Re: USA & Iran

On 2 May 2006 17:46:35 -0700,
wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AC wrote:
On 1 May 2006 16:40:47 -0700,
wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


seems you're against war except when you're in favor of it.

The situations are so entirely different as to not be comparable. Iraq
posed no threat

in what way? having a history of developing WMD's, having lied about
it, taunting the international community with full knowledge that the
ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what
way WASN'T iraq a threat?

And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation
of treaty could be found by the most trivial glance, every expert out there
stated Iraq posed no threat. Unlike Nazi Germany, where successive
governments in the 1930s in Great Britain basically minimized militarism, in
the case of Iraq, the US ended up grossly exagerrating the threat and
creating false links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.


and was contained, and even if it wasn't, it simply does not
possess the industrial capacity and population that Germany does.

it doesn't need to possess the INDUSTRIAL capacity. it merely needed
the weapons capacity.

Which it did not have. It's nuclear program was no more.



That's not to say that the Brits weren't grateful, but to suggest, as so
many "patriots" do that there was some phenomonal sacrifice and generosity
to Lend Lease is ludicrous. The actual sacrifices didn't come until
Americans finally hit the dirt and began shooting Germans and Japanese,
which took some time.


so you're saying we should have intervened earlier? gotten into war
earlier?

Yes.


that your take on iraq, too?

Iraq was contained.

until it wasn't.

When precisely wasn't it contained?



or are you gonna be inconsistent there as well?

Are you going to even try to make sense? Evidently your knowledge of
inter-war Germany is pretty bloody weak.

oh brother....again you seem to have a fascination to blame the US for
every hangnail suffered by every human since 1776.

The US wasn't solely to blame from Germany's military rise. All the Allieds
played a part, from selling out France through disarmament quotas, to
unreasonable reparations in the Treaty of Versailles, to forcing a
constitution on the German people that had no ties to the culture and
history of the nation, to then turning a blind eye even in the 1920s to
clear signs that Germany had not turned its swords into plowshares and had
in fact kept the General Staff around (this is long before Hitler's rise),
and then, ultimately not moving to stop Hitler when he violated conditions
on the tonnage limits for naval vessels, and finally when Germany retook the
Rhineland (which was the ultimate betrayal of France and the Low Countries).

Now, the most Hussein was able to do was to harass his own population, steal
oil money and poke the No Fly Zone. He had no WMDs, posed no threat even to
his neighbors and most certainly, considering the kind of dictator he was,
would certainly not have aligned himself with a pack of religious fanatics
like Al Qaeda.

I'm not defending Hussein, but let us also recall who was helping that
monster out in the 1980s, all to get Iran (which collapsed into theocracy
itself due to the US backing a very bad guy).


you simply haven't made your case. should we have waited until hussein
broke out and attacked? until he DID develop WMD'S?

The weapons inspectors had been let back in, but were never given a chance
to do their job.


you haven't put forth a clear statement about the legitimacy of
intervention or non-intervention, except to state that, no matter WHAT
the US does, it's wrong.

That's not what I said. Are you always this dishonest in debates? Do you
always make up strawmen of others' positions. I mean, this isn't even a
strawman, it's a complete fantasy of what I have been saying.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what ... And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: This Just Has To Be Said
    ... Will the memorial for the all the American lives he's ... And this makes Iraq comparable to Germany how? ... I'm just demonstrating that Iraq is no Germany. ... There was no credible reason to believe Iraq was NOT a threat in 2003 ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: This Just Has To Be Said
    ... I'm not sure why it's important to your argument to tell that particular lie, but in 1941 Germany was destroying US ships in places a lot closer than Iraq. ... against Germany prior to Kreigsmarine vessels sinking US Navy vessels. ... and that has *what* to do with the question of whether Germany posed a threat to those vessels? ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)