Originally Posted by Iriemon

We didn't need the Bush doctrine to have responded to Nazi Germany or Japan because those nations had violated the sovereignity of other nations by attacking and invading them. The invasion by one nation of another justifies a response, like the first Gulf war.

That's not the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine calls for the attack and invasion of another nation which has not attacked or violated the sovereignty of another nation, but based upon the proclamation that the nation represents a threat to the US or is supporting terrorists. That is why the administration made such a big deal misleading us about Iraq's WMD and relationship with Al-Queda -- neither which was true, but both designed to show that Iraq represented an "urgent threat" to the United States justifying invasion per the Bush doctrine.

That's the difference. That is the same grounds upon which Germany justified attacking Poland and Russia attacking Georgia. Under the rule of the Bush doctrine, both those actions were legitimate actions.

Originally Posted by John1234

So aside from us, which country is acting up like Germany from WW2?

We are the only people that I am aware of who are bent on Global Domination.

Because our policy is that we will use Nuclear Weapons to prevent heavy troop casualties abroad, we also can not lose any war short of a conflict with Russia or China.

The only thing stopping us from a massive crusade is internal politics.
I do not like everything the left stands for, but they sure are saving our ass right now.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

You call it Global Domination. I call it common sense.

Originally Posted by John1234

Wow I am speechless.
I think you were born to the wrong Nation and during the wrong era.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

Poland was not a threat to Germany.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

O.K. so send the troops home and live in your apple pie, white picket fence American Utopia and let's see what happens out there in the real world without American leadership. You call it Global Domination. I call it common sense.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Based on whose determination?



Based on whose determination?

If the rule is that one nation has the right to pre-emptively attack another based upon that nation's claim that the other represented a threat to it, then Germany's invasion of Poland was just as justified as the US attack on Iraq. In both cases the attacking nation claimed that the other threatened it.



Hussein never had any indication of wanting a holy war. He was not a relgious fanatic. His first minister was a Christian. Islamic holy warriors generally don't have "crusaders" as their top ministers, to my knowledge.

He did have a goal of increasing Iraq's power and influence which was the goal of the wars he started in both Iran and Kuwait, in both case with the implicit approval or lack of clear signal from the US government. In both cases, a response by the international community was justified. We did that with Kuwait because it was in our interest. We didn't do it with Iran because it wasn't.



I've previously stated that when Japan and Germany embarked on unjustified (at least under my moral code, though not your rule) invasions of neighboring countries, reaction by other nations is justified. The "Bush doctrine" was not a necessary policy for the US to have joined Britain, France and Canada in reacting to Germany and Japan.



Yes, because it gives one nation an excuse to attack another nation when that nation has done nothing to warrant the attack.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

Based on whose determination?



England had a right to intervene because Germany attacked another nation, I've already said that.

You propose the rule: The "pro-active, making assumptions now doctrine". If that is the rule then Germany's invasion of Poland was legitimate because it was a pro-active, making assumption now rationale they used.

For months prior to the 1939 invasion German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler accused Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.[6][7]

On the day following the Gleiwitz attack, 1 September 1939, Germany launched the Fall Weiss operation — the invasion of Poland — initiating World War II in Europe. On the same day, in a speech in the Reichstag, Adolf Hitler cited the 21 border incidents, with three of them called very serious, as justification for Germany's "defensive" action against Poland.

Gleiwitz incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was of course it was later learned to have been all staged and fabricated. Germany's claim that Poland had conducted these incidents was a fabrication. There were no incidents.

But if the rule is that one nation has the right to attack another based on "pro-active, making assumptions now doctrine" Germany stated a legitimate case.



Hussine didn't invade Kuwait in 2003, hadn't fired missles at Israel in 2003. Those were legitimate reasons for intervention when those actions occurred. I've said that too.



So now the rule is it's ok to attack another nation based on the pro-active, making assumptions now doctrine only if the claim is presented to an international body? What if the international body says "nine"?



Is this just might makes right? It was OK for Germany to attack Poland as long as it was able to back it up? If it had won WWII its attack on Poland would have been legitimate?



No, but he wasn't fantazing about a holy war in the Middle east. Taking down Hussein did not strike a blow to radical Islam; instead it fueled it.



Being proactive doesn't mean the right to invade another nation based upon assumptions.

And no, I don't believe Hussein did anything justifying an invasion of Iraq in March 2003. He hadn't attacked another nation, been involved in a terrorist attack or harbored terrorists who attacked us. Iraq had responded to requests denying they had WMDs. They were destroying their missles. He had backed down and let inspectors into his country, who were looking in all the places our sources claimed there were WMD, nothing was found.

Hussein was not the smartest guy, no doubt. He maintained a style of bravado and was not as forthright as he should have been, in part because he thought it improved his image and in part because he was trying to bluff the Iranians. He underestimated the prior resolve of the neocons and Bush adminsitration to attack his country. But that did not justify an invasion by the US, or the huge cost associated with it.