KlutzDio I Wrote:

FtLauderdaleRocket Wrote:I was brief because......lets be honest.......there is no logical reason to compare this war to any others.

It was called World War I.........and today we have the Iraqi War.  There is a big difference there.  I understand how and why WWI occurred.....but there is absolutely no comparison b/t the two Wars as todays war was "pre-emptive".

Panama was an entirely different ballgame as well.  We went in to remove somebody that we put into power to take care of "our" canal.  He decided to piss us off and start collecting a little bit of drug money.......so we took him out and the country was back to normal.  Panamanians weren't exaclty upset by this as the canal zone was essentially the 51st state as it was.

The US has started something that is very, very dangerous.  We now are into pre-emptive wars.  Thus.......any country doing anything that could potentially impact our "interests" in a negative way...........could feel our wrath.  We didn't have UN approval.......so we said.......who needs it and we went in alone.  I know, I know......we have "allies" but who is fronting 90% of the costs monetarily and resource wise?  Yes.....the US.

The point is......we've established a doctrine that is pissing many people off.  Our doctrine is now we'll do whatever we damned well please as we're the lone superpower.  So...who's next?  Iran, Syria, N. Korea?  Who wants some of this??? Huh.......huh??? 

We have managed to piss off the worlds largest religion.......Islam.  We had already pissed them off......but now we're shaking the hornets nest. 


Relating to the situation in Iraq.......here are a few ideas, I just thought of these quickly.....so I know they're terribly flawed: 
A) an exhaustive study on how we've managed to piss off the entire Islamic world.
B) A plan to remedy the results of A)....see D) for ideas to start.
C) Go to the UN and say "you win" and let the rest of the world come into Iraq to "share" the wealth aka rebuilding contracts, oil, etc.
D) Establish Palestine and remove all Israeli settlements.  Establish all holy ground in Israel/Palestine as "international property" and staff permanently with a multinational UN peacekeeping force.  Take out all current leadership of Israel and the PLO and establish new diplomatic relations through an international system.....the UN.

Several clarifications are warranted here.

Comparisons to wars are oftentimes made for very logical reasons. First, the tactics of the previous war help fight the next. Second, outlining attitudes of those on the homefront during many wars is easily comparable. Consider the Patriot Act with Woodrow Wilson's Elkins Act. Both laws sought to take civil liberties away from certain Americans.

Also consider Wilson's reasoning for going to war with Bush's reasoning: to make the world safe for democracy; or safe from terrorism; "to democratize the region..."

Wars are all different and sometimes the tactical expertise gained in one war will prove very costly in the next. Rhetoric usually stays the same, regardless of the war. McPherson called this "rage militaire."

All wars are pre-emptive, especially the Spanish-American War. The U.S. wanted Cuba long before 1898. If you look at large, city newspapers from the era, you'll read the rhetoric of many that claimed the Germans would land on our shores if we didn't help the French and Brits in Europe in 1916 and 1917. In this sense, the first World War was pre-emptive.

So how did World War I occur? I'd like to know your rendition.

Panama was a proxy war and I specifically mentioned that in an above post. And Noriega was involved in drugs back into the Carter Administration and the U.S. gov. knew about it.

Our doctrines have pist folks off before and this is nothing new. The world will get over it, the only new aspect would be that there is no nation to counter our power, as has been the case throughout the USA's existence as a nation.

Hinduism is probably the world's largest religion.

Actually, we've been pissing off the Muslims for a long time. Ever since the Industrial Revolution and arguably since the beginning of the U.S. government when "heathen" religions were denounced.

I don't think the U.N. has the power, the influence nor the authority to make Iraq any better of a place than we can, we merely have the wrong team on the job. Cheney, Wolfie, Condi, Georgie, Karly and all of the oligarchs are just happy they're getting rich.

Your idea of "D" was already tried in the late 50s, early 60s and what is happening over there now is a result of making "holy ground" international property.

I don't really think there's a solution for the Israel/Palestinian mess. They've been fighting for centuries and to assume the U.S. or the U.N. could do some good is folly.

I agree with you that Bush sucks and he has to go, but in many respects the problems the nation faces aren't so easily solveable. Our heavy-handed foreign policies have been in place for a long time and we didn't get in our current mess overnight.

Very interesting post.

I am by no means a scholar in world history. Unfortunately.......I went to public school. :) :D

Seriously, from what I can recall about WWI it was started by the assassination of King Ferdinand in Serbia or something like that. Once again, I apologize if I'm way off as I haven't read anything about WWI in about 15 years. I'm only 28 so I'm really only cognizant of what has occurred over the last 25 years or so.

I'm certain that similarities can be drawn to nearly every war or skirmish that the US has been involved in......mostly because there is always something to protect or be gained from by doing so.

Now for some general ramblings.........

I do agree on the resentment that the muslim world has against us. That's what happens when you give upwards of 6 billion in aid per year to a country and that country kills their people with American manufactured tanks, helicopters, jets, rifles, bombs and ammunition.

The best case scenario is to declare the entire region (Jerusalem) UN land. I don't think the Palestinians would be too upset as they could now travel across their homeland freely. Also, if the Israelis complain.......all we have to do is yank the aid that we give them. What are they going to do? Israel is literally in our pocket.

Should Iraq actually ever become a democratic state (highly unlikely) I will bet that our monetary support to Israel will decrease as they won't be our only allie in the Middle East.

It is commonly accepted that WW1 began as a result of the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Ferdinand was heir apparent to the king.

His death at the hands of a Serb nationalist organization stirred outrage from every major European power. Ferdinand's death, had it happened recently, would be described as an act of terror.

As a result, the Austro-Hungarian empire along with Germany issued an ultimatum. The local Serbian authorities were to give up the assasins, or else. Imperial Russia chimed in as well, and while the assasins were brought to justice, it took nearly a month. In that time Germany and Russia (old enemies) and France and Italy (on the laurels of mutual defense pacts with Russia) had all coalesced their main military divisions and hardware on the borders of these various nations.

Once all these troop implacements had been made, there was no going back. War, at this point, became very inevitable. Rulers of nations don't order their troops into a theatre without using them--it would be a waste of men, materiel and money.

Germany struck first, so the story goes. All other involved nations had first strike plans.

The improvements in machine gun technology made the first World War unusually long and bloody. Almost all of the nations involved at first thought the machine gun would give them the advantage.

I suggest the Guns of August by Tuchman.

If Jerusalem were handed over to international authority, you'd still have factions of both Israelis and Palestinians upset over this, and without recourse in the diplomatic domain, they'd start killing folks.

In order for us to yank foreign aid to Israel, first we'd have to oust their minions of lobbyists who have every member of the Senate and the House in their back pocket.

Klutz,

I just thought of something. I said we don't start wars. We don't invade other countries. You comeback with a clarification off WWI and the Spanish American war. I mentioned the Luisitania and the USS Maine. Well, you proved my point. These events did happen even if the USS Maine was later proven to be setup. Our govt. (more importantly our people who support our govt., which I still believe is our govt. (of the people by the people for the people)) still believed we were attacked, and we were attacked in WWI case ( even with German warning). Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Islamic fundamentalists were a threat to his power. He killed any religious figure head that was gaining too much CONTROL. He pounded nails into the Ayatollah of Iraq's head for all to see just to prove his point Soprano style. Al-Quadia was not in that country, but brother they are now. Now what leads me to another debate, remember early in this war Bush said bring em' on when the terrorists were going to Iraq. Rumsfeld even publicly stated that it was better to fight them in Iraq then here at home. What a monumental miscalculation. We already had a hornets nest, now we shake the tree.

I think your response on Rumsfeld and Bush waving the war flags and egging on Al-Quayder (as the president calls them) is very similar to the way the Spanish American War and World War I began, or how this nation became involved in those conflicts.

First, in the 1890s, the nation was growing rapidly as was the economy after the depression of 1893 (and thank J.P. Morgan, Carnegie for the upswing in the economy here). What would make the U.S. economy solvent would be to open up new markets. Those markets existed in our hemisphere--Cuba, and in the Pacific--Guam, the Phillipines (which were Spanish colonial possessions).

Plans were drafted to take over Cuba ever since the war of 1812. By the 1890s more and more outrage over the Spanish in Cuba angered Americans, especially the politically connected. Taking over this densely populated nation would enable American goods to be exposed to another market devoid of large import costs that the Spanish were charging.

So the political end of this was--sell an invasion to the people. Tell them the Spanish use Cuba as a base to exploit American weaknesses, or to exploit American money. Tell the American people the Spanish are evil (and they were, to the Cubans). Tell the American people the Spanish are absolutists (and they were). Tell the American people that invasion would bring democracy to the island. Sound familiar?

The U.S. government knew early on that the Maine exploded by accident. For years prior to the Maine's explosion, the secy of the Navy asked for a study on the new munitions used on steamer battleships and their storage. By the time the Maine was sunk, much of the fleet had been revamped in protocols on storing munitioins. This information was covered up and war fever prevailed, largely propagated by newspapers editors.

Don't just take my word on any of this, read city newspapers from the era. Read their editorial pages. What photos (if any) do they run on the front page? What kind of language is employed in characterizing the enemy, i.e. the Spanish? the Cubans?
On the navy revamping of the fleet, I suggest goverment documents. You won't find this in the papers.

The Lusitania probably has more comparisons (in ways) to the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The sinking of the Lusitania by the Germans did three things:
1. Stopped munitions and monetary aid that was on the Lusitania from reaching the allies.
2. Showed non-combatant nations, such as the USA, that they mean business, and also showed Americans that the Germans have no qualms about killing American civilians (who knew nothing of what was on that ship).
3. Showed the world that the USA was not neutral because the USA was aiding and abetting Germany's enemies.

This event happened in 1915 and the U.S. declared war in 1917. The president condemned the attack, but told the people that neutrality was still the official policy. Why didn't he go to war in 1915 instead of waiting?

Similarly, the WTC and Pentagon were attacked in 2001, the USS Cole in 1999 (or was it 2000?) and in 2003 we finally wage war in Iraq. Why wait?

Finally, the attack of a seafaring ship carrying war materiel destined for our allies (even though we maintained neutrality) is not an attack such as the attack on Pearl Harbor. What differentiates the Lusitania from 9/11 is that the latter targets were military targets, but the act was not carried out by a nation, only groups of terrorists.

What I am getting at is WW I was pre-emptive. Wilson used the Lusitania (as did his GOP opponents in Congress) to rally war support, claiming that war would make Americans safer in international waters. War would make the world safe for democracy. Add the Zimmerman affair and the rhetoric changed to 'we need to stop the Germans before they come up via Mexico and get us.'
To complicate matters, Wilson's democracy rhetoric was rather incorrect. The U.S. had just passed some of the harshest legislation in our history, legislation that negated free speech and other civil liberties. Thousands were rounded up, arrested, detained indefinitely, exiled, and some were even killed.
Not only that but Wilson turned a blind eye to the Civil Rights movement in the South (yes, it was going on even back then). He legitimized the black caste system in the South--certainly not very democratic.

WW I also had economic interests and companies got rich off of the war, but this is very complicated and I'm going to leave it at that.

You say we were attacked in all previous wars and that is why we waged them. I hope this isn't a misrepresentation of your position, but usually wars are set to begin. This means that it takes a long time for war to develop, and in the prelude to all wars, resentments develop into hatred for other nations or cultures. Mere attacks on a nation are the impetus, while war footing may be a policy before a nation is attacked. In the case of WW2, some have argued that the U.S. gov. compelled the Japanese to attack, that we gave them no out. They base this on Roosevelt's draft and war preparations, but there are some weak points to the argument--and this is beside the point.

Wars are fought for many,many reasons, not just retribution or vengeance or tit-for-tat. Attacks are the final straw. In the case of the Lusitania, the attack on this ship was not the final straw. In the case of the Maine, the accident was purported as an attack and an accident was made the final straw. Still, public support for the Spanish American war peaked early, right after the Maine's sinking. Four months later public support waned and finally levelled at about 32-36% of the population.

In the case of Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin events were initiated by the Americans who were probably shooting at shadows. They say they were provoked,but what provoked the provoking? We had a large naval prescence in that Gulf. Why? Why did we have all those advisers on the ground? Why did we have such a military presence in that nation? Why were so many Americans being killed in combat and officially being killed in "accidents" in Vietnam prior to 1965?

In the case of the 1991 Gulf War, did Iraq attack us? No, they attacked Kuwait and the event led to strange bedfellows. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia being allies and "liberating" Kuwait from the Iraqis was certainly not something that could have been foreseen 10 years earlier, much less foreseeable was the staging of troops on Saudi sand. We had constantly been on Saudi's case and Kuwait's case about human rights abuses. Not only that, but we held disdain for these nations because they fought Israel at one point, and were still hostile toward the Israelis--our chief ally.

We were not attacked in the 2003 Iraq War. Attacks don't bring us to war, usually we are already there when attacked. Saying an attack caused a war, or led to the courageous defense of a nation is just too simplistic when things transpire in more complicated ways.

Lastly, how naive to claim we are governed for the people by the people. This may be true if you have gobs of money that can gain you influence in the governmental process. On the national level, our government is for either the very, very rich or the very, very poor. At the local level, government is more true to our democratic heritage, for the most part anyway.

I know the naive part of by the people for the people but darn it I believe it. I really do pity the time when the majority of Americans feel the way you do Klutz. Sad part is that we're probably there right now. Look at Fl. in the last election. You can still sell the belief to me that every vote counts.
I guess the part that you are still not getting is, IRAQ had nothing to do with 9-11. This is not simplistic, it's the truth. We were frightenend into this war of preemption. That's the part that disgusts me.

On a side note, you take a lot of time and effort in explaining your answers or positions. It's appreciated.

Dogger Wrote:I know the naive part of by the people for the people but darn it I believe it. I really do pity the time when the majority of Americans feel the way you do Klutz. Sad part is that we're probably there right now. Look at Fl. in the last election. You can still sell the belief to me that every vote counts.
I guess the part that you are still not getting is, IRAQ had nothing to do with 9-11. This is not simplistic, it's the truth. We were frightenend into this war of preemption. That's the part that disgusts me.

On a side note, you take a lot of time and effort in explaining your answers or positions. It's appreciated.

The first thing I learned as an undergraduate, when writing, is to be clear and to the point. When bringing up point B, one must explain point A first. If you didn't do this when writing as a student, you opened yourself up to criticism from your teacher--who usually knew more avenues of discussion on any given topic.

I've learned on this forum that if you make a point and are not clear, let's say I post a topic saying "it is certain, given the cultural complexities of the mid-east and the West, that rebuilding Iraq will be difficult."

Usually a statement such as this would garner responses such as, "you friggen libruls, why don't you go live in France." and comments such as "our military is the most powerful on the earth and the Iraqis want us to liberate them from Saddam" and my favorite, "you stinkin commie pinkos need to get a clue, Saddam will never be president of the United States. We know you love him, but his time is over."

Statements about cultural complexities usually brought up stuff like "we fixed the Germans and Japanese after we destroyed their countries, we'll do the same to Iraq."

You may believe the gov. is "for the people and by the people" and on the small, local level this rings true for many areas of the country.

On the federal level you may believe the old adage of for the people...but you can believe anything you want to believe, simply believing does not make it true.

You may believe the world is flat as a pancake, but simply believing it does not make it true.

Instead of telling me your beliefs about our gov. why don't you bring up some facts to illustrate your beliefs that the gov. is "by and for the people..."

You say every vote counts, but that is not always the circumstances a voter is faced with.

We go on the electoral system in presidential elections and if 49% of the population of a state votes for the Democratic candidate and 50% votes for the Republican candidate, then that state still goes Republican.

In the case of Florida in the 2000 election, certainly every vote counted as it does in the theoretical example I just mentioned. But in the case of myself, living in an overwhelmingly Republican state, I could vote for Kerry all I want, but my state's electoral votes will never be counted toward Kerry's electoral total.

Likewise, should I choose a third party candidate, that person would never receive Mississippi's scant, five electoral votes. Does every vote count?

In some ways, theoretically, a national presidential election could come down to two states, especially an equally split electorate. All of the states could cancel one another's electoral votes out, and in the final run only two states could compete for the election of the president.

I think our electoral system dissuades many voters in many states, but the presidential election is only once every four years and any given locality has countless elections every year.

Lastly, on Iraq, had the buildings not been blown up with hijacked airplanes, we'd have likely pre-empted them when we did, perhaps even earlier. The attack is not the impetus for war, the war footing begins much sooner and that is the gist of the other post I made on this thread today.