Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Also - you might want to look at Robert Byrd's record. He is the KING of pork barrel projects.

[Elvellon]

Wow, not much more to say, now .

[Erawyn]

He is the KING of pork barrel projects.

So therefore any opinions he might have are invalid?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Wow, not much more to say, now .

Actually I do - but it's hard to communicate with some with her head stuck in the ground.

The fact is that Resultion 1441 requires Hussein to comply unditionally or face severe consequences. He is not complying - even according to Hans Blix - so he's using another resolution as a door mat and France and Germany and the rest of the inept UN are letting him.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
So therefore any opinions he might have are invalid?

first off the economy is not that bad. It's in a wait and see attitude.

The economy was a bubble econmy which was created under the Clinton administation and had actually started to unravel in his last year of office. 9/11 did not help the situation after that and being in continuous fear of a terrorist attack is not helping the stock market.

But th unemployment rate of the US is only a little above 6% - the only reason why it sounds so much worse than it is - is because it was 4% before. Germany's unemployment rate however is 10.5% and the rest of Europe is only slightly below that.

In terms of the deficit - the deficit in terms of GDP of the United States is minor.

[Elvellon]

Actually I do - but it's hard to communicate with some with her head stuck in the ground

Well, I wasn't talking about you.
And Yes, I agree, you should try to come out of that hole in the ground more often

Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.

I should remind you that Slobodan Milosevic didn't attack any other countries. His attrocities could have been contained within his country possibly. We can never know. Maybe we should have waited longer to take action against him. Wait until he ACTUALLY attacked another country.

And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.

But the question was not that, I was rather curious that you being pro-active would like to sit waiting for Hitler to make his move, doesn’t seems very congruent.


Ah yes, Slobodan, actually, that was a reactive action. The argument used for war now was not what Saddan is doing but what he might do, not the same thing. But I do believe that there isn’t much to be add to this discussion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Well, I wasn't talking about you.
And Yes, I agree, you should try to come out of that hole in the ground more often

I don't have my head stuck in the ground. I have history to back me up on issues where IF we had taken PROACTIVE action - we could have saved millions and millions of lives.

And, if memory is right, you declared war to Japan and Germany declared war to you afterwards.

Japan actually declared war on us by attacking us.

But the question was not that, I was rather curious that you being pro-active would like to sit waiting for Hitler to make his move, doesn’t seems very congruent.

No it doesn't - but obviously you missed my point. Why should we have helped you with Germany - Germany didn't attack us. Maybe we should have just have contained him in Europe.

Ah yes, Slobodan, actually, that was a reactive action. The argument used for war now was not what Saddan is doing but what he might do, not the same thing. But I do believe that there isn’t much to be add to this discussion.

What was he doing to Europe or any other country other than his own? What country did he attack? I don't recall him moving tanks into Austria, Turkey, England, France, Germany or any other European country. We could have contained him and let him go on killing his own people - like Hussein does.

We went in there because we were afraid that it WOULD spill over into the rest Europe. In other words we acted PROACTIVELY. We should have acted far sooner though - we would have saved thousands of innocent lives.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

But he didn't. So your point is?

[BeardofPants]

Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that German was trying to ally with Mexico.

Germany found us a threat and where it saw a threat, it sought to eliminate. And anyway, Hitler didn't give that order. It was one of his officers, acting without authorization, as I recall.

And even if your point is meant to be extremely obvious, I'm afraid I still don't see it. Is your point that we had a reason to attack Germany because it was trying to attack us? I think that if that's your point, it's pretty lame, because it is obvious that Hitler was after world conquest. Our taking a passive stance to that war would have had disastrous effects upon the world, even though it didn't effect us quickly. Its effects would have been later on, when they came after us. But we saw the threat and attempted to neutralize it, even though Germany wasn't after America. Whatever way you look at it, whether you're saying in that fight we were reactive or the attackers, the situation still says something for not being reactive.

[BeardofPants]

Something like that.

http://www.disappearing-inc.com/Z/zi...ntelegram.html

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/sc...wwi/zimmer.htm



******

My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Only because it was blown out of the water by the British Code-Breakers. And I would have thought my point was excruciatingly obvious.

But he didn't and based on what everyone has been saying - we should not have attacked Germany - even if he was planning on attcking us through Mexico. We should have basically have waited until he attacked California, New Mexico, Arizona or Texas.

I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Our taking a passive stance to that war would have had disastrous effects upon the world, even though it didn't effect us quickly. Its effects would have been later on, when they came after us. But we saw the threat and attempted to neutralize it, even though Germany wasn't after America. Whatever way you look at it, whether you're saying in that fight we were reactive or the attackers, the situation still says something for not being reactive.

Which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and the Middle East.

[Lief Erikson]

I think BeardofPants is trying to make World War 2 useless as an example of successful proactive attack, based on the idea that we were acting entirely on self interest.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't know how your statement that Germany was planning on allying itself with Mexico supports your argument against proactive attack.

It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
My point is that the US would not have been able to pursue an isolationist policy.

And just like we couldn't sit back then and wait for something to happen - we can NOT just sit back now and wait for something to happen.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and the Middle East.

Yes.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think BeardofPants is trying to make World War 2 useless as an example of successful proactive attack, based on the idea that we were acting entirely on self interest.

I'll make this nice and simple. I wasn't making an argument on pro-active attacks. I was commenting on JD's comments that America should have just left Europe to it. Hence my bringing up the Mexican link. Got it yet?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
It's simple. I WASN'T arguing the pro-active argument. I was commenting on your isolationist arguments.

My isolationist arguments were SATIRICAL. I keep hearing everyone say that we should be reactive with Iraq than proactive - I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that is. Sorry you missed the satire in it all.