Posted by iceburn on 3/31/2003, 11:33 am, in reply to "Threat of Iraq" You seem to forget that this imminent threat (Germany) to the U.S. started out with only 100,000 soldiers, no tanks, no submarines, no naval fleet, no airforce, no anything. Yet, this pitiful country (Germany), that posed no possible threat (based on your objective observations on Iraq) in 1933, 1939, 1941, 1943, or 1945, managed to take over Europe and a good portion of Asia and Africa in less than three years of combat, and still posed no real threat to the United States (invasion wise). And you still support that war, even though it goes against your criteria against the war on Iraq? Did I mention that Germany accomplished these goals fighting against the world's two superpowers of the time (Britain and France), forcing one of them to surrender? I would guess that you support the war against Germany because Germany was allied with Japan, who attacked the United States. On the other hand, you don't completely support George Bush Sr. declaring war on Iraq because Iraq attacked Kuwait, our ally, and you don't completely believe in the war we are currently having, even though Iraq has broken its promises to our nation and has defied a very serious UN resolution to account for its chemical and biological weapons. During its occupation of other nations, the Germans unleashed their secret police on all dissenters and also committed genocide on races and nations that didn't quite fit their national vision. The no fly zones of Iraq were put in for very similar reasons, so if you believe that World War II was justified because of the genocide of the Jews (which we didn't even know about until the Nazi regime was almost conquered), then your misgivings about the current war still don't make sense to me. A link for you (WARNING: may be unsuitable for some viewers. Shows after-effects of Iraqi chemical weapons attack on its own citizens): http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html Saddam's regime could not possibly have popped up in a worse area of the world. This is the Middle East we are talking about, and the United States has a LOT of national interest in this area. You don't become a superpower because you can defend your own borders. Superpowers are WORLD players, not national players. We have interests in every part of the world, and we need those interests to maintain our position as superpower, and we have a market that depends on imports and other free markets in the world. If we stayed out of it, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue. They'd go try to take over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or fight more with Iran. Then we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism and assassination attempts. There are plenty of other anti-American regimes that have worse capabilities than Iraq. Take North Korea for instance. I see that you don't think the U.S. should get involved in world politics. I also see that you think the U.S. should just sit here, fix all of its own problems, and wait until another World War happens before it feels it must get involved in a conflict that seemingly does not involve us. However, that doesn't mean that the United States can afford to take such a stance if it wants to stay as a world power. There were terrorist attacks on the U.S. before Afghanistan or Iraq (have you forgotten the U.S.S. Cole or the Kenyan embassies?) There will be more terrorist attacks on our nation for as long as we are a super power, possibly even after that. To rely on a foolish hope that standing still in the middle of a highway will not get us hit by oncoming traffic is something that the United States cannot afford to do. The Middle East is an unstable region and does not need a Saddam-like regime in the mix right now. He has chemical weapons that he refuses to account for. He has broken his agreement to the Geneva protocols, the Iraq-U.S. ceasefire, dozens of U.N. mandates and resolutions, and the Arab coalition-Israel ceasefire. He has been in a constant state of offensive, oppressive war throughout his rule, and he has proven to be incapable of working with the international community. Diplomacy was never going to work with Iraq. We're dealing with a regime that cannot be trusted to uphold what it signs, and if a nation cannot be trusted and has a history of offensively striking other nations, exactly what good it it to any of its neighbors and the international community? North Korea is in a different, more stable region. China might not thoroughly enjoy that thorn in its side, and wouldn't necessarily mind if it were taken out, but it is of no real concern. I think North Korea is more irked about being labelled a member of the 'Axis of Evil' than anything really, truly anti-American in the first place. If the war in Iraq is over relatively quickly, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Bush administration didn't turn its eye towards North Korea. I'm not even going to go into Iran because I don't think they pose any kind of real threat to the region either (although that might be because I'm ignorant of some information concerning Iran). Iran will certainly be a little more squeamish and more compliant after the Iraq war. Iraq is a valid target regime for Bush's war on terror, whether I agree that such a war will stave off terrorism or not. That is my opinion. Thank you for your time, Iceburn
24.196.62.85
You say that a comparison between Germany and Iraq is a bad comparison? You say that Iraq is not an imminent threat? Was Germany in WW2 an imminent threat to the United States? Did Germany have the capability to invade the United States in 1939? 1941? 1945?
Message Thread:
« Back to thread