Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

cicerone imposter wrote:

Germany threatened our economic interests, not only our merchant ships. What was the US supposed to do? Not react to assist our allies?

Funny, that, since you think nothing of the UK assisting the US in Iraq.

Has the UK declared itself neutral in the war with Iraq?

0 Replies

Ofcoarse not! What a silly q.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

xingu wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
xingu wrote:
So it's OK for Germany to attack and kill Americans and their ships with submarines but not land and air forces.

Submarines don't count in your world.

In this case,no they dont.
We were using our ships and our merchant fleet to send war material to England and the Soviet Union.
That violated our statement of neutrality.
That made our ships fair game for attack by German submarines.

You said; "Germany NEVER attacked us."

Wrong, they did attack us. They attacked our merchant and military ships. That is an attack on America.

They attacked because we were violating out neutrality and supplying their enemies.
That is totally allowed within the rules of war,and an attack we brought on ourselves.

Why do you seem to be ignoring the fact that we violated our own neutrality by supplying the Brits and the Soviets.

We cant be neutral if we are supplying arms and equipment to either side of a conflict.

OKAY, we get your point that Germany was within their moral rights to attack us. But, that position doesn't square with your comment that Germany 'didn't attack us' prior to Pearl Harbor.

You are contradicting your earlier stated position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

You are ignoring the part about us declaring neutrality in WW2,then using our ships to aid one side.
That was not the act of a neutral nation.

Mhm.

In that case, you seem to be saying that Pearl Harbor was just a reaction to Lend-Lease, started in March 1941, and supplying Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material.

So the United States declared neutrality, but supplied Japan's enemy with war material. Japan didn't initiate hostilities by attacking Pearl Harbor, but merely reacted - with a nine months delay - to the American aggression.

Right?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ofcoarse not! What a silly q.

Then there is nothing wrong or "illegal" about them assisting us.

If they had declared themselves neutral,like we did in 1939,then I would have a problem with the UK being in Iraq or providing any type of logistical or military aid of any kind,to either side.

0 Replies

Well, I suppose, since we had the moral right to attack the USA - that didn't really count as an attack.

0 Replies

Quote:

OKAY, we get your point that Germany was within their moral rights to attack us. But, that position doesn't square with your comment that Germany 'didn't attack us' prior to Pearl Harbor.

You are contradicting your earlier stated position.

No I'm not.
By attacking and sinking our merchant ships that were carrying war material to England and the Soviet Union,Germany was,in my mind,acting in self defense against an enemy power.
We were not a combatant at that time,but we were still wokring towards the military defeat of Germany.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
OKAY, we get your point that Germany was within their moral rights to attack us. But, that position doesn't square with your comment that Germany 'didn't attack us' prior to Pearl Harbor.

You are contradicting your earlier stated position.

No I'm not.
By attacking and sinking our merchant ships that were carrying war material to England and the Soviet Union,Germany was,in my mind,acting in self defense against an enemy power.
We were not a combatant at that time,but we were still wokring towards the military defeat of Germany.

Mere splitting of hairs. If we were supplying Israel, who went to war with Iran, and Iran sank our merchant ships, you damn well know we would consider that an 'attack.'

Can we do away with this ridiculous side-step, and address the fact that you haven't really thought about the consequences of 'total war' in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
OKAY, we get your point that Germany was within their moral rights to attack us. But, that position doesn't square with your comment that Germany 'didn't attack us' prior to Pearl Harbor.

You are contradicting your earlier stated position.

No I'm not.
By attacking and sinking our merchant ships that were carrying war material to England and the Soviet Union,Germany was,in my mind,acting in self defense against an enemy power.
We were not a combatant at that time,but we were still wokring towards the military defeat of Germany.

But Germany wasn't attacking and sinking merchant ships that were delivering material to England or the Soviet Union.

German submarines were attacking and/or sinking

- an unarmed American freighter, 950 miles off the coast of Brazil
- an American destroyer, killing 11 sailors
- an American Clemson-class destroyer, killing 115 crew members

Then, Germany declared war on America.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
OKAY, we get your point that Germany was within their moral rights to attack us. But, that position doesn't square with your comment that Germany 'didn't attack us' prior to Pearl Harbor.

You are contradicting your earlier stated position.

No I'm not.
By attacking and sinking our merchant ships that were carrying war material to England and the Soviet Union,Germany was,in my mind,acting in self defense against an enemy power.
We were not a combatant at that time,but we were still wokring towards the military defeat of Germany.

Mere splitting of hairs. If we were supplying Israel, who went to war with Iran, and Iran sank our merchant ships, you damn well know we would consider that an 'attack.'

Can we do away with this ridiculous side-step, and address the fact that you haven't really thought about the consequences of 'total war' in Iraq?

Cycloptichorn

It would be an attack IF we had declared our neutrality.
That seems to be the point you are missing.
By declaring neutrality,then violating it,that declaration becomes null and void.

Why are you ignoring that part.

As for total war,it worked against Germany and Japan,and is still the best way to defeat your enemy.
By breaking their will to fight,and by totally destroying their cities,it quickly forces the enemy to capitulate.

0 Replies

Quote:

As for total war,it worked against Germany and Japan,and is still the best way to defeat your enemy.
By breaking their will to fight,and by totally destroying their cities,it quickly forces the enemy to capitulate.

Okay, I'm going to ignore the other foolishness and concentrate on this.

You can't seem to understand that we are facing a fundamentally different type of enemy here then in WW2. There are no conventional armies up against us which are supported by the populace. No war machine. There's not even any good way to know who the 'enemies' are.

Did you forget that Iraq didn't attack us? That unlike Japan and Germany - highly industrialized, united populations in an expansionary mode - the population of Iraq didn't support its' government? There was no 'will to fight.' You are completely making a false analogy. There is no real analogue to Germany and Japan present in Iraq.

Tell me, do you deny that we beat the Iraqi forces in just a week or two? What do you suggest we should have done then - start bombing the towns and small cities into submission?

I really am shocked at how badly you misunderstand the situation, and the differences between WW2 and now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Tell me, do you deny that we beat the Iraqi forces in just a week or two? What do you suggest we should have done then - start bombing the towns and small cities into submission?

I was there,I know how fast we beat them.
We should have bombed the cities where the insurgents are from into submission.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Tell me, do you deny that we beat the Iraqi forces in just a week or two? What do you suggest we should have done then - start bombing the towns and small cities into submission?

I was there,I know how fast we beat them.
We should have bombed the cities where the insurgents are from into submission.

The insurgents are from every city in Iraq, including Baghdad.

Just for clarity, I'll ask again: you think we should have bombed to pieces every city in Iraq, including Baghdad? You think we should start doing that now?

Let me tell you, what do you think the after-effects of displacing 20+ million of these people would be?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

We should have bombed the cities where the insurgents are from into submission.

Really? What if the terrorists withdraw (assuming they don't give a sh!t about those Iraqi cities) to another country? Maybe to Pakistan?

Are you saying that the US should wage "total war" against Pakistan, and bomb those cities to tiny bits?

And what, then, if the terrorists withdraw from Pakistan (assuming they can't be bothered about what actually happens to those Pakistani cities)...................

0 Replies

Total war means the total subordination of politics [and citizens] to the war.
(Besides the aim of total victory [or total defeat as the other possibilty])

I doubt that even in the beginning you could have had much support for that in the USA.

0 Replies

Walter, But that's how extremists think; it doesn't matter how many innocents are killed or maimed; it's the "winning" that counts. They just don't understand or realize the consequences of our actions.

0 Replies

Well, c.i., I don't think that MM ever read Ludendorff (or Clausewitz, though the latter more described an "absolute war").

0 Replies

So we are supposed to fight wars to lose now? I did think that winning mattered? Are you guys saying it doesn't?

Was Harry Truman wrong?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So we are supposed to fight wars to lose now? I did think that winning mattered? Are you guys saying it doesn't?

There are things that matter more then winning, such as, not being genocidal butchers who flatten cities full of innocent people.

I know that's tough for you Republicans to understand, but hey. That's the way things are these days - we actually care about killing civilians now. I know that deep down, most of you Conservatives wish we'd return to the days when people's lives just didn't matter as much as winning.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You didn't answer my last question. Was Harry Truman wrong then?

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know