Could this generation stomach the carnage of world war 2? - Page 5

bub · 05-13-08, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awesome!

Hundreds of thousands died in World War 2. Could this generation handle that, or would our country be too divided to make such a sacrifice now?

In 1994, when 10 Belgian UN-paracommandos were murdered in Rwanda, public opinion was so shocked that we made every Belgian blue helmet go back home. The other Western countries who were in Rwanda followed us. We'd let a million of African be murdered by other Africans rather than loosing our own soldiers.

The same has happened in Somalia, and also in Darfur.

I'm not sure about US public opinion, but here we are not ready to die for other's problems. That's not very heroic, but at least it's honnest. That's not our problem.

We're OK to send money (we send millions of € every year to Congo, for example, and the purpose of our C-130's is mainly to carry food to Africa I think), medical staffs, doctors, deminers, engineers to build shelters, pits or purify water...or even blue helmets (like in Kosovo, but only after the battle is over)...

...but we're not OK to send soldiers abroad to fight. Public opinion is strongly against it. And that's a diplomatic problem because the USA want us to help them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we have 4 F-16 in Afghanistan (but the minister of defense keeps telling us that they always fly high enough to avoid being shot at), we form policemen in Kosovo and in Congo, we have blue helmets in Lebanon, and a guy in Florida.

Maybe if we were attacked it would be different. But I'm from the new generation, I've not known communism, the cold war...I'm in the European Union and a war in Europe seems impossible.

Doc Howl · 05-13-08, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

I don't get your meaning. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but allowed him to go home to torment his people. If we find comfort in this behavior and do this for oil, than why can't we destroy the brute and install a democracy for oil?

Might as well try to do the right thing while we feed ourselves right?

A car-jacker probably uses the same sort of rationalization.

GySgt · 05-13-08, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

A car-jacker probably uses the same sort of rationalization.

Mmmm... and what does the stolen property do for the owner unless the car jacker is leaving a better car? Your analogy sucked.

There is no rationalization. This is fact and this is what occurred. Why was Hitler a dictator worth destroying, but Saddam a dictator worth preserving in '90?

Doc Howl · 05-13-08, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Mmmm... and what does the stolen property do for the owner unless the car jacker is leaving a better car? Your analogy sucked.

What have we done for Iraq? Besides turn the place into a smoking hole, I mean.

GySgt · 05-13-08, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

What have we done for Iraq? Besides turn the place into a smoking hole, I mean.

Let's not re-create the wheel of discussion. Iraq is in their hands and not in the hands of their dictator. What they do with it is up to them.

Doc Howl · 05-13-08, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Let's not re-create the wheel of discussion. Iraq is in their hands and not in the hands of their dictator. What they do with it is up to them.

Really? I seem to remember us outlawing more than one party in their elections.

Yep. In June 2003, the US-led occupation forces in Iraq banned the Ba'ath party, for example. Later, several religious parties were banned.

So they can do with it whatever they please, so long as they do what we want.

aegyptos · 05-13-08, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

So they can do with it whatever they please, so long as they do what we want.

Doesn't take long to find your pigeonhole around here.

independent_thinker2002 · 05-13-08, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

I don't get your meaning. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but allowed him to go home to torment his people. If we find comfort in this behavior and do this for oil, than why can't we destroy the brute and install a democracy for oil?

Might as well try to do the right thing while we feed ourselves right?

What I mean is that Saddam invaded another sovereign nation unprovoked over resources. We have done that as well. I am sure Saddam would have instilled his own government that he thought was best. Sure, helping the oppressed is noble. But to what ends are we willing to go? As it turns out, we have seen oil rise almost $100/barrel. The destablization of the region on top of the industrial revolution in China and other places plays a part in this, but so do the speculators.

Also, our dollar has weakened. This means that one dollar doesn't buy as much oil. There are several factors for this. But the war and the defecit spending is a good part of that. This war has been terrible for our economy. We are also at risk of a global recesssion due to destablizing Iraq. We have definitely had an effect on the oil market.

We invaded Iraq and still haven't fed ourselves. And who is to say that there wouldn't be way more violence if we were. Do Iraqis need anything else to set them off? How would the narrative that "we are robbing their oil" fly? (Regardless of the fact that may not be true, we would be accused of it and our receiving oil might appear that way). In the long run, it would have been cheaper to just buy the oil.

I know, but things would still suck for the Iraqis. Yes, that is true. But the whole world might suck economically because of our actions. So which economic interest is more important?

Awesome! · 05-14-08, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach

Sacrifice for what? Oil? no.
Because we have a dumbass in the whitehouse? no.
Because we want to keep the military-industrial machine going? Hell no.

If our liberty was at stake? You'd have people lined up to defend it.

Try this experment. At 10:00pm, get a crowbar, and try to break into someones house and when you get inside (if), try to give the woman of the house a big hug just to say hi. See if people are willing to react violently to protect their liberties. I suspect people react the same now, as they did in WWII. People haven't changed much in thousands of years.

What we must realize is that we're a lot more sophisticated too, and just reacting with violence is a human emotion, but is demonstrably not always the best reaction. We think we choose, we act. We don't react. And sometimes that choice may be violence.

-Mach

How was our liberty at stake in WW2?

GySgt · 05-14-08, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Really? I seem to remember us outlawing more than one party in their elections.

Yep. In June 2003, the US-led occupation forces in Iraq banned the Ba'ath party, for example. Later, several religious parties were banned.

So they can do with it whatever they please, so long as they do what we want.

This is obtuse. Be better than this. The Nazi Party was also prohibited in Germany in the immediate aftermath. They vote. They will decide if they are to persevere or to wither away. A failed Iraq will say far more about the Middle East than our half-*** effort.