through. Not only did their attack fail to destroy some crucial air carriers, but it drew us into the war - whether there was money involved or not. But I don’t care to argue about our motives in WWII right now. They’re immaterial, given the reality that we did liberate France.
Xwing1056"
You’re way off. First off, as Sorc said, 19 ships were destroyed or seriously damaged, 200 planes were destroyed, and there were about 2000 people dead. Second, the Japanese had no intention of scaring us out of fighting. In addition to what Sorc said, they also aimed to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet, since they were advancing closer and closer to the U.S. and wanted to make sure they wouldn’t have to fight off too many American cruisers defending American controlled places such as Midway Island. Incidentially, Midway Island was also the place where four Japanese cruisers were sunk, hampering the Japanese offensive, which further proves my point. Thus making yours invalid.
from Nulani
Yes, and the American forces’ve also liberated Iraq. I wouldn’t say that’s the issue: The issue is the things happening afterwards.
I brought World War II and the liberation of France into the discussion since Sephiroth Katana said America does no more liberation than Norway. Igatona started arguing that the U.S. had no good motive in WWII. I agree that that is not an issue; but since he brought it up, I answered a little bit.
I really concur with everything you just said, but some people don’t, so these side-arguments have popped up.
Originally posted by Sorcerer The japanese failed to destroy air craft carriers? 19 battleships were sunk, 2300 people died, with 1100 or so more wounded, along with almost every airfield on the island being reduced to smoldering rubble. The pourpose of the attack on pearl harbor was to decimate the United States Pacific fleet so that Japan could expand into the philipino islands, since FDR had publiclly stated that he was against the japanese advancement.
I think you’re disagreeing with me, but where? I believe we had four aircraft carriers and they only hit one. The three carriers left were instrumental in our island-hopping strategy. Pearl Harbor was a devastating attack, if that’s what you’re saying, but it obviously didn’t succeed as planned.
Originally posted by Xwing1056
[b]I think you’re disagreeing with me, but where? I believe we had four aircraft carriers and they only hit one. The three carriers left were instrumental in our island-hopping strategy. Pearl Harbor was a devastating attack, if that’s what your saying, but it obviously didn’t succeed as planned.
Xwing1056 [/b]
NONE of the aircraft carriers were destroyed; they were out at sea during the time.
Sorc meant that your view of why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was wrong.
Im not diagreeing with you, Im correcting you, and stating a point. We lost a disturbing amount of airplanes. Without airplanes, an aircraft carrier is mostly useless, and a number of the ships/aircraft carriers that were used in the island hopping strategy sailed in from elsewhere.
yes, most if not all of the aircraft carriers were deployed at the time which helped immediately as it took a while for our production to catch up to and surpass the early losses.
no, sorc, you just parachute on an enemy carriers bridge and whip out a rifle as an engineer and pick off all the plane campers. really pisses off newbs.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 I brought World War II and the liberation of France into the discussion since Sephiroth Katana said America does no more liberation than Norway.
We were, I believe, talking about current affairs, not events that happened over fifty years ago. While you were at it, you could have brought up the Revolution.