Bush likens war in Iraq with WWII

[Professur]

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.

2 of course. Then they could gather the fragments, blow up a nice little village of people they want rid of, and call in the news crews. Of course, since they're the only ones with people on the field, it's their version that gets press, doesn't it?

 

[MrBishop]

2 of course. Then they could gather the fragments, blow up a nice little village of people they want rid of, and call in the news crews. Of course, since they're the only ones with people on the field, it's their version that gets press, doesn't it?

If you're worried about looking bad in the news...the war's already lost.

 

[MrBishop]

Back to the thread topic... do you think that there can be a viable comparison with what happened during WWII and the war in Iraq?

I still believe that it's a pretty despicable political tool which is timely in that the 60th anniversary of D-Day is upon us AND election day is coming up too.

someone told me (not sure if it's true) that the president isn't allowed to campaign on military bases during election period. Anyone know about this?

 

[The Other 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...

So that is a bad thing? I had to drag out part of H. Hyde's speech 2-12-03 again, as it is still accurate:

We see our own motives as noble and believe this fact to be self-evident. We are not an imperial power coldly focused on the subjugation of others or on securing some narrow advantage for ourselves. Instead, we are frequently moved to action by the plight of others, often losing sight of our own self-interest in our zeal to make the world right. None can doubt that, for over half a century, we have employed our power in the service of making the world safe, peaceful, and prosperous to the extent of our ability to do so.

How is it then that we do so much for so many others and yet have to plead for support? Why is it always so difficult to enlist others in causes from which all benefit? Why do we carry global responsibilities, yet others feel no need to assume a share of the collective burden?

The fundamental problem is simply this: Given our strength, the urgency of our many concerns, and our willingness to proceed alone, if necessary, we have liberated others from the responsibility of defending their own interests, to say nothing of any responsibility for the collective interests of the West. Many would watch the night descend on others in far-away countries of which they know little without any feeling that perhaps they should do something to halt it and that not doing so might be a perilous option. Far from assisting, they might even devote their energies to preventing others from doing something.

And embracing it all, the United States provided an absolute guarantee of safety. Problems shrank to the scale of daily life; dangers evaporated into abstract metaphors. Sheltered by American power, the hostilities of the untamed world beyond became remote, and then imaginary.

But here again, we see the dangerous abdication of responsibility that has arisen out of the artificial environment we have established. All problems have become America’s responsibility, while others, even those with more immediate interests than ours, stand on the sidelines offering passive encouragement or vocal abuse.

It is one of the paradoxes of our time that the American people, who have never dreamed dreams of empire, should find themselves given a unique responsibility for the course of world history. As you said so eloquently during your recent speech at Davos, Mr. Secretary, Americans did not go into the world in the 20th Century for self-aggrandizement, but rather for the liberation of others -- asking of those others only a small piece of ground in which to bury our dead, who gave their lives for the freedom of men and women they never knew or met. Now, in these first, determinative years of the 21st Century, we are being challenged to such large tasks again. We did not ask to be so challenged, but we dare not let the challenge go unanswered.

...wether it affects us in any way or not.

(Many would watch the night descend on others in far-away countries of which they know little, without any feeling that perhaps they should do something to halt it and that not doing so might be a perilous option.)

someone told me (not sure if it's true) that the president isn't allowed to campaign on military bases during election period. Anyone know about this?

The enlisted can vote too, so I imagine if Kerry thought he could garner a few votes at a base he would, and it would be legal for the President to do so also.

Speaking of legalities, Kerry decided it wasn't a good idea to put off the Dems nomination in July:

WASHINGTON -- Bowing to pressure, John Kerry decided Wednesday to accept the nomination at the Democratic presidential convention in July, scuttling a plan to delay the formality so he could narrow President Bush's public money advantage....Some Kerry advisers had wanted him to forego the nomination at the convention in late July and wait five weeks until Bush accepts the Republican nod. Once nominated, each candidate gets $75 million in public money for their general elections. With his decision, Kerry now will have to spend the same allotment over the longer period of time...Republicans mocked Kerry, saying only the Democratic candidate could be both in favor of the nomination and against it.

 

[MrBishop]

T.O.O <--- Far more can be done with the billions of dollars spent in a military effort, if those moneys were spent in humanitarian relief, food, medecine, education etc... at a cost approaching $1Million/smart missile.

That million could go a lot further if it wasn't applied towards the destruction of a single building. The suppression of AIDS through medication and education in Africa comes to mind.

Awful leftist of me, non? But then again, if you're touting yourselves off as the 'helpers of the world'..then help. It's not necessary to destroy a country before building it back up again.

Speaking of countries being destroyed...why was Iraq singled out? Why not some countries in Middle Africa? Or Haiti, or Cuba? or...well...it's a long list, but many of the countries on it have been in trouble for decades.

Again...back to the topic at hand. Where do you find a link between WWII and Iraq?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Again...back to the topic at hand. Where do you find a link between WWII and Iraq?

1. 'Sneak' attack on the US.
2. State sponsored enemy, if not the state itself.

The enemy, in this conflict, is pretty much the only difference. Instead of one, single, country to blame this on, however, we have a myriad of countries that support the enemy. If this wasn't true, how come the Islamic countries were so upset over the Iraqi prison scandal, which is being dealt with by the US military quite quickly, when the murder of Nicholas Berg only drew a quick, passing note, in their press? Answer...Berg was an American citizen. The outcry over Berg's murder was much less than over the Iraqi prisoners...even in our own country.

 

[The Other One]

Again...back to the topic at hand. Where do you find a link between WWII and Iraq?

More like a comparison:

In a country far from American shores, a tyrant rules with an iron fist. Thousands of citizens face torture and death at the hands of this despot. Entire ethnic groups are faced with the terror of life under a government whose doctrine seeks their death. This dictator seeks out new weaponry to evoke fear knowing he will soon encounter U.S. strength. In the United States, a declaration has been made: The evil embodied by this animal must not be allowed to propagate. People under this oppression must be freed; they want to be freed. Hearing their cries, the United States commits itself to an expensive, difficult, and some would say foolish undertaking: the disposure of this malevolent tyrant. Some argue that other nations should be consulted, and the images of death and destruction make American men and women wonder if the losses are worth the enormous cost. Only later does it become clear that the price was deserved. As evidence of the dictator's unspeakable cruelties come to light, Americans realize that their campaign was righteous. Then and now. Today and yesterday.

 

[MrBishop]

Gato - re: #1 ... you're thinking of Afghanistan, not Iraq. Also...it was Japan that stuck the first blow, but it was the Nazis that are remembered the most.

T.O.O - I'm wondering when places like Sudan will undergo such a valiant effort.

On Thursday, a U.S. House of Representatives committee opened hearings on what its chairman calls the "worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet". The government of Sudan is said to be aiding Arab militias in an ethnic cleansing of the Darfur region of western Sudan. Thousands are reported dead, and more than a million have been displaced. NPR's Tony Cox speaks with a Sudanese man who testified before Congress, and a Human Rights Watch worker just back from the region.

source

 

[Gonz]

Gato - re: #1 ... you're thinking of Afghanistan, not Iraq. Also...it was Japan that stuck the first blow, but it was the Nazis that are remembered the most.

T.O.O - I'm wondering when places like Sudan will undergo such a valiant effort.


source

The more that is learned, the more that Iraq is involved.

Re: the Sudan...I also wish to see more effort in assisting those poor people. Where is the UN?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato - re: #1 ... you're thinking of Afghanistan, not Iraq. Also...it was Japan that stuck the first blow, but it was the Nazis that are remembered the most.

T.O.O - I'm wondering when places like Sudan will undergo such a valiant effort.


source

You said it yourself...It was Japan that attacked the US, so why did we go to war with Germany?

 

[markjs]

You said it yourself...It was Japan that attacked the US, so why did we go to war with Germany?

Read your history. We were attacked by Japan and in turn declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on us because of their association with Japan and of couse we decalered war on Germany after they declared it on us.

 

[markjs]

BTW without even making a judgement about the war on Iraq and serious comparison of it and WWII is ludicrous.

The world was fighting against a tyrant with the ability to legitimately threaten with world domination in world war 2. In Iraq we fought a paper tiger. The only real paralell is that Saddam is also an evil tyrant. But compare Saddam to Hitler and it's hands down no comparison. Saddam wasn't near as powerful, cunning, and dangerous as Hitler was.