 
|
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/12/04 - 10:50 Post subject:
| nolefan85 wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: |
We have been fighting the war on terror for many years. FDR launched a preemptive attack on Germany to enter us into WW2. |
Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941 --
Overview and Special Image Selection
The 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was one of the great defining moments in history. A single carefully-planned and well-executed stroke removed the United States Navy's battleship force as a possible threat to the Japanese Empire's southward expansion. America, unprepared and now considerably weakened, was abruptly brought into the Second World War as a full combatant
Did I miss something in my World History classes or what?
I could have sworn that the Japanese led a preemptive strike on us first on 07.Dec.41
which led to our involvement into WWll. 
What were we to do?
Sit and let them strike again?
Here's what FDR had to say 08.Dec.41 in his speech to Congress.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/infamy.htm |
I think the point is that we attacked Germany after Japan had attacked us. The difference between all of these attacks and the attack on Pearl Harbor was that there was fair warning. When Japan planned their attack on Pearl Harbor, we were still in dispute talks with Japan..................................Iraq had fair warning.....just has Germany could have guessed that once we declared war on Japan that it would mean that we would aid our Allies as well in Europe.
I think the word "preemptive" is not the right word. It isn't like Pearl Harbor, where America was literally minding it's own business......or is it?????????? We actually were aiding on the sly to England, we weren't in WWII in the beginning because we didn't have the equipment....but we were supplying pilots to the RAF. So I guess it could be argued that FDR "did" in fact lead a preemptive strike against Germany.....and we weren't so innocently out of the loop when Japan attacked us.
...but, and there is a point I want to make. Although America felt the surprise attack was terrible and Japan thought dropping the bomb was just as bad....it terms of years....it didn't really take long for the countries to become friendly again. Same generation in some cases. I saw a program that one of the Japanese pilots is living in the US and is good friends with a Naval shipman that he bombed.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 10:56 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
I honestly don't care if a President leans left, or right, or how far he does so in either direction. If we're just talking about taking the nation into war, the question always remains: Was this war justified? |
 Of course (and this is just me adding on, not addressing you Pug) I also think no one but the President (and other heads of State) have such a tremendous burden and I truly believe, perhaps naivelly, that President Bush, or any other president has led us into war without good reason. For me, the question now is if we truly have a problem with our intelligence. One of the deciding factors for me was when President Clinton stated that his administration had the same intelligence. I didn't get the impression that the current president was trying to bend the information to fit his agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 11:52 Post subject:
| kattzoo wrote: | | Pug wrote: |
I honestly don't care if a President leans left, or right, or how far he does so in either direction. If we're just talking about taking the nation into war, the question always remains: Was this war justified? |
Of course (and this is just me adding on, not addressing you Pug) I also think no one but the President (and other heads of State) have such a tremendous burden and I truly believe, perhaps naivelly, that President Bush, or any other president has led us into war without good reason. For me, the question now is if we truly have a problem with our intelligence. One of the deciding factors for me was when President Clinton stated that his administration had the same intelligence. I didn't get the impression that the current president was trying to bend the information to fit his agenda. |
I agree.....but the problem with intelligence, is that the whole idea is not really too ethical to begin with and agents have to do business and make deals with the scum of the earth....to get info on some of the other scums. It's a nasty business, and I think sometimes it's hard for presidents to free themselves from the dirty side of it and therefore we've become soft....rather than government officials exposing themselves to the "nasty" side of the business.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 11:53 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | The Nazi Regime was doing its best to exterminate a race of people (plus gypsies, homosexuals and political dissidents) and the Shoah was one of the darker stains on humanity in the 20th Century. |
It's okay, Pug. You needn't go soft on the Nazis...the Holocaust has its place in all of mankind's history. You don't have to limit it to the 20th century.
| Pug wrote: | | Our shame is just that it took us as long as it did to get involved in that war. |
For some interesting reading, try a book by Richard Breitman, Official Secrets. It's about American and British intercept of Nazi communications, beginning in 1939.
| Pug wrote: | | Korea? I don't know. This is one of the wars that i don't know enough about to have a meaningful opinion. |
It was similar to Vietnam. Kim Il Sung (N. Korean premier) wanted to reunify the country, which was split between a Communist North and a democratic South. June 1950- conventional warfare began when the North moved through through S. Korea/Seoul and by the end of June, were surrounding Pusan. Early fall of 1950 - MacArthur lands troops at Inchon, fought east and cut the North's supply line, and the rout was on. The Soviets would have liked a piece of the action because it would allow them warm water ports. The North wasn't keen on it. China was more accomodating and jumped in on the North's side. Lots of bang-banging for the next couple of years. Treaty signed in '53.
| Pug wrote: | | Vietnam? There was the fear that if the United States allowed Communism to take a foothold in Vietnam, it would only continue to spread in the region. |
It was called the domino theory. One country after the other would fall to Communism. 20/20 hindsight is pretty sharp. I haven't checked, but since May of '75, I don't think it's happened...no spread of the Red Menace.
| Pug wrote: | | Bosnia? Again, i don't know. I know just about as much about Bosnia as i do about Korea. |
Funny thing about Bosnia - the U.S./U.N. forces went in to stop the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. Imagine that. We go into Bosnia-Herzegovina to stop the killing of Muslims but this past year? Lots of Muslims killed by American bombs. I guess it doesn't pay to speak Arabic. On the other hand, Serbo-Croatian can be very, very useful. If you spoke Serbo-Croatian, you'd be able to follow "Behind Enemy Lines" better!
| Pug wrote: | | Was this war justified? |
Sure it was. Just ask someone in the current administration. The question that's harder to answer is: was the war necessary? Again, the kids in D.C. will tell you that it was. Time will only tell if it's going to be an effective end to terrorism. I'm going out on a limb and predict that it won't end it. It would be so much easier if those terrorists would wear uniforms and maintain some kind of organization. Conventional warfare isn't going to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 12:07 Post subject:
| kattzoo wrote: | | One of the deciding factors for me was when President Clinton stated that his administration had the same intelligence. I didn't get the impression that the current president was trying to bend the information to fit his agenda. |
Well, if you consider the admission by Bush & Co. that they were making plans for the ouster of Hussein shortly after gaining the office of President, you have to wonder.
Clinton has been accused of being soft on terrorism because he didn't act on the intelligence provided to him. Bush had the same intel and he's a conquering hero because he bombed the bejeezus out of Baghdad (dig that crazy alliteration!)...and captured Saddam!
All administrations have their own agendas. A stated aim of the current one is to eliminate terrorism. Noble, indeed. Kind of makes you wonder why we started with Afghanistan instead of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 12:07 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: |
| Pug wrote: | | Was this war justified? |
Sure it was. Just ask someone in the current administration. The question that's harder to answer is: was the war necessary? Again, the kids in D.C. will tell you that it was. Time will only tell if it's going to be an effective end to terrorism. I'm going out on a limb and predict that it won't end it. It would be so much easier if those terrorists would wear uniforms and maintain some kind of organization. Conventional warfare isn't going to get the job done. |
That't some good detail about Korea and Bosnia.
The trouble with rooting out terrorist is that we can eliminate every single member of Al Qaeda off the face of the earth. We can kill them all, kill their families, and kill every single person who accidently came into contact with Al Qaeda. But there are other terrorist organizations, other groups who have an agenda fueled by anger and hate, or even a desire to fix things in their own country, and there will always be someone willing to end their own life while committing a terrorist act. Terrorism is not attached to any one ideology that we can combat, nor is there a nation we can fight to defeat terrorism.
Besides, before 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on the United States was Oklahoma City. The Murrah building was bombed by a White American Male. Who do we combat?
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 12:44 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | kattzoo wrote: | | One of the deciding factors for me was when President Clinton stated that his administration had the same intelligence. I didn't get the impression that the current president was trying to bend the information to fit his agenda. |
Well, if you consider the admission by Bush & Co. that they were making plans for the ouster of Hussein shortly after gaining the office of President, you have to wonder.
Clinton has been accused of being soft on terrorism because he didn't act on the intelligence provided to him. Bush had the same intel and he's a conquering hero because he bombed the bejeezus out of Baghdad (dig that crazy alliteration!)...and captured Saddam!
All administrations have their own agendas. A stated aim of the current one is to eliminate terrorism. Noble, indeed. Kind of makes you wonder why we started with Afghanistan instead of Iraq. |
As I stated before, I don't think the president bent the info to suit his agenda, I didn't state that I don't believe he had one.
I think Clinton was soft on terrorism. Does that make him a bad president? No. I do think he helped create a belief among terrorists that the US wouldn't do much more than bomb a few almost empty buildings as a show of force.
I find it difficult to believe he came into office planning on taking out Iraq by launching a war. It will take more than one former insider to convince me of that. Then again, I'm not inclined to believe the worst case scenario about things. History may prove me wrong.
And Sue...excellent point.
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 12:57 Post subject:
Looks like John Kerry might be in for some trouble.
Can we say Gary Hart?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 12:58 Post subject:
| monk25 wrote: | Looks like John Kerry might be in for some trouble.
Can we say Gary Hart? |
Interesting...
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 17:10 Post subject:
| monk25 wrote: | Looks like John Kerry might be in for some trouble.
Can we say Gary Hart? |
Just curious, I've seen the drudge report mentioned a lot in various places, but have never paid much attention to it. Is it generally considered reliable, or is it politics version of the National Enq.?
I did see that Clark is endorsing Kerry. Interesting since his alleged comments about Kerry in the druge report Monk linked.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 17:27 Post subject:
| kattzoo wrote: | | As I stated before, I don't think the president bent the info to suit his agenda, I didn't state that I don't believe he had one. |
And I didn't say that I thought that any intel was bent. As far as having had an agenda, it's already been admitted. Okay, so maybe agenda isn't the word that precisely fits. Doesn't matter. Dubya's already admitted that plans were in the works for the ouster of Saddam Hussein once he'd been given the presidency. That should be cause for people to sit up and take notice. Had there not been an attack on this nation on 9/11/01, where would we be as far as the "war on terrorism?"
| kattzoo wrote: | | I think Clinton was soft on terrorism. Does that make him a bad president? No. I do think he helped create a belief among terrorists that the US wouldn't do much more than bomb a few almost empty buildings as a show of force. |
So, how far back in our history must we go in order to find a president who was "hard" on ( ! ) terrorism? It's not as if terrorists watched Clinton beat Bush, Sr. in that election and say, "Hey, now's our chance!" And as far as sending a message to terrorists, what has the deposing of Hussein accomplished? Maybe time will tell. Right now? You only need watch the news or read a paper. Terrorists are still at work in Baghdad. They don't seem to have been deterred. So the argument that Bush being tough on terrorism will stop it, well...at this time, it just isn't working. Of course, every time a suicide bomber strikes, that's one less terrorist. Kind of makes it important to get to them before they become terrorists. And maybe we shouldn't be looking to Israel for ways to stop them. I mean, gee, they've been so successful with the manner in which they've handled it.
| kattzoo wrote: | | I find it difficult to believe he came into office planning on taking out Iraq by launching a war. |
He didn't plan to take out Iraq. He was seeking a way to take out Saddam Hussein. That, in and of itself, was a good thing! Dubya got himself into a jam because he thought that the ends justified the means. Just think what the situation would be like if he'd only stated, "Saddam Hussein is an evil person and we - the United States - aren't going to tolerate it any longer." (And did anyone notice how the rest of the world clamored to assist us in the effort?) Hey, good enough for me. But to look at the intel and say, "Ye gods! W'sMD! We're doomed if we don't act now!" That's what has put the burr under the saddle of so many Americans. I don't know how many other people on this forum have ever had access to classified/special intelligence. But if you have had that access, you know that you can tilt the paper just a little and see the situation a bit differently.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 18:17 Post subject:
Sparks...I really agree with you more than not. So far I gather we both believe that everyone has an agenda, that there is no proof that Bush bent the intelligence, that Clinton, and other presidents have been soft on terrorism, that people can interpret things differently based on how they believe things.
For instance, I'm under the impression that you think I'm all for this war in Iraq. I became for it once it began because at that time there was no other choice. (and that's a whole other thread, or a PM)
I don't think there were too many people who honestly thought that any war would wipe out terrorism. Some just hope it slows it down and keeps it away from our shores. So far, so good, but that could all change in a second.
I always enjoy a good debate!! 
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 18:22 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | monk25 wrote: | Looks like John Kerry might be in for some trouble.
Can we say Gary Hart? |
Interesting... |
Hey, Slick Willie already set the precedent that it was OK for the President to screw around and lie about it, why should this affect Kerry any? 
Interestingly, according to this, which is not the only article I have read to this effect, the former Mrs. John Heinz is a real beeeyotch: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20040128.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/04 - 00:06 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | Funny thing about Bosnia - the U.S./U.N. forces went in to stop the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. Imagine that. We go into Bosnia-Herzegovina to stop the killing of Muslims but this past year? Lots of Muslims killed by American bombs. I guess it doesn't pay to speak Arabic. On the other hand, Serbo-Croatian can be very, very useful. If you spoke Serbo-Croatian, you'd be able to follow "Behind Enemy Lines" better! |
Funny thing about Iraq. The guy we removed from power killed ~ 2 million or so of his own folks. 
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/04 - 00:31 Post subject:
What color is the sky in your world msparks? Really. I don't want PH or the mods to lock this thread. But your view of the world events is really depressing. You must be a glass half empty type of person. Personally, I'm a glass-half full person.
The US has liberated two countries from horrible, horrible regimes (Iraq and Afgahanistan). We have routed the Taliban. Hammered al-Quida. We have done all of this work without another attack on American soil. We have covered more ground in Iraq with fewer casualties then any other US conflict in history. Lybia and Iran have nuclear inspectors in their countries as we speak.
Furthermore, the whole issue about Bush lying about WMD is a complete & absolute joke. He made informed decisions as our President based on the intelligence on hand at the given time. I can't believe there are folks out there that actually think Bush is evil enough to put our country at risk based on information he knew was faulty. The information may or may not prove ultimately to be faulty. But to think that Bush is lying about it, is a major, major stretch.
The left's intense hate of Bush is clouding their judgement. I guess they are still pissed that folks in Florida can't figure out how to punch their ballots. I may have to rethink my presidential ballot come Nov and vote for a Republican for the first time since W's father ran in 88.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
