Iraq.....Ugh.

[aspera]

Well you kind of missed my point. In the beginning Hitler also wasn't a threat to US. Also US bussineses supported the third reich in the beginning as well (remember the stuff about IBM and Ford?). So what I'm saying Saddam was bad and the claim that he is not a threat to us is BS as if he was not a threat then, then he was going to become a threat sooner or later.... and btw, I read up a bit about oil and stuff .... and guess what, most of US oil DOES NOT come from middle east! so again the argument that it's the war for oil is BS.

I don't think I missed your point. Hitler was a direct threat to us AND our allies well before we declared war on Germany. We have yet to declare war on Iraq, officially. In WW2 we had the moral high ground.

Are you saying that Saddam *WAS* or *WAS going to be* an immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies? Got proof? I mean, I could say that the Olsen Twins are going to become a threat to the U.S. (or our allies). Should we kill them tommorrow? :laugh:

Iraq has oil. Some of the oil goes to the U.S., some goes to other places like Europe. Whoever controls that oil controls the countries that buy that oil. Even if the U.S. gets only 5% of our oil from Iraq...that's a lot of oil$$$.

 

[poomba]

I don't think I missed your point. Hitler was a direct threat to us AND our allies well before we declared war on Germany. We have yet to declare war on Iraq, officially. In WW2 we had the moral high ground.

Ar
Iraq has oil. Some of the oil goes to the U.S., some goes to other places like Europe. Whoever controls that oil controls the countries that buy that oil. Even if the U.S. gets only 5% of our oil from Iraq...that's a lot of oil$$$.

We still have the moral high ground. When we find soldiers abusing prisoners, they are punished. Our prisoners aren't tossed into tree shredders. As for oil, yep, that DOES concern US interests, as any strategic resource does. Frankly, we don't give a good hoot in hell, what religion they choose to pursue. It is also in our interest, to hunt down and kill fanatics, before they do the same to me and mine, and I applaud any goverment that has the spine to do so. Kejtar's got a lot more tact than I do. I'd have given Iraq 36 hours to toss every person seen dancing for joy at the sight of burned bodies out the city gates, or leveled the city. Don't agree? Fine. But don't expect me to cry in my bowl of granola, when some AK toting son of a camel gets his head blown off. I don't wring my hands, it slows down reloading.

 

[Kejtar]

I don't think I missed your point. Hitler was a direct threat to us AND our allies well before we declared war on Germany.

OK, I don't know how else to say it, but you'd better read up a bit on history of 1930's. US wasn't really allied to closely with Brits or French or Russians. A lot of people fought under the British flag as volunteers as the Americans did not want to get in the middle and some actually (politicians) wondered which side was right...... So no, Hitler was not a direct threat to US till WAY late in the game.

 

[JohnJohn]

In WW2 we had the moral high ground.

What specificly gave us the "moral high ground" in WWII?

 

[JohnJohn]

Iraq has oil. Some of the oil goes to the U.S., some goes to other places like Europe. Whoever controls that oil controls the countries that buy that oil. Even if the U.S. gets only 5% of our oil from Iraq...that's a lot of oil$$$.

Read up on the UN oil for Food programs. You will find out that France, Russia, and Germany were much more interested in oil from Iraq. Someone should tell the Russians that you can't eat rocket propelled grandees.

If we were truly interested in oil from Iraq, why didn't we just send them food under the UN Food for Oil program? IMHO: Your argument sucks.

 

[aspera]

OK, I don't know how else to say it, but you'd better read up a bit on history of 1930's. US wasn't really allied to closely with Brits or French or Russians. A lot of people fought under the British flag as volunteers as the Americans did not want to get in the middle and some actually (politicians) wondered which side was right...... So no, Hitler was not a direct threat to US till WAY late in the game.

So what you are saying (and what I am trying to say) is that Hitler's Germany WAS a direct threat to the US and our allies BEFORE we DECLARED WAR on them and INVADED them. Now, you can argue that wasn't the case a decade or more before the invasion, but I'm talking about the time frame right before war.

 

[aspera]

Read up on the UN oil for Food programs. You will find out that France, Russia, and Germany were much more interested in oil from Iraq. Someone should tell the Russians that you can't eat rocket propelled grandees.

If we were truly interested in oil from Iraq, why didn't we just send them food under the UN Food for Oil program? IMHO: Your argument sucks.

So if the US of A controls the Iraqi oil.....and France, Russia, and Germany want the Iraqi oil....we have leverage over them. See? It doesn't HAVE to be the United States that actually burns the oil.

I also think that part of the reason for the invasion is a Lilly Pad Strategy for projecting military power. Instead of digging in like we did in Germany for the Cold War, we can shift resources around.

 

[JohnJohn]

So if the US of A controls the Iraqi oil.....and France, Russia, and Germany want the Iraqi oil....we have leverage over them. See? It doesn't HAVE to be the United States that actually burns the oil.

Exactly why would we need leverage over them, what do/did we need it for? I'm confused. Are you trying to convince us that The US went to war to teach Russia, France and Germany a lesson? The second set of UN resolution against Iraq, they voted YES on. IMO: The only reason they voted no on the third set of resolutions that called for force was because they didn't want everyone finding out about the oil for arms/technology program. The lesson I "SEE" however is different. The lesson they learned was that the US will not allow France and Russia, specificly, to give nuclear technology and arms to Iraq for oil. Without war, and removing Saddam, how specificly were we to stop this?

I also think that part of the reason for the invasion is a Lilly Pad Strategy for projecting military power. Instead of digging in like we did in Germany for the Cold War, we can shift resources around.

More specifics about this point and how it realates. Remember Germany surrendered. In Iraq they are still fighting.

 

[Kejtar]

So what you are saying (and what I am trying to say) is that Hitler's Germany WAS a direct threat to the US and our allies BEFORE we DECLARED WAR on them and INVADED them. Now, you can argue that wasn't the case a decade or more before the invasion, but I'm talking about the time frame right before war.

NO! I'm saying that the Germany WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE US. The fact that people chose to join the fight did not reflect the political and economical relationship between Germany and US. Remember WWII started September 1st 1939 and Germany started anexing and taking over teritories as far back as 1936 (or was it 37? can't remember now). So we are not talking about anyting as spread out as a decade. We are talking about years leading up until the war with the first years of war included. It wasn't up until late 1940's that the US got involved with helping out the Brits by putting into the effect the lend lease program which was just a "business" relationship for the most part and it wasn't till at least a year from that time that the US commited any troops to the war because of the realization that it's not going to end good if Hitler is to gain control of Europe.

 

[aspera]

NO! I'm saying that the Germany WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE US. The fact that people chose to join the fight did not reflect the political and economical relationship between Germany and US. Remember WWII started September 1st 1939 and Germany started anexing and taking over teritories as far back as 1936 (or was it 37? can't remember now). So we are not talking about anyting as spread out as a decade. We are talking about years leading up until the war with the first years of war included. It wasn't up until late 1940's that the US got involved with helping out the Brits by putting into the effect the lend lease program which was just a "business" relationship for the most part and it wasn't till at least a year from that time that the US commited any troops to the war because of the realization that it's not going to end good if Hitler is to gain control of Europe.

1936-1946 is a decade. The US didn't fully get involved with the war and European Allied invasion until the last few years. Like you said, Germany wasn't seen as a threat to the US in the earlier years.

You also mentioned that Hitler's European empire was seen as a threat to the United States...in the same paragraph that you say Germany WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE US.

 

[aspera]

Without war, and removing Saddam, how specificly were we to stop this?
QUOTE]

Bomb France?

I really don't admit to knowing much about the Lilly Pad strategy. I just think that it is one of the many reasons that we are in Iraq. As I understand it, the United States wants to be able to have bases all over the world (lilly pads). These bases are supposed to be manned with the needed personnel and equipment for the threat level in the region. That means they are lightly staffed when peace breaks out, which frees up the men and equipment for threats in other parts of the world. At hotspots (like the Middle East), men and equipment are rapidly deployed to the bases already there.

Just like an aircraft carrier can quickly project military power by moving the men and equipment where they need to be, the army will "hop" from lilly pad to lilly pad. I might have it wrong, but that's my understanding of it. The strategy cuts cost and makes response time quicker.

 

[Kejtar]

1936-1946 is a decade. The US didn't fully get involved with the war and European Allied invasion until the last few years. Like you said, Germany wasn't seen as a threat to the US in the earlier years.

You also mentioned that Hitler's European empire was seen as a threat to the United States...in the same paragraph that you say Germany WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE US.

Before I give up... I will try one last time. War oficially started in 1939. "Bad things" (for lack of a better phrase) started to happen as far back as 1936. US at that time was not involved or actually it was involved economically and financially supporting the Third Reich. US was actually benefiting from that relationship!
In any case, yes, I stand by what I said: Germany was not a threat to US at that time. It was very possible that it would never become a direct threat, but it was a threat to global security and stability which was one of the main reasons US finally got involved. From this you can draw a parallel to Iraq. Even if one was to go as far as saying that Iraq was not a direct threat to US, it is (was?) a threat to stability of the region thus affecting the global stability which hurts everyone: not only US.
A lot of people have said: oh it's so far away from us. Why should we get involved? You have to consider the potential problems that might arise from lack of involvement now. As you look upon the past 10 years, think about how Iraq's cooperation changed. Right after the gulf war, they were somewhat quiet and subdued. Then they started to rattle their swords and when they got some missile sites blown up they shut up again and then when some tiem would pass they would rattle their swords again and get some missile sites blown up..... How long do you think this would go on like that? Do you think it would never go further then that?? Also again, look at the people of the country. Look under what kind of fear and conditions they had to live!! Look at how minorities were treated there.
So yeah I will agree with anyone that says war sucks, but I also realize that war is sometimes necessary to resolve issues that can't be resolved any other way. And any and all who think that negotiation and diplomacy can be used to resolve all problems should have their heads examined.

 

[xjblue]

Germany was not a threat to US at that time

, I desagree, Germany was at very least an unknown threat at the time. With Hitler in charge and pulling off his plans like he was he became a threat the moment he started acting on them. his plans had to have the US as a future primary target seing how our basis of Freedom was a polar opposite to his ideals, that meant that each action he took brought Germany closer to ultimate war with the United States, the anti war sentiments in our country at the time could have helped him right along if it weren't for a President in office with a good head on his shoulders who found ways to prepare and help the allies counter Hitlers moves without declaring open war. Remember it was Hitler who declared war on the United States after Japan played the Pearl Harbor card. Japan in league with Germany did attack us on our own soil, it's very sad that is what it took to get us involved. May we never forget that lesson.

 

[Kejtar]

Well, my point exactly. Hitler was specific always that this next step(Austria, then Czechs,then French...) was the last step. He never let it know what he want to happen in the future.... so yeah, one could make a determination that Germany could become a threat, but that point they were not... jus like Iraq could have been considered not to be a threat...

, I desagree, Germany was at very least an unknown threat at the time. With Hitler in charge and pulling off his plans like he was he became a threat the moment he started acting on them. his plans had to have the US as a future primary target seing how our basis of Freedom was a polar opposite to his ideals, that meant that each action he took brought Germany closer to ultimate war with the United States, the anti war sentiments in our country at the time could have helped him right along if it weren't for a President in office with a good head on his shoulders who found ways to prepare and help the allies counter Hitlers moves without declaring open war. Remember it was Hitler who declared war on the United States after Japan played the Pearl Harbor card. Japan in league with Germany did attack us on our own soil, it's very sad that is what it took to get us involved. May we never forget that lesson.

 

[xjblue]

Well, my point exactly. Hitler was specific always that this next step(Austria, then Czechs,then French...) was the last step. He never let it know what he want to happen in the future.... so yeah, one could make a determination that Germany could become a threat, but that point they were not... jus like Iraq could have been considered not to be a threat...

I'm saying you don't need to be attacking something or about to destroy it to be a threat to it. The term threat can be described as a potential for harm. A potential threat then is a potential potential for harm. Hitler was a potential potential for harm before he came in to power. Hitler became a threat the moment he acheived power with a country at his disposal to effectuate his plans, long before He declared War with the US, long before a German sub ever sunk an American ship, even before he blitzed his first country.

 

[Kejtar]

I'm saying you don't need to be attacking something or about to destroy it to be a threat to it. The term threat can be described as a potential for harm. A potential threat then is a potential potential for harm. Hitler was a potential potential for harm before he came in to power. Hitler became a threat the moment he acheived power with a country at his disposal to effectuate his plans, long before He declared War with the US, long before a German sub ever sunk an American ship, even before he blitzed his first country.

I agree with what you're saying. The issue was (is?) that people want to see a direct threat and in such context I was replying. Also, in the same manner I think that Iraq was (is?) a threat to US and probably even more so then Hitler's Germany was due to current state of technology and terrorism.

 

[JohnJohn]

I think that Iraq was (is?) a threat to US and probably even more so then Hitler's Germany was due to current state of technology and terrorism.

:clap: Very well said IMO

 

[xjblue]

:clap: Very well said IMO

well said indeed!

:us: bless our troops! and I'm going to also say
bless our leaders too, that they may make good decisions. :us:

 

[ladywolf]

You guys know, based upon what everything in the past, and most things that are possibly in the united states' future, we are just securing our place. we are trying to protect ourselves, and in the meantime we are the worlds police force. germany didnt send troops to iraq, spain pussied out, basically its mostly us, the italians, the british, and the aussies that are here, and we all do our jobs well (with the exception of 1st cav which is the reason why i'm still here). Whether or not we took control of Iraq and captured saddam, there is still going to be terrorism because of our technology. I agree that Saddam was becoming a major threat again, and that he was doing a lot of underhanded stuff. you wouldnt believe some of the things the US military found over here, the suffering and oppression these people were going through. we thought hitler was cruel, what he did to his people was at genocide, but he didnt keep them in the facilities that hitler was keeping people in. you want to really break a person down, you put them in iraq and have them fight camel spiders and scorpions every day. saddam basically pitted everyone against each other, and let them duke it out. it was disgusting. well, i suppose i'm rambling so i'm going to get back to work doing my job, and hopefully before I know it, my brothers and sisters in the 1st armored division will be able to COME HOME!

Kristen

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

Hell.... I'll upgrade the offer, BBQ if ever in Chicago area. Keep the thought of coming home fresh in your mind and before you know it, you will be.
Thanks


Gil "Politics are for Generals...Guns are for Grunts" Bullycatz