Bush likens war in Iraq with WWII

[MrBishop]

...The United States of America is an enemy of those who aid terrorists and of the barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name.


The United States used to aid these self-same terrorists by providing money,weapons and training...'cept that they were called freedom fighters then. As for barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name...perhaps Bush should clean up his own back yard of people like the KKK, certain evangelists etc...who profane Christianity by committing murder (and other evil actions) in its name.

Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose.

It's a never-ending war...but instead of actually seeking out and attacking the terrorists in question, with the help of the countries where they are currently located, it's easier to just bomb the country to pieces.

Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.
Bomb Saudi Arabia! Bomb Israel! Bomb the UAE!


We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear. The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

We are nominating ourselves to be the cops of the world, and the judges, juries and executioners of those whom we deem as dangerous to our way of life...wether it affects us in any way or not. And despite having to wage war to do this...we'll try not to frighten the children, cause they'll know right away that those bombs falling from the skies are coming from 'the Good Guys'.

 

[MrBishop]

*sound of crickets chirping*

I would also like to hear some reasons why fighting terrorism is stupid.

Fighting terrorism isn't stupid...blaming a country for having terrorists within it's boundaries and attacking the country hoping to actually get a few terrorists during the process is stupid.

Use whatever intelligence you have on terrorist groups, plus your technology etc...to find the groups in question.
Then take that group out....black opps, a quick rush in...kill everyone...get out across borders with a call to the president of that country saying
"We were in the area and thought to give you a call" and"Oh BTW...that terrorist camp that you said that you didn't know anything about...it's gone now...you can continue denying it's existance again with more fervor".

 

[samcurry]

...The United States of America is an enemy of those who aid terrorists and of the barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name.


The United States used to aid these self-same terrorists by providing money,weapons and training...'cept that they were called freedom fighters then. As for barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name...perhaps Bush should clean up his own back yard of people like the KKK, certain evangelists etc...who profane Christianity by committing murder (and other evil actions) in its name.

Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose.

It's a never-ending war...but instead of actually seeking out and attacking the terrorists in question, with the help of the countries where they are currently located, it's easier to just bomb the country to pieces.

Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.
Bomb Saudi Arabia! Bomb Israel! Bomb the UAE!


We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear. The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

We are nominating ourselves to be the cops of the world, and the judges, juries and executioners of those whom we deem as dangerous to our way of life...wether it affects us in any way or not. And despite having to wage war to do this...we'll try not to frighten the children, cause they'll know right away that those bombs falling from the skies are coming from 'the Good Guys'.

bish on this statement
It's a never-ending war...but instead of actually seeking out and attacking the terrorists in question, with the help of the countries where they are currently located, it's easier to just bomb the country to pieces.
Do you relly believe sadaam would have helped us take them out since he voluntary let them into his country? I dont think he would have. So in this particular case what should we have done? The countries leaders supported them.

and on this one
"We are nominating ourselves to be the cops of the world, and the judges, juries and executioners of those whom we deem as dangerous to our way of life...wether it affects us in any way or not. And despite having to wage war to do this...we'll try not to frighten the children, cause they'll know right away that those bombs falling from the skies are coming from 'the Good Guys'."

Hey id be more than happy to see some other countries step up to the plate and help take terrorist out. BUT as we have seen thru the years nobody wants to. so who is left? the US since we are one of the strongest military countries. And what happens, the countries who either cant or wont sit back and critize about the job we are doing.

 

[Gonz]

WWII: A major political and economic power gathers allies and attempts world domination. (We were fighting for our survival as a nation)
Terrorism: A small group of fringe fanatics commit criminal acts against largely American interests around the world. (We are trying to be the police force. Admittedly, no one else seems anxious to do it)

It's just eerie how much alike they are, isn't it?

Pearl Harbor: Military attack by a foreign nation on a military target.
9/11 (and others) : Criminal attack by aforementioned fanatics on a civilian target.

Whew, you're right, history is repeating itself.

Go back, way back & you'll see a pattern. The names & countries have changed but the pattern is there. Probably the biggest differences will be, today there won't be a single leader. Hitler was entrenched in Germany. Terrorism is not set on stone. Which takes us to the second major difference, who attacks us.

Every country in the world knows that a direct attack on the US will be their downfall. Even a collective attack would be disasterous. We are too powerful. So, instead, a few with little or nothing to lose give backing to a few nuts. Some allow training on their land. Others give cash infusions. A select few allow NBCs, or parts for them to escape thier grip. Soon, the nuts can attack. A couple of countries may fall but they had nothing to lose anyway & a lot to gain. We are, after all, incredibly humanitarian by nature.

The terrorists are like a cancer. Not only do they destroy but they create a scenario where the host, in an attempt to battle the disease, starts destroying itself as do their loved ones & friends, co-workers & aquaintances. They, unwilling or unable to watch as the cancer eats away the victim, become farther removed. Some very close are unable to watch this degradation & they cause problems...not meaning to be destructive. The father away from the everyday existance, the sooner they step away. In the end, those left are fewer but closer. With time, the victim can regain all or most of the previous glory & beauty. However, deep inside, there are some nasty scars that will never fully heal.

In 1925, Hitler published Mein Kampf. In the early 30's the Nazi party began a war with the Jews. In the middle 30's the Nazis set the stage. By 1939, the holocaust had begun & Europe was being eaten from the inside out.

In 1983 (or so) the terrorists began eating the US by blowing up the Barracks in Beirut. 20 years & over a dozen attacks later they flew airplanes into a financial powerhouse (WTCs) and the military strategy HQ of the western world.

Sixty years in cancer research has allowed for some miraculous discoveries in prevention & treatment. Not all are taken.

Sixty years have allowed for some miracles in world politics. Not everybody participates.

1918
Nov 11 - World War One ends with German defeat.

1919
April 28 - League of Nations founded.

June 28 - Signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

1921
July 29 - Adolf Hitler becomes leader of National Socialist 'Nazi' Party.

1923
Nov 8/9 - The Beer Hall Putsch.

1925
July 18 - Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" published.

1926
Sept 8 - Germany admitted to League of Nations.

1929
Oct 29 - Stock Market on Wall Street crashes.

1930
Sept 14 - Germans elect Nazis making them the 2nd largest political party in Germany.

1932
Nov 8 - Roosevelt elected President of the United States.

1933
Jan 30 - Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany.

Feb 27 - The Reichstag burns.

March 12 - First concentration camp opened at Oranienburg outside Berlin.

March 23 - Enabling Act gives Hitler dictatorial power.

See also - The Rise of Hitler - from Unknown to Dictator of Germany

April 1 - Nazi boycott of Jewish owned shops.

May 10 - Nazis burn books in Germany.

In June - Nazis open Dachau concentration camp.

July 14 - Nazi party declared only party in Germany.

Oct 14 - Germany quits the League of Nations.

1934
June 30 - The "Night of the Long Knives."

July 25 - Nazis murder Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss.

Aug 2 - German President Hindenburg dies.

Aug 19 - Adolf Hitler becomes Führer of Germany.

1935
March 16 - Hitler violates the Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription.

Sept 15 - German Jews stripped of rights by Nuremberg Race Laws.

1936
Feb 10 - The German Gestapo is placed above the law.

March 7 - German troops occupy the Rhineland.

May 9 - Mussolini's Italian forces take Ethiopia.

July 18 - Civil war erupts in Spain.

Aug 1 - Olympic games begin in Berlin.

Oct 1 - Franco declared head of Spanish State.

1937
June 11 - Soviet leader Stalin begins a purge of Red Army generals.

Nov 5 - Hitler reveals war plans during Hossbach Conference.

1938
March 12/13 - Germany announces 'Anschluss' (union) with Austria.

Aug 12 - German military mobilizes.

Sept 30 - British Prime Minister Chamberlain appeases Hitler at Munich.

Oct 15 - German troops occupy the Sudetenland; Czech government resigns.

Nov 9/10 - Kristallnacht - The Night of Broken Glass.

See also - Holocaust Timeline



1939 Return to Top of Page
Jan 30, 1939 - Hitler threatens Jews during Reichstag speech.

March 15/16 - Nazis take Czechoslovakia.

March 28, 1939 - Spanish Civil war ends.

May 22, 1939 - Nazis sign 'Pact of Steel' with Italy.

Aug 23, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets sign Pact.

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Aug 31, 1939 - British fleet mobilizes; Civilian evacuations begin from London.

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland.

Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins.

Sept 17, 1939 - Soviets invade Poland.

Sept 27, 1939 - Warsaw surrenders to Nazis; Reinhard Heydrich becomes the leader of new Reich Main Security Office (RSHA).

Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland.

In Oct - Nazis begin euthanasia on sick and disabled in Germany.

Nov 8, 1939 - Assassination attempt on Hitler fails.

Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland.

Dec 14, 1939 - Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations.

None of it happened overnight.

 

[AlladinSane]

Hey id be more than happy to see some other countries step up to the plate and help take terrorist out. BUT as we have seen thru the years nobody wants to. so who is left? the US since we are one of the strongest military countries. And what happens, the countries who either cant or wont sit back and critize about the job we are doing.

The United States used to aid these self-same terrorists by providing money,weapons and training...'cept that they were called freedom fighters then.

"You broke, you fix it" comes to mind...

 

[chcr]

Gonz, WTF????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gonz, WTF????????????????????????????????????????????

The point I believe he was trying to make is this...nothing happens all at once. There's always a build-up of one form, or another.

As for your 'criminals'...What do you call a criminal who has the backing of a country...either through arms, funding, or training?

Alladinsane...Bite me. We are in the process of fixing our mistake...along with just about everybody elses this time.

 

[chcr]

I understood that Gato. Nothing happens all at once. I simply fail to see that, while there were steps that led up to WWII and steps that led up to the current situation, either the steps or the situation are therefore related. There were steps that led up to Desert Storm, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc. I guess I'm just to stupid to get why that makes blatant electioneering a fact instead of fabrication.

Please tell the government which country to attack to eliminate terrorism, please. Neither they nor I can figure it out.

 

[Gonz]

Look, on otc sinus medication it makes perfect sense

The countries in which to attack are Afghanistan & Iraq. More to follow.

 

[Professur]

Fighting terrorism isn't stupid...blaming a country for having terrorists within it's boundaries and attacking the country hoping to actually get a few terrorists during the process is stupid.

This kinda misses the point about countries supporting terrorists, doesn't it? Providing them with passports, weapons, training facilities, money. When the foreign gov't supports a terrorist org., shouldn't that org. be treated as part of their irregular military? A strike by them be an act of war by a foreign power?

And ... wouldn't a black op to take them out prior to an attack on us, be considered the same?


It's easy to sit back and pontificate ideals, but there's no black and white here, no matter what the politicians say. The retaliation on Afganistan was never brought into question. A state sponsored terrorist org commited an act of war, and the gov't supporting them got shredded, and noone, noone wept for their passing. A similar attack on Iraq generates outrage because of what? False pretenses? No directly tracable acts? No trace of WMD? But ... should Bush have waited for another 9/11 before shredding them? Should they have waited for the next big whole in security to be exploited?

Attacking Iraq has had one major effect on the int'l scene. It's shown that the US isn't afraid to throw the first punch. That they'll not wait to retaliate. That the threat of attacking americans is sufficient for them to respond. That Iraq took the punishment is regretable, but someone was gonna. The act was, IMHO, inevitable. Trashing Afganistan wasn't enough to strengthen the int'l image of america as unassailable. They needed to prove that they could still handle all comers. And wipe them out totally.

 

[MrBishop]

This kinda misses the point about countries supporting terrorists, doesn't it? Providing them with passports, weapons, training facilities, money. When the foreign gov't supports a terrorist org., shouldn't that org. be treated as part of their irregular military? A strike by them be an act of war by a foreign power?.

We seem to forget that the money & weapons seem to have come from Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq. The training grounds might've been on other soil...but that's plauseable deniability for you.

Point to argue. CSIS released that they feel that there are at least 2-3 hubs of international terrorism in Canada. They mentioned it because they wanted to warn people that Canada is a viable target. The same can be said for the United States.

There are terrorists in both countries, as I type this, who have emigrated (and thus have passports) to these two countries. They may have jobs here, money, bank accounts, a nice little summer cabin (where training can happen) and access to weapons. Canada and the USA can be said to be 'harbouring' these groups unknowingly. Are Canada and the USA part of the problem, and thus their GVTs responsible for sponsoring terrorism, or are they merely unknowing participants?

Speaking as a Canadian....I can say that Canada is a very large country, and sparsly populated. There are huge tracts of land where training facilities can exist...where no one would notice if guns were being fired all night, or if camps showed up overnight etc...

Iraq and Afghanistan are similarly large areas of sparsly populated land...where it's even easier to hide training grounds, because of the overall lower-tech (no satelite sweeping). I'm not saying that these countries were completely oblivious to terrorists on their land...that's just nuts, but finding them is another matter altogether.

 

[MrBishop]

A similar attack on Iraq generates outrage because of what? False pretenses? No directly tracable acts? No trace of WMD? But ... should Bush have waited for another 9/11 before shredding them? Should they have waited for the next big whole in security to be exploited?

With that kind of thinking...any country can be attacked at any time, without having to explain why. Don't like the leader in Syria? Invade, bomb the hell out of them, manufacture a link with Al Queida or claim that they were harbouring terrorists. Not fond of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Palestine? The same goes. Not fond of Kim Jong Il? They're a nuclear threat...invade them before they get the chance to use their nukes....people complain?

"Should we have waited until they used the nukes on us or another freedom-loving country before acting? Remember 9/11!! God bless America!"

 

[Professur]

We seem to forget that the money & weapons seem to have come from Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq. The training grounds might've been on other soil...but that's plauseable deniability for you.

True or not, the rest of my post addresses that. Iraq wasn't attacked because of al-q-muslim having bases. They were attacked to show that the US will attack a threat. The US needed a target, and Iraq presented one. Saudi is still useful, so they dodge the bullet, knowing that there are 100,000 troops sitting right next door. Iran is shitting their pants too. The entire regional power balance is rocked.

Point to argue. CSIS released that they feel that there are at least 2-3 hubs of international terrorism in Canada. They mentioned it because they wanted to warn people that Canada is a viable target. The same can be said for the United States.

There are terrorists in both countries, as I type this, who have emigrated (and thus have passports) to these two countries. They may have jobs here, money, bank accounts, a nice little summer cabin (where training can happen) and access to weapons. Canada and the USA can be said to be 'harbouring' these groups unknowingly. Are Canada and the USA part of the problem, and thus their GVTs responsible for sponsoring terrorism, or are they merely unknowing participants?

Speaking as a Canadian....I can say that Canada is a very large country, and sparsly populated. There are huge tracts of land where training facilities can exist...where no one would notice if guns were being fired all night, or if camps showed up overnight etc...

Iraq and Afghanistan are similarly large areas of sparsly populated land...where it's even easier to hide training grounds, because of the overall lower-tech (no satelite sweeping). I'm not saying that these countries were completely oblivious to terrorists on their land...that's just nuts, but finding them is another matter altogether.

Is Canada a viable target? Of course. But who's gonna waste time hitting it? Noone. No point to it.

I outlined what I consider support in my other post. If you're not gonna read it ...

And the only places where you won't find "areas of sparsly populated land" are Luxembourg and Japan. That doesn't mean that a camp can just be set up anywhere, and go unnoticed. And Canada is one of the most monitored places in the world. We're sitting between Russia and the US, remember? Any aircraft bigger than a Cessna is tracked and logged.

 

[Gonz]

Bish, you're intentionally missing the point. Is Canada a threat? Not in & of itself. Canada will stop obvious & direct threats. You're not willing to arrest & detain purported threats...which I can understand, you were not the target. As soon as a dirty bomb goes off in Montreal or Toronto, wanna take bets on how long that lasts? Canada will stop those on the international hit-list. Canada will support her ally. Don't think for a minute you're not involved in Iraq or...it's just not public. Canada is in a distinct position. A properly placed nasty in the US can affect many Canadians. Not so, or at least very much reduced, in Mexico (prevailing winds). Your gov't has to play the card she's dealt...we down here may bitch & moan but we know, when push comes to shove, who our friends are, just as you do.

 

[MrBishop]

True or not, the rest of my post addresses that. Iraq wasn't attacked because of al-q-muslim having bases. They were attacked to show that the US will attack a threat. The US needed a target, and Iraq presented one. Saudi is still useful, so they dodge the bullet, knowing that there are 100,000 troops sitting right next door. Iran is shitting their pants too. The entire regional power balance is rocked. .

The question is...where was the threat? Who defines which country is a threat, and what kind of threat deserves an attack. Saudi Arabia is usefull because they have oil, and lots of it...they didn't dodge a bullet..no one even bothered aiming their sights on them.

Is Canada a viable target? Of course. But who's gonna waste time hitting it? Noone. No point to it.

I outlined what I consider support in my other post. If you're not gonna read it ...

And the only places where you won't find "areas of sparsly populated land" are Luxembourg and Japan. That doesn't mean that a camp can just be set up anywhere, and go unnoticed. And Canada is one of the most monitored places in the world. We're sitting between Russia and the US, remember? Any aircraft bigger than a Cessna is tracked and logged.

I wasn't alking about airplanes, but ground troops. Nodifference...you're making my arguement for me. Most countries can have training camps in them and go un-noticed...so most countries can be viable targets if you're using the arguement that the terrorists were in that country's soil and therefore, that country is an enemy.

 

[MrBishop]

Bish, you're intentionally missing the point. Is Canada a threat? Not in & of itself. Canada will stop obvious & direct threats. You're not willing to arrest & detain purported threats...which I can understand, you were not the target. As soon as a dirty bomb goes off in Montreal or Toronto, wanna take bets on how long that lasts? Canada will stop those on the international hit-list. Canada will support her ally. Don't think for a minute you're not involved in Iraq or...it's just not public. Canada is in a distinct position. A properly placed nasty in the US can affect many Canadians. Not so, or at least very much reduced, in Mexico (prevailing winds). Your gov't has to play the card she's dealt...we down here may bitch & moan but we know, when push comes to shove, who our friends are, just as you do.

I'm not trying to cripple the war on terrorism, but trying to open the eyes. Using the methodology being used...any country can be a target. I know that we're involved in iraq...I posted about it a while back (exchange troops etc).

Instead of attacking the country...attack the group. Force the hands of those countries who are harbouring terrorists or financing them...either help us get rid of them by tellign us where they are and letting us across your borders where we can do something about it...or don't and watch as we go in anyway.

and can anyone here tell me why Saudi Arabia hasn't been punished?

 

[Professur]

Bish, try trying to understand what I'm saying, instead of looking for holes in what I type, willya. What threat ??? It doesn't matter what threat. Make one up, it doesn't matter. What matters is what people see happening. The US says Iraq was a threat, and then stomped them. People see what? They see the US preceive a threat, and stomp it. Were they a threat? Realistically? It doesn't matter.


Bish, I can understand why you're not getting this. You're a big guy. You've probably never had to stare down a bully, have you? I've done it lots of times. I recognise style when I see it. You don't wait for the bully to come after you. You call insult and nail him when he's not looking for it. What does everyone else see? You, standing up and thrashing a bully. What does the bully see? A little guy who just thrashed him. Does anyone care if there was a real insult? Nope. Now, does it matter if the bully's smaller than you? Nope. All that matters is that you've been seen to be willing to fight, and able to do so. You might make one serious enemy, but you'll back off all the other. And if you permanently disable the first bully, you don't need to worry about him either.

 

[Gonz]

Great analogy Professur.

Instead of attacking the country...attack the group.

Where, pray tell, would you suggest we do this without someone getting all huffy? At the moment we're actively involved with doing just what you suggest. In fact, we've invited them to come play. We just prefer using thier backyard to our own. Still, we get grief over our decision. Can we come play in Alberta?

 

[MrBishop]

The USA seems more like the bully than the bullied. Sure...it's great that Saddam is out of power and it's great that Iran is pissing itself and the other local countries are looking west with some degree of fear. Great...a wall of fear is an effective protection vs. terrorism.

Two things:
I doubt that the fear of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan will slow down terrorists one whit. Most are not allied with a country anyway...they move around and won't be there when the smack-down comes.

The statement by Bush that the smack-downs won't be stopping anytime soon makes me feel as if scaring the local GVTs wasn't the reason they went in at all. If it was...there'd be a wait-and-see period.

Like the little guy who fights the bully...after the fight, you see if the other bullies leave you alone...you don't go out the next day and pick on the next largest bully.

 

[MrBishop]

Where, pray tell, would you suggest we do this without someone getting all huffy?

Which do you think that country A would prefer?

1) Invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, it's warehouses, kill it's civilians, bomb the hell out of major roads and airports. Hopefully kill a few terrorists.

2) Locate a training camp somewhere in country A. Fly over, drop a few smart-bombs to destroy a camp about the size of a football field, and wave nicely on the way out of Country A's borders.