| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 12:02 AM (1,499 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 30 2008, 08:18 AM Post #31 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I was responding to Fes' comment, and I don't see you discussing anything. And I'm sorry you took offense to the remark, I posted it in all good fun. I would prefer our next president be more careful with the lives of people in our armed forces and those of the thousands innocent civilians this mistake has affected. Why don't you really try discussing this rather than your same tired song and dance. You try to insult me, you try to bait me, you call me names and I'm not going for it anymore. You know, there are far better ways to talk to people than consistantly bullying and insulting them. Let's really discuss the issue which is whether or not the Iraq invasion was a mistake, or ignore each other since we can't seem to banter in the spirit of fun. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 30 2008, 09:33 AM Post #32 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Moderator Response: First, I think you have your threads confused. The topic of this one is "Was the US invasion of Iraq a mistake?" While you could certainly include who you want for president, that is not 'what this thread is about'. Second, by definition, the topic is about the past. Discussing other past invasions is not off limits. AB's mention of FDR, Truman, etc was not off-topic. You chose to respond to it with - in your own words - 'all in good fun'. If anyone was off-topic, it was you with your remark:
Now, you may not want to address AB's remark, but that does not make it "bait". What past presidents have done is simply context for the actions of current and future presidents. So, in conclusion, stop the lecturing. Discuss the topic or not. Respond to AB or not. But leave the moderating to the moderators. AB: You also have the option of responding to Noah or not. If you chose to respond, keep it civil. I deleted your post since we cross-posted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 30 2008, 04:18 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
I agree. FDR threw away about 3,000 American lives on 6/6/44 alone against a country that hadn't attacked us. It would have been much better for FDR to wait until attacked and then have those men die at home along side their wives and children. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 30 2008, 05:12 PM Post #34 |
|
Time to put something here
|
It would appear worse then that, he simple didn’t through those lives away on a war that didn’t involve the US. He deceptively mislead those men and their families. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 30 2008, 05:19 PM Post #35 |
|
Admiral
|
Sorry guys, but that logic doesn't work. If it did, then the President could deceive people tomorrow into thinking there was valid cause to invade Canada, and if by some minuscule chance, he actually succeeded and we invaded Canada, would you then cite FDR's move as evidence that the deception or aggressive approach was acceptable in that case? It can be acceptable in one circumstance, but not another. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 30 2008, 05:26 PM Post #36 |
|
Time to put something here
|
It can? what subjective morals we have then. Hardly something to flash around. It is either wrong in all cases, or acceptable. We can't pick a chose simple because we favored the outcome of said actions more then another. What we also can’t do is give one president a pass and call him one of our best presidents ever and then vilify another and say he is our worst president ever when they both acted pretty much in the same way? Or historically more precisely vilify the second man for acting as a watered down version of the first man who we call great. To ignore the past is to be doomed to repeat it in the future. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 30 2008, 06:13 PM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't agree. I don't think you can apply the same principles to differing circumstances and assume it makes sense in all instances without consideration of the specific circumstances. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 30 2008, 07:44 PM Post #38 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What's with all this moral relativism crapola? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 31 2008, 07:07 AM Post #39 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Big big difference between Hussein and Hitler. Was Hussein gassing millions of people? Was he invading other countries one by one? Was his regime taking over the region? When a dictator actually does these things then action is justified, any dictator has the potential to do these things. The often frustrating thing about the law is that you can only charge someone with crimes they actually commmitted not crimes they have the potential to commit. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 09:09 AM Post #40 |
|
Time to put something here
|
First, lets get our history striated it will make the discussion a whole lot easier. The humanitarian atrocities carried out by Hitler where not known of until the later part of the war. In fact most of it wasn’t known until the war ended and allies could finely see what was happening. They most certainly weren’t known when Roosevelt deceived the American people and took them to war. So, Roosevelt defiantly was not acting on a humanitarian moral high ground when he decided to actively deceive the American people. On the other hand Hussein was known by all to have committed humanitarian atrocities, it was well known that his regime brutally ruled over the people of Iraq. It was in fact one of the reasons given to go to war. IE points out that Bush mislead by overstatement, making opinion sound more like fact. Stating “Iraq ‘has’ weapons of mass destruction” when the truth of the matter was that this was only one of a few possibilities. This is much different then what Roosevelt did, who actively deceived the American people. Stating “Your sons will not be sent to fight a foreign war” all the while setting the stage to send them to war. You say here that “The gassing” of people is one reason to go to war. Hitler was not known for such actions at the time yet Saddam was. Hitler may have been invading other countries, but the American people of the time saw that as an ill reason to go to war. They saw the war as a European problem and that the US had no business getting involved. Roosevelt had to lie to them instead of making his case as to why it was their business. Since we can’t prove what would have happened had the US stated out of the war, you can not make a positive argument as to who was right, the American people or Roosevelt. One thing is certain however Roosevelt was not acting the will of the American people as he swore he would do. As for Hussein he had a history of invading other countries and a drive to attack other countries. At the time of the start of the war he was contained by the devastation of the first golf war, but that wasn’t going to last forever. In fact it was reaching the point that he was beginning to recover. He was contained by sections, but at the cost of the people in his country who also suffered those sections; there for those sections would not last forever as humanitarian morals would call an eventual end to them. Already countries like France where ignoring those sections and not even for humanitarian reasons and France is a western nation with veto power in the UN. Yes there are differences between the Hussein and Hitler. Hussein was a know humanitarian threat at the start of the war, Hitler was not. Hitler was actively concurring other nations, but nations the US people thought they had no business to interfere with. Hussein had a history of aggression and attempts of conquest, being held at bay by rapidly eroding barriers. Yes there are differences between Roosevelt and Bush. Bush may have mislead the American people by not making it clear that he was choosing to believe one possible account of WMDs vs another as IE has argued. Roosevelt on the other hand, told bold faced lie after lie in order to deceive the American people. Bush set up Guantanamo and is holding a relatively small number of people with out process of law. Roosevelt allowed for ‘all’ Japanese Americans with out proof to be rounded up as criminals and taken to internment camps. Bush gets undue flack for firing seven United States Attorneys, something he has the constitutional power to do, causing his attorney general to step down. The Senate Judiciary Committee, although dominated by Democrats at the time, said this about Roosevelt’s Court Reform Bill "This bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this Country." Roosevelt was the more underhanded of the two, yet you give him a pass, I assume you count him as one of our better presidents (most people do). Bush on the other hand did not deceive the American people nearly as much as Roosevelt did, if the argument could even be made. And he is vilified as the worst president ever. It is clear to me this mentality is born of something other then logic and objectivity. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 31 2008, 10:04 AM Post #41 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I honestly cannot believe you asked this question Noah. No, Hussein didn't gas people. He threw them into woodchoppers instead. He most definitely engaged in mass murder and the mass graves to prove it have been uncovered. I do think that the comparison to Hitler is apropos in this instance. http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/mi...r=1&oref=slogin http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102568,00.html Do you need more proof? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Jan 31 2008, 10:15 AM Post #42 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Lets not pretend it wasnt in part about beating Russia to the punch |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 31 2008, 10:21 AM Post #43 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Sorry but I couldn't let this one go by. There was a wealth of information known to government officials, including the President's office in WW2. In fact the government ignored these reports for far too long. They should have gotten involved for humanitarian reasons far earlier, but chose to wait until they were forced into the war at Pearl Harbour. I am not saying the general population knew. But there were reports given to the government and the president. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/fil...mary/index.html http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=...cMVIuG&b=394663 Specifically questions 20 and 21 http://www.americanheritage.com/immigratio...1999_4_34.shtml This article is somewhat of a defence, but it doesn't deny that people knew what was happening. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 10:47 AM Post #44 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Minuet, I was specifically addressing the "gassing" comment. It was known that the Germans where persecuting Jews well before the start of the war. And the Allies where wrong for turning away Jewish refuges. But the brutality and murders of the final solution where not know until after the US joined the war and the full scope of the matter was not really know until the Allies moved into Germany. From your source:
The US entered the war at the tail end of 1941, and Roosevelt’s deceptive acts started well before that. According to this source information about mass murder was not know to the Allies until the spring of 1942. Further more to make the point stronger, if Roosevelt was deceiving the American people for Humanitarian reasons which Noah seems to be saying is worth while. Then he would not have allowed the refuges to be turned away in the first place. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 31 2008, 10:51 AM Post #45 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Who has to pretend, if that is true it only strengthens RTWs point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |






9:17 AM Jul 11