Truthers: Do you like America?

[gumboot]

Unfortunately with regards to WW1, the alternative wasn't at all sucky, and nearly every major war since has had its roots in the mess that WW1 created, including the current messes.

It wasn't that sucky for New Zealand, but we weren't independent... it was rather sucky for a number of other countries, however, namely France... (not that it was overly great either way for France...).

I disagree that wars post WWI have had their roots in WWI however, with the obvious exception that all history is caused by all history before it...

There's obviously a natural cause and effect to all events...

If those dastardly Spartans had just stayed home in 480 BC Athens would have fallen and no one would ever have needed to go to war to defend democracy.

-Gumboot

 

[g4macdad]

It wasn't that sucky for New Zealand, but we weren't independent... it was rather sucky for a number of other countries, however, namely France... (not that it was overly great either way for France...).

I disagree that wars post WWI have had their roots in WWI however, with the obvious exception that all history is caused by all history before it...

There's obviously a natural cause and effect to all events...

If those dastardly Spartans had just stayed home in 480 BC Athens would have fallen and no one would ever have needed to go to war to defend democracy.

-Gumboot

So falsely accusing a country of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Invading that country and finding out you were wrong. Is defending democracy?

<(((><

 

[gumboot]

So falsely accusing a country of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Invading that country and finding out you were wrong. Is defending democracy?

<(((><

Who claimed it was?

And are claiming Iraq didn't have WMD?



So what did they use to gas the Kurds and what was in the missiles they fired at allied forces in the Persian Gulf War? Or the stuff they lobbed at Iran? And what were all those WMD scientists doing? And why on earth did they agree to the UN's ceasefire condition that they destroy all WMD and provide evidence of having done so?



-Gumboot

 

[g4macdad]

Who claimed it was?

And are claiming Iraq didn't have WMD?



So what did they use to gas the Kurds and what was in the missiles they fired at allied forces in the Persian Gulf War? Or the stuff they lobbed at Iran? And what were all those WMD scientists doing? And why on earth did they agree to the UN's ceasefire condition that they destroy all WMD and provide evidence of having done so?



-Gumboot

I don't know where you got any of that infomation. But a word of advice. Stop listening to monkey boy Dubbya and join the rest of us in reality.
Have you heard of the downing street minutes?

<(((><

 

[gumboot]

I don't know where you got any of that infomation. But a word of advice. Stop listening to monkey boy Dubbya and join the rest of us in reality.
Have you heard of the downing street minutes?

<(((><

Why would I listen to the president of a foreign country? Especially about events that occured almost a decade before he came to office?

I LIVED through the first Gulf War. I know people who fought in it, and I've read books by others who were there.

Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction in their possession as late as 1998. Some time between then and 2003 they got rid of them all, but Saddam continued to pretend he had them - most likely as a bluff to keep the Iranians at bay.

Any international leader post 9/11 who falsely claims to have Weapons of Mass Destruction deserves anything that comes their way. It's not something the world's leaders - especially the Americans, are going to take chances over.

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

Its just God getting even at Easter over your avatar

Why would he be angry?

Thought that was what actually happened.

[derail]Which always leads me to wonder - everytime someone claims to have found the tomb of Jesus, should they technically have found a tomb with NO remains in it? I mean, isn't that what happened in the bible? They go back, no Jesus, lotta confusion and then some guy named Tom pokes Jesus in the ribs?[/derail]

 

[Mobyseven]

Unfortunately with regards to WW1, the alternative wasn't at all sucky, and nearly every major war since has had its roots in the mess that WW1 created, including the current messes.

To draw as many connections I can here...

WWI --> economic collapse in Germany, allowing Hitler to take power. This led to...

WWII --> The Holocaust, a catalysing event for the creation of Israel, which led to...

The Current Middle Eastern Crisis.

...and also led to the USSR and the USA becoming THE two superpowers, with drastically different ideologies and systems of government, aka...

The Cold War --> Gradual collapse of the USSR, leading to a huge number of new countries which brought on...

The Eastern European 'Issues' (Kosovo, etc...), which have taken somewhat of a back seat currently to the aforementioned Middle Eastern 'Issues'.


Vietnam, Korea, etc, were all NWO psy-ops.

This overly-simplified version of history was brought to you by the Mobyseven Foundation of Now-Do-Some-Research-Yourself-Because-It-Is-Really-Quite-Interesting.

 

[g4macdad]

Why would I listen to the president of a foreign country? Especially about events that occured almost a decade before he came to office?

I LIVED through the first Gulf War. I know people who fought in it, and I've read books by others who were there.

Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction in their possession as late as 1998. Some time between then and 2003 they got rid of them all, but Saddam continued to pretend he had them - most likely as a bluff to keep the Iranians at bay.

Any international leader post 9/11 who falsely claims to have Weapons of Mass Destruction deserves anything that comes their way. It's not something the world's leaders - especially the Americans, are going to take chances over.

-Gumboot

I can respect your position, but have you heard of the Downing street minutes?

This still has nothing to do with defending Democracy as was implied.

<(((><

 

[PhantomWolf]

It wasn't that sucky for New Zealand, but we weren't independent... it was rather sucky for a number of other countries, however, namely France... (not that it was overly great either way for France...).

The Alternative to war for WW1 was no war. If the Austian-Hugarian officals had accepted that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand had been the act of a single man, rather than iccorrectly placing the blame on the Serbian Government then there would have been no war. However because they believed what was nothing but a Conspiracy Theory (that the group that Gavrilo Princip belonged to was supported and finaced by the Serbian Government and that they had ordered it) and even when Serbia agreed to most of the terms that was demanded (unreasonably) of it, still forced the issue to war, it never would have happened, and 8 million linves would not have been extingushed. (Who says that Conspriacy theories aren't dangerous?)

I disagree that wars post WWI have had their roots in WWI however, with the obvious exception that all history is caused by all history before it...

WWII/Europe - Occurs due to the treatment of Germany, the forced payments of restitution resulting in the bankrupting of its economy and the removal of its most productive lands. This allows the Nationalists to gain a foothold in the Government and ultimately Hitler's raise to power through promises to restore Germany.

WWII/Pacific - China refused to sign a peace deal which included Japan because Japan had taken a strategic area of Chine from the Germans and refused to give it back. England and France said they would support China, but then reneged, leading to later hostilities between Japan and China and starting WWII in the Pacific.

Israel's Wars - Has fought several wars, all tracing their roots back to the "liberation" of Palastine in 1917, the British rule (1922) and then the formal creation of the State of Israel in 1946.

India/Pakistan - Requested Independence from Britain after their part in WW1, and was denied. Ghandi tried again in 1921 and failed. Finally granted after WWII, with the british leaving and war betwen Hindu and Muslim leading to the the spliting of India into India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (East Pakistan) and Kashmir.

Vietnam - Had requested independence as a reward for their part in the Asian side of WW1. The French denied it, but over the following years and especially after WWII, that movement grew until it became a war in the mid 1950's to remove the French, which lead to US involvement in 1964.

Gulf War 2 and 3 - The border of Kuwait and Iraq was never settled when the Ottoman Empire was broken up, it was this border disute and Iraq's refusal to see Kuwait as a soverign nation that caused the '91 Gulf War, which lead to the current one.

Bosnia/Serbia/Yugosalvia - A direct consequence of the creation of a country by shoving people together after the dismantalling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

9-11/Afghanistan - Has its roots very much in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and OBL's desire to remove western influence over the Islamic Countries and restore the Great Islamic Empire.

Did I miss any? About the only one that isn't tracable, that I can tell is the Korean War.

 

[gumboot]

The Alternative to war for WW1 was no war.

Well you could argue that for any war...

I'm working from the position of reality, which is that someone will always start wars. The question is whether you join in or not. Sometimes, as you say, you can avoid wars (take New Zealand and this current invasion of Iraq). Sometimes you really don't have a choice (take France in WWI and WWII). Sometimes you have a choice but the right and better thing to do is join in (for example the Commonwealth in WWII).

Unfortunately history allows 20/20 hindsight. But at the time, how can you tell which situation you are in? How can you tell which is likely to bring more destruction to your nation... going to war? Or not going to war?

The League of Nations refused to go to war in the 1930's, and as a result led us to the bloodiest conflict in human history.

After WW2 ideology locked two spheres of the world in conflict for half a century, on one side western democracy and on the other socialist communism. Did the actions of our governments during this time prevent nuclear holocaust? Or did they bring us dangerously close to it? How can you tell?

There is only one history, but infinite futures, and once you know the right path to take it's too late.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I can respect your position, but have you heard of the Downing street minutes?

Yes.

This still has nothing to do with defending Democracy as was implied.

<(((><

No, it does not. I never claimed it did.

I was addressing Phantom Wolf's claims that all wars post WWI were as a result of WWI (which implied all wars post WWI were unnecessary as WWI was unnecessary).

I illustrated the flaw in this reasoning by illustrating how avoiding one minor conflict (Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC) in ancient times would have avoided all subsequent wars that were fought in the name of democratic freedom (because democratic freedom would have been destroyed in the cradle). I made no claim that all wars were about the defence of democratic freedom.

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

WWII/Europe - Occurs due to the treatment of Germany, the forced payments of restitution resulting in the bankrupting of its economy and the removal of its most productive lands. This allows the Nationalists to gain a foothold in the Government and ultimately Hitler's raise to power through promises to restore Germany.

WWII/Pacific - China refused to sign a peace deal which included Japan because Japan had taken a strategic area of Chine from the Germans and refused to give it back. England and France said they would support China, but then reneged, leading to later hostilities between Japan and China and starting WWII in the Pacific.

Israel's Wars - Has fought several wars, all tracing their roots back to the "liberation" of Palastine in 1917, the British rule (1922) and then the formal creation of the State of Israel in 1946.

India/Pakistan - Requested Independence from Britain after their part in WW1, and was denied. Ghandi tried again in 1921 and failed. Finally granted after WWII, with the british leaving and war betwen Hindu and Muslim leading to the the spliting of India into India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (East Pakistan) and Kashmir.

Vietnam - Had requested independence as a reward for their part in the Asian side of WW1. The French denied it, but over the following years and especially after WWII, that movement grew until it became a war in the mid 1950's to remove the French, which lead to US involvement in 1964.

Gulf War 2 and 3 - The border of Kuwait and Iraq was never settled when the Ottoman Empire was broken up, it was this border disute and Iraq's refusal to see Kuwait as a soverign nation that caused the '91 Gulf War, which lead to the current one.

Bosnia/Serbia/Yugosalvia - A direct consequence of the creation of a country by shoving people together after the dismantalling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

9-11/Afghanistan - Has its roots very much in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and OBL's desire to remove western influence over the Islamic Countries and restore the Great Islamic Empire.

Did I miss any? About the only one that isn't tracable, that I can tell is the Korean War.

You just had to one up me, didn't you?

Looks like I'll have to start Mobyseven's-Oversimplification-Of-The-Characteristics-Of-Smart-People-Guide now...

 

[maccy]

The League of Nations refused to go to war in the 1930's, and as a result led us to the bloodiest conflict in human history.

What do you base this assessment on? It's been a while since I studied that era, but my understanding is that the League of Nations didn't have the power to go to war (in the same way the the UN doesn't have it now). Or were you referring collectively to the Nations that made up the League? I still think that individual nations would have had to have made military alliances before declaring war on Germany.

At what point would it have been best to invade? When Germany re-militarized the Rheinland? When they annexed Austria? When they invaded Czechoslovakia? Perhaps the should have been military campaigns against the Italians in Abyssinia or the Japanese in Manchuria, or an intervention in the Spanish Civil War?

Also, wouldn't a strike against Germany have required a military buildup only ended up happening in response to Germany's invasion of Poland?

I think the decisions would have been tough even without the League of Nations supposedly ensuring peace. I also that many people would still have believed that Hitler could be contained and was a useful counter-balance to the Soviet Union.

I know this is a giant derail, but I'm finding it quite interesting...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Believe me, here where I live these things happen every now and then, more or less directly. The local breed of twoofers usually carries not only the general properties of all twoofers, but also an irrational hatred towards America. Some can mask it better, some can not - but their attitude is as clear as their woo generally can be.

But the cartoon had nothing to do with Truthers, it was about people who thought that the Iraq war was a mistake.

I think it was, lots of people thought it was, and it was not because we hate America, it was because we thought it was a big mistake and we didn't want to see America make a big mistake, and the reason we didn't want America to make a big mistake is that we loved America.

I'm one of those evil Europeans; I also vote for policies which Europeans find moderate, which I guess makes me a "leftist"; I have a PhD in math which I guess makes me a "pseudointellectual" (let me know when you figure out how to identify real intellectuals); and I opposed the war in Iraq; but not because I hate America. I thought my opinion was sound, and that America would be better off for following it.

I didn't disagree with your opinions of foreign policy because I "hate America", but because I love America and had a different view of the facts.

And I'm sick of hearing this from you people. I do not hate America, I think that the foreign policy which you personally support is misguided.

These are two completely different things.

And although I think that you and your kind have done much to screw America, yet I don't accuse you of hating America, despite all you've done, I just think that you were wrong.

 

[maccy]

Gulf War 2 and 3 - The border of Kuwait and Iraq was never settled when the Ottoman Empire was broken up, it was this border disute and Iraq's refusal to see Kuwait as a soverign nation that caused the '91 Gulf War, which lead to the current one.

Also, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing oil by lateral drilling across the border (an accusation that turn out to be true I think, but I haven't checked this).

Did I miss any? About the only one that isn't tracable, that I can tell is the Korean War.

Off the top of my head: Korea was occupied by Japan until the end of WWII, the USSR liberated the North, the US liberated the South. In the post war negotiations, the allies agreed to two states: Communist North Korea and Capitalist South Korea. The North wanted a united Korea and so invaded the south.

 

[gumboot]

What do you base this assessment on? It's been a while since I studied that era, but my understanding is that the League of Nations didn't have the power to go to war (in the same way the the UN doesn't have it now). Or were you referring collectively to the Nations that made up the League? I still think that individual nations would have had to have made military alliances before declaring war on Germany.

As an example... France had a legal obligation to defend its mandated League of Nations territory against Germany with force. It failed to do that.

The UN does how the power to go to war, it's mandated under Chapter 7 of the Charter. It did so in Korea.

Obviously I'm referring collectively to the nations consisting of the league, as, like with the UN, that's all the league is.

At what point would it have been best to invade? When Germany re-militarized the Rheinland? When they annexed Austria? When they invaded Czechoslovakia? Perhaps the should have been military campaigns against the Italians in Abyssinia or the Japanese in Manchuria, or an intervention in the Spanish Civil War?

I mentioned nothing of invading. Germany's aggression was only enabled by the recovery of essential territories - specifically the Sudatenland, Saar, and the Rhineland. All the League of Nations had to do to prevent WWII was enforce their own decisions. Maybe.

Also, wouldn't a strike against Germany have required a military buildup only ended up happening in response to Germany's invasion of Poland?

Germany had virtually no military to speak of when they began their aggression. The forces that reoccupied the Saar Coal Fields had no weapons and were told to retreat if the French intervened.

I think the decisions would have been tough even without the League of Nations supposedly ensuring peace. I also that many people would still have believed that Hitler could be contained and was a useful counter-balance to the Soviet Union.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to see in retrospect what actions directly contributed to events. But it's impossible to tell how it would have been different, had we taken a different course... and of course at the time the people making the decisions could not have known what we know now.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Also, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing oil by lateral drilling across the border (an accusation that turn out to be true I think, but I haven't checked this).

There's never been any evidence that it was true, and Kuwait has always denied it.

I suspect the stories were circulated by those that could see benefits in Iraq having a war with Kuwait. Iran, anyone?

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

As an example... France had a legal obligation to defend its mandated League of Nations territory against Germany with force. It failed to do that.

---trimmed---

-Gumboot

I'm not going to fault the French here - their losses in WWI were horrific, and depleted the country of many of their young (and not-so-young) males, seriously inhibiting their war-making abilities.

 

[gumboot]

I'm not going to fault the French here - their losses in WWI were horrific, and depleted the country of many of their young (and not-so-young) males, seriously inhibiting their war-making abilities.

I think the had ample ability - but I think there was no will... as you say, who can fault them? Let's not forget the entire western front of WWI was fought in their backyard.

It's the bitter tragic lesson of WWII that sometimes the price of "peace at all costs" is horrific. It's a lesson I suspect humans will never learn.

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

I think the had ample ability - but I think there was no will... as you say, who can fault them? Let's not forget the entire western front of WWI was fought in their backyard.

It's the bitter tragic lesson of WWII that sometimes the price of "peace at all costs" is horrific. It's a lesson I suspect humans will never learn.

-Gumboot

I read "The Guns of August" and every time I think of her descriptions of the beginning days of the war I get a little freaked out - the numbers alone are overwhelming.

Peace is nice, but there's always someone out there who thinks they can get what they want if they point a gun at someone. History has plenty of examples of the consequences if nobody decides to stop such behavior.