|
|
| Author |
Message |
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
 Posted: 08/18/04 - 17:21 Post subject: Interesting.
|
|
|
| CNN wrote: |
LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) -- A top Republican congressman has broken from his party in the final days of his House career, saying he believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified and the situation there has deteriorated into "a dangerous, costly mess."
"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Rep. Doug Bereuter wrote in a letter to his constituents.
"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.
Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is stepping down after 13 terms to become the president of the Asia Foundation effective September 1.
The letter, sent to constituents who have contacted him about the war, was reported by the Lincoln Journal Star in its Wednesday editions.
In 2002, Bereuter had spoken out in support of a House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.
President Bush has continued to argue the war was justified because Saddam represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.
In addition to "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence," Bereuter said the Bush administration made several other errors in going to war despite warnings about the consequences.
"From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force," he said. "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Bereuter said as a result of the war, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."
Lincoln City Council member Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican, is facing off against Democratic state Sen. Matt Connealy to replace Bereuter said.
Bereuter declined to answer questions Wednesday about the letter. His spokesman Alan Feyerherm said the congressman "feels the letter speaks for itself."
|
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq.ap/index.html
A leftist traitor, no doubt.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 17:24 Post subject: Re: Interesting.
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | A leftist traitor, no doubt. |
Truly. Even Kerry said that he would have gone in had he been president.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 17:33 Post subject: Re: Interesting.
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | A leftist traitor, no doubt. |
Truly. Even Kerry said that he would have gone in had he been president. |
Kerry said he probably would have gone in, knowing what we knew then. This guy would probably say the same thing.
What he is saying now, is that in light of what we now know, he feels it was a mistake, and that there is still unknown information out there.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 17:41 Post subject: Re: Interesting.
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | A leftist traitor, no doubt. |
Truly. Even Kerry said that he would have gone in had he been president. |
Kerry said he probably would have gone in, knowing what we knew then. This guy would probably say the same thing.
What he is saying now, is that in light of what we now know, he feels it was a mistake, and that there is still unknown information out there. |
Yes. And we all know it's good practice to make decisions based on what we'll know in the future. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 18:13 Post subject: Re: Interesting.
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | A leftist traitor, no doubt. |
Truly. Even Kerry said that he would have gone in had he been president. |
Kerry said he probably would have gone in, knowing what we knew then. This guy would probably say the same thing.
What he is saying now, is that in light of what we now know, he feels it was a mistake, and that there is still unknown information out there. |
Yes. And we all know it's good practice to make decisions based on what we'll know in the future. |
No. But it is good practice to come to grips with a tumultuous past, instead of trying to gloss over it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 18:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Hey, I would rather have the terrorists coming to Iraq, so our military can kick their ass...instead of the terrorists coming to the US and killing our civilians. But I'm sure you Kerry supporters don't feel that way. Bet you would love for the terrorists to come kill all the Republicans in the US...no???
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Abi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 1747
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 18:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
SO what he's basically saying is he disagrees with the President's stance that even though we were given faulty info, it was still a good idea to go into Iraq for various other reasons.
Personally I disagree.. Call me a war monger but I fully believe the world is a MUCH safer place now than before Iraq.
Does it suck that our intel was so s****y? f**k yea it does and it NEEDS to be fixed.
If I could turn back time and know then what I know now would I still be in favor of the war? You bet your combat boots I would!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am sure there are many on both sides who agree with this man. I don't.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 22:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Abi wrote: |
Personally I disagree.. Call me a war monger but I fully believe the world is a MUCH safer place now than before Iraq. |
What makes you think that?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nictathan
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 5531
Location: here... where I am... not with you
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 22:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
Hindsight is 20/20...
Learn from it and if you don't feel that Bush did a good job don't vote for him... quite simple really.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 22:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't believe in second guessing decisions once the facts are in. I've said several times that I think it's stupid that Bush's popularity goes down when the war is going badly. If you agreed with the decision when he made it, you should still agree with it even if things go badly. He's can't read the future. On the other hand, I didn't agree with the decision at the time, and various government reports notwithstanding, I think the White House influenced the intelligence provided by the CIA.
And I strongly believe the world is less safe now. Iraq has become the world training ground for terrorists, and by causing all Moslem countries to fear that we'll invade them we've radicalized a lot of their middle of the road citizens and provided a cause celebre. The world will never again in my lifetime be as safe as it was during the 1990s.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 22:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Abi wrote: | SO what he's basically saying is he disagrees with the President's stance that even though we were given faulty info, it was still a good idea to go into Iraq for various other reasons.
Personally I disagree.. Call me a war monger but I fully believe the world is a MUCH safer place now than before Iraq.
Does it suck that our intel was so s****y? f**k yea it does and it NEEDS to be fixed.
If I could turn back time and know then what I know now would I still be in favor of the war? You bet your combat boots I would!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am sure there are many on both sides who agree with this man. I don't. |
Abi... the intel was s****y... and they knew it was s****y. That didn't stop them.
Given what they knew then... YES, god dammit, it seemed like a good idea.
But, NOW, facts have come to light which were previously shrouded from sight. The refusal to acknowledge this by members of the Administration is... unconscionable.
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
Given this radical departure from accepted, tested, and sound foreign policy, the least that should have been done was a thorough check of whether it was justified.
On all accounts, this was not the case - and the most damning facet of this? There was not an attempt made to do so. It just was not considered "necessary".
Nobody can change the past. However, a true leader will acknowledge the past, learn from it, and apply that knowledge to the future. This has not occurred.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 22:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
Another thing.
Do those of you who say "Better to have terrorists in Iraq than in the U.S." actually believe that al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are carrying out operations in Iraq at the expense of doing so within the U.S.?
If so that is a naive belief in the extreme. For what other reason would Tom Ridge be handing out terror alerts? Next thing you know, people will be saying Muqtada al-Sadr is really in cahoots with Bin Laden.
Terrorism is based on a fundamental principle, and that is human psychology. Terrorists have neither the personnel nor the equipment to conduct operations on an extended basis. The planning that was required for 9/11 is evidence of this.
A swift surgical strike, designed for maximum psychological impact on a population is the mission of terror. Invading other countries will not impede this mission, nor will it make it harder for terrorists to carry it out. Why? Because terrorism is fueled by hatred and by jealousy. Invading other countries logically leads only to an increase in both of these factors within those who would already be so disposed in their attitudes.
The idea of a physical protection against terrorism is in the same vein of thinking as the Maginot line. We know how that turned out.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Obmar
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1934
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 23:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
everyone knows we went in because Bush had an agenda and it sure as hell wasn't al queda or wmd...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/18/04 - 23:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Obmar wrote: | | everyone knows we went in because Bush had an agenda and it sure as hell wasn't al queda or wmd... |
I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe it was purely selfishly motivated. I do believe there was a desire for conflict that overrode common sense.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 00:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | Yeah, I don't believe in second guessing decisions once the facts are in. I've said several times that I think it's stupid that Bush's popularity goes down when the war is going badly. If you agreed with the decision when he made it, you should still agree with it even if things go badly. He's can't read the future. On the other hand, I didn't agree with the decision at the time, and various government reports notwithstanding, I think the White House influenced the intelligence provided by the CIA.
And I strongly believe the world is less safe now. Iraq has become the world training ground for terrorists, and by causing all Moslem countries to fear that we'll invade them we've radicalized a lot of their middle of the road citizens and provided a cause celebre. The world will never again in my lifetime be as safe as it was during the 1990s. |
Wow, its amazing how dumb you are.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 13:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 14:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Fabulez wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though. |
Yeah, I don't remember Panama attacking the US 15 years ago. I didn't know that Germany attacked the US in WWII either...Or WWI...I didn't know Vietnam attacked the US in the 60's...Or that Grenada attacked the US in the 80's...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Dyers
Sir Postalot
Joined: 26 Oct 2002
Posts: 1269
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 14:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
We need to beat down Syria next and get the wmd's that were shipped over there from iraq. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 15:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dyers wrote: | | We need to beat down Syria next and get the wmd's that were shipped over there from iraq. |
Iran too....thats on the table in the next months/years....
No matter who is president they will have to bomb directly or let Isreal do it.
yup, NO doubt about it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 16:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though. |
Yeah, I don't remember Panama attacking the US 15 years ago. I didn't know that Germany attacked the US in WWII either...Or WWI...I didn't know Vietnam attacked the US in the 60's...Or that Grenada attacked the US in the 80's... |
WWI and WWII were not pre-emptive engagements, in both cases the United States was the final major power to enter the war.
In Vietnam the role of the United States was ostensibly as an advising force to the sovereign nation of South Vietnam.
In all of those cases, the U.S. did not engage in a prolonged conflict with the aim of removing the sovereignty of the nation.
On Grenada:
| Quote: | | In the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. The initial assault consisted of some 1,200 troops, and they were met by stiff resistance from the Grenadian army and Cuban military units on the island. Heavy fighting continued for several days, but as the invasion force grew to more than 7,000, the defenders either surrendered or fled into the mountains. Scattered fighting continued as U.S. troops hunted down stragglers, but for the most part, the island quickly fell under American control. By mid-December, U.S. combat forces went home and a pro-American government took power. |
This is not comparable to Iraq.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 16:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though. |
Yeah, I don't remember Panama attacking the US 15 years ago. I didn't know that Germany attacked the US in WWII either...Or WWI...I didn't know Vietnam attacked the US in the 60's...Or that Grenada attacked the US in the 80's... |
WWI and WWII were not pre-emptive engagements, in both cases the United States was the final major power to enter the war.
In Vietnam the role of the United States was ostensibly as an advising force to the sovereign nation of South Vietnam.
In all of those cases, the U.S. did not engage in a prolonged conflict with the aim of removing the sovereignty of the nation.
On Grenada:
| Quote: | | In the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. The initial assault consisted of some 1,200 troops, and they were met by stiff resistance from the Grenadian army and Cuban military units on the island. Heavy fighting continued for several days, but as the invasion force grew to more than 7,000, the defenders either surrendered or fled into the mountains. Scattered fighting continued as U.S. troops hunted down stragglers, but for the most part, the island quickly fell under American control. By mid-December, U.S. combat forces went home and a pro-American government took power. |
This is not comparable to Iraq. |
Wrong on all 4 counts.
WW1 and WW2 were both preemptive. The US was attacked only by the japanese during WWII (not by the European Axis). The US preemtively declared war on both occasions
Operation Just Cause resulted in 24 American fatalities (which is near the total amount suffered in the invasion of Iraq and required a substantial fighting force. It was not as large as Iraq, but presented a nearly identical situation. Panama presented no aggression to the United States other than having a corrupt and ruthless dictator at its head (sound familiar?)
Vietnam began as an advisory force but quickly escalated into an aggressive conflict much greater in scope than Iraq.
The first Iraq conflict was prompted by Iraqi aggression...but not against the US.
Grenada was also smaller in scope than Iraq, but since Vietnam was larger, your argument fails. Iraq is unique in many ways (as is every war) but you need to apply the same level of comparison across the spectrum of wars. If you want to dismiss Grenada for being too small, then you can't dismiss Vietnam.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though. |
Yeah, I don't remember Panama attacking the US 15 years ago. I didn't know that Germany attacked the US in WWII either...Or WWI...I didn't know Vietnam attacked the US in the 60's...Or that Grenada attacked the US in the 80's... |
WWI and WWII were not pre-emptive engagements, in both cases the United States was the final major power to enter the war.
In Vietnam the role of the United States was ostensibly as an advising force to the sovereign nation of South Vietnam.
In all of those cases, the U.S. did not engage in a prolonged conflict with the aim of removing the sovereignty of the nation.
On Grenada:
| Quote: | | In the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. The initial assault consisted of some 1,200 troops, and they were met by stiff resistance from the Grenadian army and Cuban military units on the island. Heavy fighting continued for several days, but as the invasion force grew to more than 7,000, the defenders either surrendered or fled into the mountains. Scattered fighting continued as U.S. troops hunted down stragglers, but for the most part, the island quickly fell under American control. By mid-December, U.S. combat forces went home and a pro-American government took power. |
This is not comparable to Iraq. |
Wrong on all 4 counts.
WW1 and WW2 were both preemptive. The US was attacked only by the japanese during WWII (not by the European Axis). The US preemtively declared war on both occasions
Operation Just Cause resulted in 24 American fatalities (which is near the total amount suffered in the invasion of Iraq and required a substantial fighting force. It was not as large as Iraq, but presented a nearly identical situation. Panama presented no aggression to the United States other than having a corrupt and ruthless dictator at its head (sound familiar?)
Vietnam began as an advisory force but quickly escalated into an aggressive conflict much greater in scope than Iraq.
The first Iraq conflict was prompted by Iraqi aggression...but not against the US.
Grenada was also smaller in scope than Iraq, but since Vietnam was larger, your argument fails. Iraq is unique in many ways (as is every war) but you need to apply the same level of comparison across the spectrum of wars. If you want to dismiss Grenada for being too small, then you can't dismiss Vietnam. |
| Quote: | U.S. Declaration of War Against Germany
War Message of the President (Roosevelt) to the Congress, Dec. 11, 1941
"To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world
conquest, declared war against the United States.
The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere.
Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization.
Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all the peoples of the world who are
determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.
Italy also has declared war against the United States.
I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and
Germany and between the United States and Italy.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
THE WHITE HOUSE, "December 11, 1941."
(Documents on American Foreign Relations, vol. IV, 1941 / 1942. p. 121. World Peace Foundation, 1942)
|
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/ga3-411211.htm
| Confused wrote: | | WW1 and WW2 were both preemptive. The US was attacked only by the japanese during WWII (not by the European Axis). The US preemtively declared war on both occasions |
Flat wrong. See above.
In every case you have shown exactly the difference between the situations you listed and the one we created in Iraq today. That is, a prompt existed. In this case, a prompt was created. Not to mention the fact that we did not go into any of those other conflicts with the aim of assuming sovereignty ourselves, if only temporarily.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
The simple fact of the Iraq war that many people fail to grasp is that it was a fundamental departure from the foreign policy of this nation for the past 225+ years. The U.S. has NEVER engaged in pre-emptive conflict.
|
Not true. This is the first time that we have openly acknowledged it, though. |
Yeah, I don't remember Panama attacking the US 15 years ago. I didn't know that Germany attacked the US in WWII either...Or WWI...I didn't know Vietnam attacked the US in the 60's...Or that Grenada attacked the US in the 80's... |
WWI and WWII were not pre-emptive engagements, in both cases the United States was the final major power to enter the war.
In Vietnam the role of the United States was ostensibly as an advising force to the sovereign nation of South Vietnam.
In all of those cases, the U.S. did not engage in a prolonged conflict with the aim of removing the sovereignty of the nation.
On Grenada:
| Quote: | | In the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. The initial assault consisted of some 1,200 troops, and they were met by stiff resistance from the Grenadian army and Cuban military units on the island. Heavy fighting continued for several days, but as the invasion force grew to more than 7,000, the defenders either surrendered or fled into the mountains. Scattered fighting continued as U.S. troops hunted down stragglers, but for the most part, the island quickly fell under American control. By mid-December, U.S. combat forces went home and a pro-American government took power. |
This is not comparable to Iraq. |
Wrong on all 4 counts.
WW1 and WW2 were both preemptive. The US was attacked only by the japanese during WWII (not by the European Axis). The US preemtively declared war on both occasions
Operation Just Cause resulted in 24 American fatalities (which is near the total amount suffered in the invasion of Iraq and required a substantial fighting force. It was not as large as Iraq, but presented a nearly identical situation. Panama presented no aggression to the United States other than having a corrupt and ruthless dictator at its head (sound familiar?)
Vietnam began as an advisory force but quickly escalated into an aggressive conflict much greater in scope than Iraq.
The first Iraq conflict was prompted by Iraqi aggression...but not against the US.
Grenada was also smaller in scope than Iraq, but since Vietnam was larger, your argument fails. Iraq is unique in many ways (as is every war) but you need to apply the same level of comparison across the spectrum of wars. If you want to dismiss Grenada for being too small, then you can't dismiss Vietnam. |
| Quote: | U.S. Declaration of War Against Germany
War Message of the President (Roosevelt) to the Congress, Dec. 11, 1941
"To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world
conquest, declared war against the United States.
The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere.
Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization.
Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all the peoples of the world who are
determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.
Italy also has declared war against the United States.
I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and
Germany and between the United States and Italy.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
THE WHITE HOUSE, "December 11, 1941."
(Documents on American Foreign Relations, vol. IV, 1941 / 1942. p. 121. World Peace Foundation, 1942)
|
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/ga3-411211.htm
| Confused wrote: | | WW1 and WW2 were both preemptive. The US was attacked only by the japanese during WWII (not by the European Axis). The US preemtively declared war on both occasions |
Flat wrong. See above.
In every case you have shown exactly the difference between the situations you listed and the one we created in Iraq today. That is, a prompt existed. In this case, a prompt was created. Not to mention the fact that we did not go into any of those other conflicts with the aim of assuming sovereignty ourselves, if only temporarily. |
Actually Germany declared war against the US because they recognized the US was gearing up for war against them. And neither Germany nor Italy had engaged in any aggressive acts against the US, so really nothing prompted war except Roosevelt's eagerness to enter it. Iraq attempted to assassinate the president. Isn't that an act of war? As for the rest...How did Panama warrant an invasion? They took no actions against the US. Neither did Grenada or North Vietnam. You have an obvious agenda and you're ignoring history. Retract your claim that the US has never preemtively invaded another country or forever be branded a fool.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Actually Germany declared war against the US because they recognized the US was gearing up for war against them. |
So you're saying Germany attacking the US was a precedent for pre-emptive war? It all makes sense now. So we're no worse than them. I guess you find that slightly comforting?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Actually Germany declared war against the US because they recognized the US was gearing up for war against them. |
So you're saying Germany attacking the US was a precedent for pre-emptive war? It all makes sense now. So we're no worse than them. I guess you find that slightly comforting? |
What the f**k are you talking about? Learn to read. Germany never attacked the US prior to our declaration of war against them. We attacked them. That's my point. Rennol is erroneously trying to establish that America has never invaded another nation without first being attacked. That is completely wrong.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frax
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8489
Location: Fuck yoiu fucking fuckers
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Actually the US was already an 'inactive participant' on the Brits side by shipping supplies and allowing pilots to go there to help out. I do believe more than a few US flagged merchant ships were sunk by U-Boats prior to Dec 7th, 1941. When I'm bored I'll find the stats on it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/19/04 - 17:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Actually Germany declared war against the US because they recognized the US was gearing up for war against them. |
So you're saying Germany attacking the US was a precedent for pre-emptive war? It all makes sense now. So we're no worse than them. I guess you find that slightly comforting? |
No, we are Americans, they were nazis.
That in and of itself puts us in a whole nother galaxy better than them.
But you don't see it that way...
Do you, you scumbag.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
