So why did Saddam have to go...

[Guest combat_rock]

What I'm really sick of is the logic on both sides that seems to dictate we either be totally isolationist or the world's super duper police. Leftists are always arguing "How can you possibly justify Iraq and not do anything about all of the other atrocities/potential dangers in the world?". Then a leftist will bring up some place like Uzbekistan, and a conservative will say "How can you demand we take action here and not support the removal of the brutal tyrant Saddam?"

 

Well, here's a newsflash. Just because you are for action in one place and not the other doesn't automattically make you a hypocrite. People just have different priorities. Again, it's obviously impossible for us to fix everything, and if we go back to being isolationist, we're going to get fucked eventually by SOMETHING that we let brew because it wasn't our problem (see: Pearl Harbor).

 

Personally, I think anyone that's good enough at playing politics to become president will pick his targets based on what he thinks is best for his career. Personally, I think Bush's main motivation in going into this war was getting the attention off of the economy, but as Olympic Slam said, it could really be anything. Just like when Clinton bombed Iraq right before going to trail for having his dick sucked and lying about it. And now we've got Kerry. He supported the war, probably because the climate in America at the time seemed to support it. Now he's anti-war, because things are kind of ugly over there and he's sees votes in that. ALL OF THESE GUYS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY BEST FOR YOU. That's why I'm write in voting for myself, because at least I trust me. Actually, I'll just end up voting for the lesser of two evils, but really I don't know who that is yet.

[Guest Doyo]

 

OMG! FDR and Churchill must be evil.

The CIA's own reports show that biological and chemical weapons were being used daily on civilians. So does Mr. Rumsfeld say "hey, you guys might want to tone that down"? No, instead he smiles and sells some more of those weapons to Saddam. He's a modern day Jesus!

[Styles 0]

If the US gets involved in a conflict, we are being opressive imperialists that are trying to impose our might and culture of superiority on other nations to further our own economic goals.

If the US doesn't get involved in a conflict, we are being insensitive isolationists who are too selfish and aloof to use our vast resources to help liberate an opressed people since there's no economic advantage.

 

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Thus is the burden of being the world's superpower.

[Guest MikeSC]

The CIA's own reports show that biological and chemical weapons were being used daily on civilians. So does Mr. Rumsfeld say "hey, you guys might want to tone that down"? No, instead he smiles and sells some more of those weapons to Saddam. He's a modern day Jesus!

FDR was aware of the gulags in the Soviet Union and the purges of people.

 

OMG! EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!

-=Mike

[Guest Olympic Slam]

If the US gets involved in a conflict, we are being opressive imperialists that are trying to impose our might and culture of superiority on other nations to further our own economic goals.

If the US doesn't get involved in a conflict, we are being insensitive isolationists who are too selfish and aloof to use our vast resources to help liberate an opressed people since there's no economic advantage.

 

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Thus is the burden of being the world's superpower.

Yep, we can't do anything right. We give $15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS yet that apparently isn't enough. We can free people from dictatorships yet we'll still get verbally slapped around because we build a McDonald's or a Starbucks in that previously hellish country.

[Guest combat_rock]

Well, I'm pretty sure that McDonalds can be considered a biological weapon...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

We can free people from dictatorships yet we'll still get verbally slapped around because we build a McDonald's or a Starbucks in that previously hellish country.

Hey, if you brought those franchises into my country that was previously free of them, I'd be upset, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

We can free people from dictatorships yet we'll still get verbally slapped around because we build a McDonald's or a Starbucks in that previously hellish country.

Hey, if you brought those franchises into my country that was previously free of them, I'd be upset, too.

"Torture and randomly killing? Eh, we can live with that.

 

STARBUCKS?!?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU, ASSHOLE!?!"

Well, I'm pretty sure that McDonalds can be considered a biological weapon...

That would entail us having a clue what their "food" actually consists of. Maybe their secret sauce is actually botulism.

-=Mike

[Guest Doyo]

FDR was aware of the gulags in the Soviet Union and the purges of people.

 

OMG! EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!

-=Mike

Well, the History channel has had plenty of supposedly respectable historians saying that FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, so he might not exactly be a saint either.

[Highland 0]

I heard about that; something along the lines of letting Pearl Harbour happen so FDR could galvanise the people to go to war. He did get involved unofficially against Nazi Germany even before the States officially entered WWII.

It may all be revisionism though.

Edited July 17, 2004 by Highland

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Torture and randomly killing? Eh, we can live with that.

 

STARBUCKS?!?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU, ASSHOLE!?!"

My people got along fine for many generations without needing a verte frappucino! Get your infidel hides out of here!

 

Fuck. I would have moved to pre-war Iraq just to get away from them and Burger King.

[Guest MikeSC]

FDR was aware of the gulags in the Soviet Union and the purges of people.

 

OMG! EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!

        -=Mike

Well, the History channel has had plenty of supposedly respectable historians saying that FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, so he might not exactly be a saint either.

And I'll go with what one of my history professors stated:

 

To assume this is true, you have to assume that FDR was willing to allow thousands of Americans to die. You ALSO have to assume that he had intel that NOBODY else had at the time. OTHERWISE, you have a conspiracy of leaders that all permit the massive death toll at Pearl Harbor. Which includes MILITARY leaders, who don't tend to terribly fond of simply allowing troops in their command to die.

 

It really doesn't make logical sense whatsoever.

I heard about that; something along the lines of letting Pearl Harbour happen so FDR could galvanise the people to go to war. He did get involved unofficially against Nazi Germany even before the States officially entered WWII.

It may all be revisionism though.

It's not even revisionism. It's paranoid conspiracy.

-=Mike

[Guest Doyo]

To assume this is true, you have to assume that FDR was willing to allow thousands of Americans to die. You ALSO have to assume that he had intel that NOBODY else had at the time. OTHERWISE, you have a conspiracy of leaders that all permit the massive death toll at Pearl Harbor. Which includes MILITARY leaders, who don't tend to terribly fond of simply allowing troops in their command to die.

 

High ranking MILITARY leaders of the Navy in Hawaii from that time are the ones who started the story. Admirals Kimmel, Halsey, Theobald and Lt. General Short stated in books, letters and interviews that people in Washington had prior knowledge.

 

It's not even revisionism. It's paranoid conspiracy.

 

Yeah, all those Navy Admirals and historians who spend their lives researching this stuff are a bunch of conspiracy nuts. The theory is based off the word of military leaders and official documents made public through the freedom of information act. This isn't in the league of something like the holocaust deniers who base their claims off of nothing. The US has said they weren't going to get into war unless they were attacked. FDR may have thought he had to let the attack happen to prevent German or Japanese from becoming the official language.

[Guest Doyo]

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html

 

On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”

 

One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer’s movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.

 

Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

 

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant the he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

 

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about one of the most important days in the history of the country. It now has to be considered one of the most definitive—if not the definitive—book on the subject. Gore Vidal has said, “…Robert Stinnet has come up with most of the smoking guns. Day Of Deceit shows that the famous ‘surprise’ attack was no surprise to our war-minded rulers…” And John Toland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the Pearl Harbor book, Infamy, said, “Step by step, Stinnett goes through the prelude to war, using new documents to reveal the terrible secrets that have never been disclosed to the public. It is disturbing that eleven presidents, including those I admired, kept the truth from the public until Stinnett’s Freedom of Information Act requests finally persuaded the Navy to release the evidence.”

 

...............

part of interview with Stinnett:

 

-But it seems under our system of government if President Roosevelt felt it was an emergency to go to war with Germany then he should have come before the American people and the Congress and explained it and convinced us that we had to go defeat Hitler.

 

Stinnett: Well, you see that was the problem. The strong isolation movement. Eighty percent of the people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. And, you know, German submarines were sinking our ships in the North Atlantic. That did not rouse the American public. Nobody gave a damn. The USS Ruben James was a destroyer that was sunk, and lost a hundred lives about a month before Pearl Harbor. And there were other ships, merchant ships, and other ships in the North Atlantic that were sunk or damaged. But no one cared about it. I think the American people thought that Roosevelt was trying to provoke us into the German war, or Europe’s war. They didn’t want anything to do with that. But, you see, Commander McCollum was brilliant. He fashioned this—it was a real PR job—he got Japan to attack us in a most outrageous manner that really did unite the country.

 

-A lot of people would probably be of the opinion that it wasn’t so brilliant. The families of the three thousand people who were killed and injured at Pearl Harbor probably wouldn’t think it was brilliant.

 

Stinnett: I know, I know. You see, that’s the argument today.

 

-But if this is true, then you agree with what FDR did?

 

Stinnett: I do. I don’t see what other option he had.

[Guest UncleJesseMark]

Hey there,

 

First of all FDR did not have prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, he had intel that said the Japanese may strike in the Pacific, but never thought it would be Hawaii, he assumed it would be Samoa.

 

2nd, he actually sent many of the new ships out of pearl harbor 2 days prior to the attacks, many have speculated that this was because he had advanced knowledge, untrue. this was because of the intel he recieved previously, they were sent on basic reconnaissance/interception missions just in case intell was correct.

 

Third, to compare FDR sitting with Stalin and Churchill to Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein is flawed in many ways.

 

1- Saddam Hussein was given the weapons that killed his own people by us, and we knew what he was doing, Stalin was not given any weapons cache at all during WW2 from the United States.

 

2.-The U.S. , Britain, and Russia had a common enemy in WW2 in Germany. It was simply a coalition of Convenience. While it is true Iraq borders Iran, we very easily could have hopped in bed with the leaders of Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Turkey, or Even Saudi Arabia, who at the time were not killing their own people. Instead, we establish an unstable partnership with an untrustworthy ally.

 

3. World War 2 was just that-- A WORLD WAR, in which we were trying to stop 2 powerhouse fighting machines led by megolomaniacal masogynists trying to take over the Eastern Hemisphere ,while, as fighting in Iran escalated the only immediate effect it had on the world was rising fuel cost and occasional shortages.

 

Thanks.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey there,

 

First of all FDR did not have prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, he had intel that said the Japanese may strike in the Pacific, but never thought it would be Hawaii, he assumed it would be Samoa.

We actually assumed the Phillipines would be the main focus of the attack. We assumed that Pearl Harbor was impregnable --- and that the Japanese were near-sighted.

Third, to compare FDR sitting with Stalin and Churchill to Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein is flawed in many ways.

 

1- Saddam Hussein was given the weapons that killed his own people by us, and we knew what he was doing, Stalin was not given any weapons cache at all during WW2 from the United States.

France actually armed Iraq far more than we ever considered doing.

2.-The U.S. , Britain, and Russia had a common enemy in WW2 in Germany. It was simply a coalition of Convenience. While it is true Iraq borders Iran, we very easily could have hopped in bed with the leaders of Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Turkey, or Even Saudi Arabia, who at the time were not killing their own people. Instead, we establish an unstable partnership with an untrustworthy ally.

 

3. World War 2 was just that-- A WORLD WAR, in which we were trying to stop 2 powerhouse fighting machines led by megolomaniacal masogynists trying to take over the Eastern Hemisphere ,while, as fighting in Iran escalated the only immediate effect it had on the world was rising fuel cost and occasional shortages.

 

Thanks.

And you ignore that our desire to see Iraq and Iran wipe one another out led to coalition of conveniences?

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

1- Saddam Hussein was given the weapons that killed his own people by us, and we knew what he was doing, Stalin was not given any weapons cache at all during WW2 from the United States.

 

100% wrong on both counts. We did supply Stalin with weapon caches. Big time.

 

As for us "giving" Saddam weapons that is so wrong I don't know where to begin except to say that Iraq was gathering weapons as far back as the 1960's and recived most of its CBW material from Western European companies (including a nuclear reactor from France in the early 80's)

 

2.-The U.S. , Britain, and Russia had a common enemy in WW2 in Germany. It was simply a coalition of Convenience. While it is true Iraq borders Iran, we very easily could have hopped in bed with the leaders of Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Turkey, or Even Saudi Arabia, who at the time were not killing their own people. Instead, we establish an unstable partnership with an untrustworthy ally.

 

Wha? Do you even know why we "allied" with Iraq? You see, Iraq and Iran had a war a few years after the Iranians held hostage many Americans. That is why we supported Iraq. And we did hop into bed with those countries anyway.

 

3. World War 2 was just that-- A WORLD WAR, in which we were trying to stop 2 powerhouse fighting machines led by megolomaniacal masogynists trying to take over the Eastern Hemisphere ,while, as fighting in Iran escalated the only immediate effect it had on the world was rising fuel cost and occasional shortages.

 

What is "point"? Was it all a dream or was it really there?

[Justice 0]

1- Saddam Hussein was given the weapons that killed his own people by us, and we knew what he was doing, Stalin was not given any weapons cache at all during WW2 from the United States.

 

2.-The U.S. , Britain, and Russia had a common enemy in WW2 in Germany. It was simply a coalition of Convenience. While it is true Iraq borders Iran, we very easily could have hopped in bed with the leaders of Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Turkey, or Even Saudi Arabia, who at the time were not killing their own people. Instead, we establish an unstable partnership with an untrustworthy ally.

 

3. World War 2 was just that-- A WORLD WAR, in which we were trying to stop 2 powerhouse fighting machines led by megolomaniacal masogynists trying to take over the Eastern Hemisphere ,while, as fighting in Iran escalated the only immediate effect it had on the world was rising fuel cost and occasional shortages.

 

Thanks.

1. Your bullshitting yourself. We gave him trucks and planes (P-40s and others like those) and all other sorts of things while his forces were hastily upgrading everything they could. This is pretty well known and why Patton wanted so badly to attack them at the very end: If we took away our support, they wouldn't have enough trucks and such to get their men ahead to the front lines, and probably would be missing valuable things along the way. The first big Russian Bomber (Tu-2, I believe), was a copy-off of technology acquired from B-17s that we lent Russia.

 

Secondly, the British gave them the Roll-Royce Jet engine and plans to build the damn thing, which is far more dangerous than us giving Saddam a tolken amount of chemical weapons (If you don't believe me, talk to any Korean War veterans who had to fight Mig 15s and other like them; those were a direct ripoff using the Roll-Royce engine).

 

And as Mike said, France and Russia have armed Iraq far more than we could ever imagine to. Russia literally supplied them with equipment for their entire ground army (There were even rumors they were still shipping stuff to them while we were in full Invasion Mode in the UN), and France gave them Mirage fighters for their Air Force. We are HARLDY responsible for arming Iraq when one actually looks at the composition of his military.

 

2. No, no we couldn't. No one other than Iraq had any possible chance of success against the Iranian Military. Remember: Saddam, for a while, had one of the most formidable militaries in the world (Yeah, yeah, stop laughing).

 

Secondly, you are COMPLETELY ignoring Geography here. Iraq (Outside of maybe Turkey, and they were very unlikely to invade because of their own problems with Cyprus and Greece) is the only one who borders Iran. You can't have the Saudi Army marching across to Iran without going through Iraq. At this time, the US wanted an ally who could deal with Iran directly; Iraq is the only one with 1. The means 2. The will 3. The location to properly do so.

 

Thirdly, all those countries have had problems with killing (Turkey and the Kurds is probably most notable). All of them had serious moral bankruptcy, so we were trying to get the most out of helping someone we necessarily didn't agree with.

 

3. Weak. We allied with the greatest mass murderer of all time (Stalin, in his purge of the Ukraine, killed 10 million Ukrainians, which is 2 to 4 million more than the amount of Jews Hitler killed, not to mention his numerous purges and deaths from his disasterous 5 Year Plans), and someone who was looking to take over all of Europe, or as much as he could of it without starting another huge war. He was one of the greatest threats that the free world has ever known. Am I pissed off that we allied with him? I didn't like it, but I can understand why we did. Same with Iraq: Iran was a bigger threat back then, so Iraq was a natural choice as an ally. We gave a proportional amount of support to Saddam and Stalin for what they were going to do with us.

 

Oh, and you're welcome.