Axis Backlash

glynch,

How is your usage of an Isolationist such as Buchanan to support your opposition to Iraq - US action fair? It is for a different reason than the one you espouse and your alliance with his views was just a marriage of convenience in your past posts.

Buchanan opposes most foreign interventions because he has a narrow view of the obligations of the United States to the rest of the world. Buchanan's Isolationist bent was pointed out to you in this thread:

<A HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29017">Bush planning to topple Hussein</A>

and you never responded to or acknowledged it. You probably knew that and were trying to mislead people. As far as Buchanan being a Republican, his support is not widespread, else he would have captured the party's nomination in some of his past Presidential campaign attempts. You probably knew that too.
<i>
Do you really expect me to agreee 100% with Pat Buchanan?
</i>
If you are going to invoke his name as the reason why the US should or should not do something in foreign affairs, I would expect you to use the same reason that he does.

Nice to me?
Remember the debates about humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and how you liked to nitpick on things I posted? It seemed to give great pleasure to you. Once the Taliban got rolled back, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan improved and the general population is happier as treeman and I kept suggesting to you and boy. Didn't the friendly Taliban loot the Afghanistan national treasury on their way out?

I have seen the sources that you quote and they are a far narrower circle than the ones I read daily. Do you cite links that are detrimental to the positions that you take in debates on the BBS?


I started a thread about the positives and negatives to be weighed when considering the issue of forcing a change in the Iraqi government.
<A HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26318">Iraq: Dilemma for the United States</A>
Haven raised the issue of whether Iraq would actually use WMD, but didn't kick me too much on the objectivity of the rest of my post.

Am I right of center on foreign issues?
Sure, but closer to the center than you are.


Mango

 

treeman:

history has shown me to be correct on nearly everything (excepting details)

Am I the only one who finds this sentence incredibly funny?

Yeah, you're real great allies when you're in trouble. But when the US is in trouble? Seems we're on our own... Great friends...

ScreamingRocketJet was right to call you moronic. How about you trundle down to Sydney or Melbourne, go to the RSA, and say that to some Aussie Vietnam vets? Australia is an extraordinarily loyal ally to you *and* Britain, even to the extent that nuclear testing took place on its soil.

New Zealand isn't *quite* so loyal. Actually I think our nuclear-free status since the mid eighties means that the provisions of ANZUS (look it up, Cletus) aren't technically in force anymore. Yet despite our mutual defence treaty having lapsed a while back, we *still* sent a wee force to Afghanistan to help you out. So save the 'oh poor America, no one helps us out' bollocks (which, incidentally, sort of contradicts your 'we don't *need* any of you anyway' rhetoric. You can't have it both ways).

Gah. I'm going to *try* to stop posting in this thread. I need to get back to my actual *life*.

 

I disagree. If you asked the world during WWII, with Japan expanding on one side, and Germany on the other, if it would be a good thing for the US to produce a weapon that could end the war and stop Germany & Japan, I think they would have said yes, by all means, go for it. Not sure why you would think differently.

Well assuming we don't tell anyone what to do, many of the third world countries that do not currently have nuclear technology, would. Their main objection to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that major powers all have the technology, and now second tier powers have also either acquired the technology or are in the process. The only reason for them NOT to have it (so their argument goes) is the paternalistic and hypocritical fears the major powers have over the safety of further proliferation. As they feel they are capable of handling their own affairs, as do you apparently, there is not sufficient reason to maintain our rigid non-proliferation regimes. Now if you polled the major powers the opinion would probably be against proliferation. By they are far outnumbered by those states that would want to acquire the technology if they could.

Sorry, I was just repeating your position on the popularity of action within the US. South America seemed to be leaning toward Germany if nothing else. Asia didn't seem to care about that one way or the other since they were occupied with Japan. Africa? Did it matter to Africans whether they were dominated by Germans or English and French? Seems to me that only leaves pieces of Europe, and that wouldn't include Austria, Italy, or Romania. Hardly a consensus of 'world opinion.'

I guess at this point its not suprising that again you avoid the question. IF we knew....IF WE KNEW....would you support intervention to stop a holocaust-like genocide? For me the question is less about what other people think. You invoke the Founding Fathers, disregarding their hypocracy and concentrating on their ideals. Where are your ideals? IF WE KNEW would you support intervention in this case? In my view the core American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are diametrically opposed to allowing genocide. Here or abroad.

Unfortunately it appears as though the 'Final Solution' was an option of last resort, and that when efforts to expel Jews from Germany failed, Himmler pushed for the solution that became the holocaust. It is fact that we did send back boatloads of Jews, even as they sailed into NY harbor past Ellis Island. But my point is that I'm trying to figure out what the parameters of your criteria are. You'll only say 'world opinion.' If that criteria is inflexible, and you'd only support inaction unless there was some kind of consesus, then just as you can say 'No' if I want to decapitate someone, I can say 'No,' basing our foreign policy on world opinion is not the solution.

Sorry if you think I'm ordering you to do something. I thought the topic was 'what should we do.'

I disagree. The world wasn't looking for a disinterested US when Saddam invaded Kuwait, nor when the Bosnian conflict appeared as though it might spread, nor when the wall fell and eastern instability was considered a threat to peace in Europe, nor when one half of Rwanda massacred the other half, nor when Somalians were starving, nor when China was making noise about invading Taiwan, and on and on...

Kuwait was one of the instances where there was world support for US intervention. So how can that be held against us? And we've intervened in plenty of places we didn't really have a national interest: Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti...

If you can defend Napolean as misunderstood, I'm suprised you are so hard on the US...

Is it the same thing to take physical possession of a territory as it is to exert ecomic influence? Is there only self interest in US actions? Maybe I'M being naive? Why are we still in South Korea? What is our national interest there? What was our national interest in Somalia? What was our national interest in food aid to Ethiopia?

Very funny. Salladin was not a power on the scope of the US or Rome or England...I think you said as much in your first post.

The US government arrested and tried and convicted McViegh, No?

OK, if you say we should use the Founding Fathers as our guide, what they did would seem slightly relevant.

Then your world would be a crazy place. Mass proliferation would exponentially increase the probability of nuclear annihilation. If the Taliban had nukes, Al Queda would now have nukes. That is not a pretty picture.

It started when Britain abandoned the Jews and split from Israel/Palestine. And since we should be acting on principle, how principled would it have been to allow the Arabs to eliminate what was left of the world Jewish population? Keeping in mind that it wasn't the US who put them there.

Unfortunately you encounter the same problems today when you try to assess 'world opinion.' Does every government get a vote? What about the non-democratic governments? Only the Western democracies? Many of the current systems are not based on popular support so there is not today a way of knowing what the will of 'the people' is. If you cannot accurately measure 'world opinion' then you would be in quite a bind, although you could default to no action at all...

OK, I'll look for a quote and get back to you. Of course Treeman could be really helpful and supply one for me???

Well, its disappointing that you feel that way. Its 3:15 here and I wanted to quit hours ago but was interested in what you had to say. Unfortunately I must not be as engaging....

 

When the Japanese were sailing to take over your sporting paradise, it was the US Navy that kept them at bay, not the Royal Navy, chum.

Agreed. Again I voice my every lasting appreciation for the fabulous response from both the British and the Aussies!!!

 

You sure do like trying to start bar fights! I bet you get poor Elvis in plenty of scraps!

 

hayes...

Before I answer your last arguments, I would like to apologize. While I disagree with your contentions and positions, and I don't appreciate it when you TELL ME TO DO SOMETHING, I must admit that you consistently paid me the courtesy of listening/responding to my posts, and my closing comment in my last post was both disrespectfull and dismissive, and again, I apologize. It was more a reflection of my being tired, but that is not your fault, and I was wrong to insinuate that it was...

Sorry...will respond more later, just wanted to say this before this thread gets closed.

 

Fair enough. We probably should have stopped before the line by line got ridiculous, or at least taken a break.

 

Mango, it's hard to say who is closer to the center as you generally don't venture opinions. Just short questions and articles. However, let's say for the sake of agreement that you are. I certainly think is ok to cite Pat Bushanan on our proposed invasion of Iraq, even if I disagree with him on other issues.

Attached is the latest piece I can find from Pat Buchanan, who as you admit is a Republican, on the issue.

How a president's words can lead to war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


Ideas have consequences, wrote conservative Richard Weaver. So do words, when uttered by the most powerful man on earth.

By threatening war against Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his now-famous "Axis of Evil" address, the president painted himself into a corner. Either Bush now goes to war against one of these regimes, or he will be humiliated and exposed as a bellicose bluff.

Let me say it again: Whoever fed Bush those lines, or did not argue against his delivering them, disserved the president. For that speech has blown our coalition against terror to smithereens.

Not a single NATO ally has endorsed Bush's war talk. The French and Germans are raking us. South Korea was stunned. No Arab ally save Kuwait stands with us. Iran's cooperation in the Afghan war has come to an end. And the president's united front at home is now split and wrangling over the wisdom of his war talk.

And what did the "axis of evil" phrase accomplish? Within hours of his speech, Bush began to back away, insisting that he was still ready for dialogue with North Korea. On Tuesday, Secretary Powell told the Congress, "With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations."

That leaves Iraq, and it is now evident Saddam Hussein is Bush's primary target. As Powell told Congress: "With respect to Iraq ... regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people. ... And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about."

To explore those options, Vice President Cheney has scheduled a March trip to Britain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey – all of Iraq's neighbors, save Iran. But all this begs the question: Why Iraq?

When it comes to supporting terrorism, Iraq is far behind Syria and Libya, and not even in a league with Iran, which is believed to have been behind the Khobar Towers bombing, supports Hezbollah and shipped the boatload of rockets to the PLO. Iran and North Korea are far closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, and both have developed medium-range missiles. Meanwhile, Iraq relies on Scuds. Nor can Iraq compete in the export of nuclear and missile technology with China or North Korea.

Why, then, has Iraq emerged as the designated enemy? One reason: fear – the fear that should a vengeful Saddam acquire an atom bomb, he will use it to blackmail the Gulf states or strike America. Rather than run the risk of a nuclear-armed Saddam, Washington wants to finish him, even if it means sending an army to Baghdad.

This is a grudge fight. Bush's men are determined to finish the job his father began: terminating Saddam. And the planned war has less to do with Sept. 11 than with the conviction of Bush's men that denying weapons of mass destruction to Iraq justifies preventive war.

But there are obstacles on Bush's road to war. First is the Constitution. Bush does not have the authority to launch a preventive war against Iraq. The Security Council has not authorized a second war on Iraq, and the congressional authorization for the war on terror covers only regimes that supported or harbored the terrorists who perpetrated the horrors of 9-11. And there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11 or with Osama bin Laden.

Second, while neo-conservatives may tout an invasion of Iraq as a cakewalk, the U.S. forces necessary to do the promenading are nowhere in sight. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers will be needed. And while Iraq is not as strong militarily as it was in August 1990, after the tens of thousands of air strikes of Desert Storm ravaged its war machine, neither is the United States.

The accuracy of our new weapons is awesome, but the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force are only half of what we had in 1991, when we had supporting units from Britain, France, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This time we have no allies, and the "Arab street," watching Al Jazeera's nightly pictures of Israelis crushing the intifada, are far more hostile – if not hateful – toward the United States.

With his "axis" speech, Bush told everyone in the saloon that one of three outlaws in town was headed for Boot Hill, and he strapped on his guns. Now, he must deliver the corpse to the coroner.

His problem is he has not been deputized, he has no posse, the town does not want any more gunplay, and the outlaws are still defiantly there. He has to take one of them down, or the Western becomes a comedy.

Thus do words seal off the exit ramps away from war.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related offer:

Buchanan's latest book is here!
"The Death of the West" is an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!

 

glynch,

I have no problem with Buchanan coming to the same conclusion as you have on Iraq, just pointing out that he has a different basis/foundation from you in arriving at that decision. Buchanan does not enjoy widespsread support in the Republican party and broke away to run as Reform Party candidate in the last election. Since he can identify with Bush more than Gore, call him a Republican in a two party system and a potential third party member in Presidential election years.

<b>
A regime change in Iraq?
</b>
Even the Clinton Administration had the idea that a change was needed, just never took the bold step to do it.

<A HREF="http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/02/F.RU.990203130132.html">Iran: U.S. Looks For Support In Campaign To Replace Iraq's Saddam</A>
<i>
Iran: U.S. Looks For Support In Campaign To Replace Iraq's Saddam
By Charles Recknagel


Prague, 3 February 1999 (RFE/RL) -- The United States this week expressed hope Iran will help in efforts to bring about a change of government in Iraq even though until now Tehran has opposed most U.S. policy toward Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Frank Ricciardone, Washington's newly named Special Representative for Transition in Iraq, said in Kuwait on Sunday that the U.S. hopes all of Iraq's neighboring countries have, in his words, the same interest in seeing a free and independent Iraq get back on its feet. He also said he regretted what he called Iran's inability to speak with Washington.

Iran so far has shown no sign of backing U.S. policies toward Iraq in spite of the fact Saddam has long been both countries' mutual enemy. Iran fought an eight-year war with Tehran ending in 1988 and the two sides have yet to sign a peace treaty. But Tehran has consistently opposed U.S. and British air strikes on Iraq to enforce UN demands that Iraq cooperate with arms inspectors.

Analysts say Washington wants at least tacit Iranian support for its efforts to change Iraq's government to boost the chances Iraq's opposition factions can one day replace Saddam's regime. The U.S. administration has repeatedly said it wants to see Saddam replaced by a democratic government committed to Iraq's territorial integrity and peaceful relations with its neighbors.

Graham Fuller, an analyst of Iranian and Iraqi affairs at the Rand Corporation in Washington, says the U.S. needs better relations with Iran if efforts to replace Saddam are to succeed:

"Improvement of Iranian relations with Washington is really critical at this juncture to liberate the US policy vis a vis Iraq. At this point, Tehran has viewed Washington as a greater threat than even Baghdad to its own regime, and its policy has been to stymie (Washington in) almost anything and everything while enjoying Iraq's weakness. If ties improve with Tehran, Tehran will have to make some more critical decisions about just how far to go with Washington on this ... and what their vision of a future Baghdad should be."

Washington included a Tehran-based opposition organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), among seven factions which it designated last month as eligible to receive a total of 97 million dollars in US military training and equipment. The U.S. administration, however, has set no timetable for if and when it might actually arm the organizations.

The SCIRI, an umbrella for several Iraqi Shiite parties, is the main powerhouse in Shiite Muslim southern Iraq, which is considered a hotbed for opposition to Saddam's rule. Correspondents say the alliance commands some 10,000 to 12,000 armed fighters, including former Iraqi military members, and is the only armed faction that works clandestinely within Iraq.

The SCIRI force was largely recruited by Tehran from the ranks of Iraqi Shiite soldiers captured during the Iran-Iraq war and correspondents say its fighters can move back and forth across Iran's marshy southeastern border with Iraq, which is mostly out of Baghdad's control.

So far, the SCIRI has rejected any direct American involvement in overthrowing Saddam and said it would not accept U.S. aid. Its position reflects that of Tehran, which shelters it out of solidarity with Iraq's majority Shiite population and as part of an effort to undermine Baghdad.

Tehran and Washington have had no official ties since Washington broke off diplomatic relations following the seizure of its embassy staff in Tehran in 1979.

But analysts say that Washington's move now to offer support to Shiite opposition factions may push Tehran to reconsider whether it can guarantee its own interests in Iraq without cooperating with Washington.

Fuller predicts that Iraq will one day obtain a more democratic government in which the majority Shiite Arab population will become dominant. He says that would please Tehran if it happened today, when most of the Iraqi Shiite movement is based in Tehran.

But the analyst says that any future Shiite resurgence in Iraq which is not at least partly influenced by Iran could pose threats to it.

"The whole future of Iraq ... I think that is perhaps the single most problematic issue of all for Iranian foreign policy, since it is the only other state in the region where you have a majority of Shiites (and they now are) excluded from power by a Sunni Arab minority and oppressed very considerably in addition to that ... (But) further down the road, if we do have a strongly Shiite-dominated government in Iraq, which eventually will come, then I could see a very serious rivalry between Iran and Iraq over the question of leadership of the Shiite world."

Fuller says the desire of Iran to influence what Iraq becomes in the future may make it imperative for Tehran to consider now what role it might play in replacing Saddam, and whether or not to work with Washington to that end.

03-02-99
</i>


Mango

 

I'm not even going to post much to this thread. It's amazing how much you miss in 24 hours. But there were some things I wanted to say to some earlier posts.

Jeff,
I still agree with a lot of what you say. And deciding not to fight is just as dangerous as deciding to fight. But I just don't think that layin down arms is the best way to obtain peace in this situation. If we don't fight, Saddam will probably use every weapon he has against us and many people will die and he'll just go on. If we fight, a lot of us might die, but we can take him out in the process. In the long run, I think standing up to him would be better. If we fight, I think we have a better chance of winning. America at least wants peace, I think. Saddam just wants control.


dimsie,
You're dumber than I thought you were. Hitler was dealt with peacefully BEFORE THE WAR! Wars are started when things cannot be accomplished through peace. Then the war began, and nothing was going right, then America came in and saved the day. The point was dealing peacefully with him did not work and a World War was started. We could deal peacefully with Saddam and get nowhere and eventually get thrown into another World War.

Geez....some people just don't know how to read. You're just out to attempt to prove everything I say wrong. The problem is that you can't unless you a) take things out of context or b)refuse to use that good "history" knowledge you tell us you have. If you didn't know that they tried to deal with Hitler before the war, you have no business in a PhD program. Try going back to high school.

I really hope you don't stop posting on this thread. It's fun to see how much money you're wasting on your "education."

The rest of the thread I don't even have time to read right now (although I wish I did). I think most of it has gotten way out of hand and the rest is redundant.

I'm still behind you treeman!

 

This is addressed to Treeman and Princess:


Sometimes love catches up on us in the strangest places. People fall in love at school, work, bars, church and gun shows. And sometimes people find each other in meaningless and uninformed political arguments on internet message boards. Treeman and Princess, you have found each other! I congratulate you for the tender, yet obnoxious stupidity that you share together. You share a bond to which only ignorant and obsessive BBS posters can truly aspire: you both think you are always right about everything no matter what the subject, factual basis, or rules of logic. There is no fact you cannot mangle. There is no subject you can't misinterpret. Barbie found her Ken and this Princess has found her Frog (or would that be Seal?) in shining battle armor. You have found a world where the clinically insane and functionally illiterate can share their sweet inexperience with the world. We, the members of Clutch City, have witnessed this blossoming love and wish you all the luck and success you deserve. Lynus will understand.

Go Downs Syndrome!

 

I thought I was the only one who saw a potential coupling for those two crazy kids! The only potential hitch: where does Princess locate pink wedding fatigues?

 

Treeman said :

1. You really are a moron mate. The fact that we signed the ANZUS agreement...and are loyal to that agreement...contradicts everything you've said about us being 'not loyal' in your hour of need. Where the hell you get your logic from, I am not sure. I guess your military 'heroes' must have knocked a few too many screws lose last time they were behind you. (Literally)

2. As for the USA saving us in WW2. That is the biggest pile of crap that USA propagandists have ever come up with. The rest of the allied world fought a four year war of attrition. You guys did jack sh*t...and then came in at the end to help because your own agenda changed.

If you'd of been there for four years, like everyone else, your impact would have been negligible. Our people would have found ways to survive.

3. As for the 'sweetie' jibe...oh no...that's really cut me up.

Big words from your computer little man.

 

Princess:

You're dumber than I thought you were. Hitler was dealt with peacefully BEFORE THE WAR! Wars are started when things cannot be accomplished through peace. Then the war began...

So... let me get this straight. In your post, you're using information *I* gave you in previous posts, in which I mentioned the failed appeasement policy and the first two years of World War II...

...in order to *tell me* that I don't know anything about the failed appeasement policy and the first two years of World War II???

What the F*CK???

I didn't think it was possible to be literate *and* r****ded at the same time, but you've proved it to me, Princess. Kudos.

 

Okay, 1st, I acknowledge that this was not directed at me, so it may be somewhat inappropriate to answer this, but if there is a protocol, it's been broken long before now..

2nd...Princess, I acknowledge that your partner is off fighting to protect America right now, as far as is in his ability, and as such I am both sensitive to the fact that you may not be as objective as would otherwise be the in this case, and cognisant of the emotional connection you would feel for American armed forces in general right now...

but...

What you said to dimsie is so blatantly myopic, so jingoistic, and so factually inaccurate, that I just had to address it...It's like you're trying to perpetuate the stereotype that Europeans have of the ignorant, arrogant, sophomoric American...

" Wars are started when things cannot be accomplished through peace..."

Where to begin...okay, Do you really think that administrations are infallible? Wars are started for all kinds of reasons...ignorance, arrogance, and sophomoric thinking being high on the list. What, pray, were the attempts at peacefull resolution before Viet Nam...or WWI...or the Crusades...or the Hundred years War...or the Wars of the Roses...or the War of Seven Kingdoms...or the War of Spanish Succession...or any number of other wars in history. Sure, many wars are preceded by negotiations which fail, but so are many resolutions. To conclude that war is and always has been the very last resort is so ignorant and naive as to defy belief. Remember that the same governments that you ascribe such Solomon-like wisdom to in times of war, in so far as to discern the moment of no alternative, are the same people who have done such things as the Bay of Pigs, or Watergate, or Viet Nam, or Panama, etc etc...

Wars are usually started when at least one side has decided that they cannot accomplish their ends through peace...which is entirely different. Appeasement, as it applied to Hitler, is ONE scenario which played out the way it did because those involved were using the lessons of the last war, and applying them carte blanche to the next situation, and it proved wrong. Then, people without historical perspective tried to take the lessons learned in WWII, appeasement, and apply THAT to everything which came after, which damn near lead to WWIII over Cuba. People who really understand history realize that you can't take ONE LESSON and apply it to every other scenario, even if you do see similarities. Those will always exist. What you learn is perspective, and tendencies, and possibilities, not absolute truths. If history contains any one absolute rule, it's that there aren't any.

" Then the war began, and nothing was going right, and America came in and saved the day."

Sigh...This is sooo one sided that I don't even know if it's worth addressing...Just for the hell of it, rather than go on ad nauseam with what is wrong with this ( already been done in this thread anyways, by myself and others,and i think that even Hayes would agree that America did not "save the day"...it was one of a number of a number of interested parties who got involved to protect it's own interests, and was, if anything, less important in winning than Britain or the U.S.S.R., although the U.S WAS essential in resolving it when and how it was resolved) instead I will ask you, Princess, to answer a couple of questions to see if you are as informed about this subject as that kind of proclomation would normally suggest...

1) What do you feel was the significance in the American stock market crash, and subsequent withdrawel of promised financial support had on bringing down the Weimar Republic, and affording Hitler both the credibility he had lacked since his failed Beer Hall Putsch, and the opportunity to exploit fear of Socialism, which were the two stepping stones to his assumption of power?

2) How do you react when Speer records that America, both profiteers and anti-Socialists, was Nazi Germany's biggest financial supporter and often greatest trading partner, up to and including during the period of the lend-lease?

I could ask more, but if your answer to either or both of these is a variation of " I don't know about that, but I know I'm right anyways."..maybe you should do a little more research before you make proclamations like the one you made, which is insulting to nations like Great Britain, Russia, etc, or, if you prefer non-localized peoples, countries like Canada and Australia who were both in the war for years before the U.S., and both sacrificed a significantly higher proportion of their resources, both in men and materials, than did the U.S. Yes, it is true that America was essential in ending the war the way it did, but it didn't get involved until it was attacked, unlike Britain, Australia, or Canada, and it was certainly no MORE responsible for "saving " anyone than was any of the other big players. For example, did you know that Canada, with less than one tenth the population of the U.S, and with already having lost men for years BEFORE the U.S entered the war, were assigned one of the 5 beaches at Normandy, with the U.S and Britain getting 2 each? Think of that kind of "fact" before you go showing your ignorance next time...And certainly before criticizing the historical awareness of others.

 

So you probably don't think too much of our founding father then do you? They disagreed with their government quite a bit, and did something about it.

 

Actually, you couldn't have it more wrong. Wars are the result of miscalculations in strategic negotiations. It's a mistake to assume that there is "war" and "peace," and that they're too unrelated entities, which is the implicit assumption you're making. "Well, if peace doesn't work, use force."

Very few conflicts actually result in wars. War is almost always against the best interest of both all parties involved. Even if one side is almost certain of victory... war is still more costly than a peaceful alternative, in almost all situations.

They key is to create a credible threat of force contingent upon the other side's non-cooperation. If your thread is credible, you're safe most of the time, unless there's a massive imbalance of force. In which case, you usually end up caving in.

What is the famous Klausewitz quote? "War is the continuation of politics by other means...," I believe.

You seem obsessed with the example of Hitler. But it's really not that good of an example.

1. Neville Chamberlain likely new that peaceful means would not ultimately work. His "peace in our time" speech was made to set a tripwire for Hitler. If Hitler crossed it, the entire world (and GB, internally) would see the war as justified.

2. WW2 has its routes in the failure of WW1 (some interesting parallels with the current Iraqi situation). This is problematic to your argument in two different ways:

a. without the strategic errors that created ww1 (I'm doubt even you are willing to argue there was anything "evil" about any side in ww1), ww2 would probably never have occurred. Hence, war begot war. Peace did not fail, war did.

b. Hitler could never have gained power if the Allies had retracted some of the restrictions on German industry, earlier. War was not necessary: the Allies could have prevented it by being kinder to a defeated Germany... both when it surrendered, and during the Great Depression, when France continued to force reparation payments.

3. WW1 was further caused by the lack of a credible US threat. Hitler knew he couldn't defeat the United States, if its industrial might was brought to bear in Europe. He hoped to conquer Europe before the US could intervene. If the US hadn't been isolationist in the first place, this perception would have been impossible.

4. Perhaps most importantly, European history from about 1880-1945 should be understood as the problem of dealing with a rising state in a power system that has already been determined. As Germany grew in industrial might, it demanded prestige commensurate with its actual status. However, the rest of Europe was unwilling to accomodate Germany. Hence, you had a situation in which Germany, a rising power, challenged the status quo power structure, in which GB reigned as a near-hegemon. This has been called the "tragedy of Europe."

One can say "peace simply doesn't work..." but that masks exactly what is going on. And it ultimately doesn't answer the question "could peace have worked..."