But, wait!! The media told me everyone was AGAINST invading Iraq...

No, Cohen. Major's referring to building a case to the American people and consulting Congress and allies, not attacking. Read my above post.

p.s. To Max: If Tony Blair and Kuwait are the best evidence you have that Bush is building a coalition, I am unimpressed. Next you'll be telling me the Kurds are for it.

 

Don't believe in Keynesian economics?

Generally, then end of the Great Depression is defined by the US entry into WWII as the government geared-up for war.

Again, I said foreign polls.


[all of this is referring to the earlier WW2 example]

Before Pearl Harbor, people didn't believe the US should be involved in WW2. Therefore, going in early -- while in theory sounds like a great idea -- might not have worked so well because the American army wouldn't have had the support of the people.

The Depression ended as the war effort ramped up - but that was possible because Americans were angry and patriotic and wanted to be in this war due to Pearl Harbor. Without that event however, at the time of going into war, we would have still been in a depression. You take an unhappy populace and tell them their fathers and brothers and sons are going off to a war that Americans don't want to touch and you're going to have a riot on your hands.

I'm not sure it would have been possible to enter WW2 earlier, and if we did, I'm not sure we would have won.

 

a better example would be the Gulf War, which preceded, and some say contributed to a 2 year recession.

And BTW, GWB, (or mostly his advisers, as he is seemingly incapable of forming his own thoughts) is most definitely not a Keynesian as he is seemingly against all forms of government spending that do not realize him some political gain.

 

Originally posted by mav3434
When you can't convince hawks like Trent Lott and Dick Armey, you are not presenting a compelling case. ...

Good point.

...
Al Qaeda and the Iraqi "state" (saddam) are totally different actors. Sadaam is not a suicidal religious martyr, he is nnot even religious He is a realist (his hero is allegedly Stalin), bent on maintaining power, like he has for years, he has something to lose. Read Mark Bowden's excellent profile in the Atlantic Monthly from a few months back . Bin Laden is a wannabe martyr, more of a violent, scary idealist, though it appears even he is too cowardly for that. Bin Laden attacked because he effectively thought he had nothing to lose, that the US would just lob some cruise missiles and he would move to the next cave. He obviously badly miscalculated.

Saddam, well, Saddam knows that any attack by him would pretty much mean the end of him. So he hasn't.

I doubt that he'll send a long-range bomber or missile to us, maybe because they wouldn't make it all of the way here anyway. But he feels comfortable doing things covertly, like trying to kill an ex-President.

Answer me this, why hasn't a plane/boat/truck full of Iraqi nerve gas appeared in the US in the last few years? Saddam has certainly had the means, motive and opportunity. ...

I am not convinced that it would be that easy to send a plane/boat/truck and cover his tracks. In fact, I think it would be d*mn near impossible.

States are in the buisiness of preserving themselves, first and foremost. These guys maybe crazy but they are not stupid.

Well we agree that they're crazy, probably not stupid, but they are also not a State. The Iraqi leaders consider themselves and their personal power, not their country, or else they'd be spending their money on their country's children and not their military and Palestinian suicide bombers.

The issue is that they can produce WOMD. The method of delivery will be the terrorists. It is a bad combination for us.

IMO, the cost of preemption in this instance, (another shot to an uncertain economy, inflammation of Arab Israeli conflicts, and scenes of dead arab children on tv that will inspire a whole new strain of antiamerican sentiment, and more new terrorists, distracting fromt the "war on terrorism", not to mention the human cost of war) outweighs whatever benefits there are.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly open to debate.

Yes, the reduction in the small chance that Iraq will attack the US is nice, but not worth the cost, especially if it multiplies the chance that others will do the same.

Again, I don't think its the threat of Iraq by itself, but radical state + terrorists = bad news.

 

1) So, if we're wrong, and we've invaded another sovereign nation, killed their leader, and imposed our own version, and it turns out that we can't even claim self-defense, you'll buy us a soft drink? I don't get it...

2) Re: Second paragraph....Explain how that rationale wouldn't support invading and/or eliminating every governmaent/individual in the world who is "anti-America".

 

I'm sorry, but what!?!?!?

A) Re: Congress...are we, or are we not a representative government? If we are, right or wrong, the people, in the form of Congress, have the right to determine if we are going to go to war. If Bush has failed to gain the necessary support, OUR SYSTEM says that that means this is not a justifiable and/or approved war, end of story. Speculation as to whether or not Bush is right, or Congress is, in no way means that he should just go ahead, support be damned.

B) If we go ahead without the support of our allies, we have to do one of two things...Either drop the whole Defender of the Free World crap, and admit that we're out for no. 1, or once again assume that we know more than most of the rest of the industrialized world by virtue of our technological and economic strength.

 

Major,

This is getting confusing, let's see if I can regain some focus (sorry for the paraphrasing):

Issue 1: We both believe domestic public support is critical to go to war. I mentioned that I do not care about going against international public opinion if we have to, only if we are certain that we are doing the right thing, which leads to the next issue:

Issue 2:
You stated : 'Most people will support the war if they are given a compelling reason to do so';

I responded: Not true, the public may not make the best decision for the long-run, and used WWII as an example. The argument could be made that the American public had very compelling reasons to enter WWII, but failed. The public was isolationtistic, which was as anachronism for the 20th century. They were wrong.

You responded: In theory, we probably should have entered WWII sooner, but we may not have won because we were in a depression.

This depression tack seems tangential to our discussion. Did the public have compelling reasons to enter the war before Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did they? No.

The Depression ended as the war effort ramped up -

So you DO believe in Keynesian economics.

 

That's specious reasoning...we know we're right because our leaders have info..we know they have info because they wouldn't do this without info..we know that because they're our leaders...

1) When was the last time any leadership group of any democratic government didn't say that their decisions were based on info? What would you expect, they're gonna claim a hunch? Does the inevitable "insider info" that they say they've got means that they are in possession of the right facts, all the facts, and are assessing the facts correctly? If you are assuming all the above because they say so, what could they do that you wouldn't support without question?

2) Re: the accuracy of U.S. intelligence/analysis, see Domino Theory, Cuban Revolution, Pearl Harbour, 9-11, etc....Not to say that they are always, or even mostly wrong, but to justify military action on the assumption of their omniscience is a real stretch...

 

That sounds kinda right to me, too.

 

Issue 1: We both believe domestic public support is critical to go to war. I mentioned that I do not care about going against international public opinion if we have to, only if we are certain that we are doing the right thing, which leads to the next issue:

Totally agree.


I responded: Not true, the public may not make the best decision for the long-run, and used WWII as an example. The argument could be made that the American public had very compelling reasons to enter WWII, but failed. The public was isolationtistic, which was as anachronism for the 20th century. They were wrong.

You responded: In theory, we probably should have entered WWII sooner, but we may not have won because we were in a depression.

This depression tack seems tangential to our discussion. Did the public have compelling reasons to enter the war before Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did they? No.

Cohen -- sorry if there was any confusion. I meant to say that we may not have won because there wasn't public support for the war. There may have been good reasons, but the public as a whole was against it. The fact that the President would be trying to send people off to war with an already unhappy populace (due to the depression) simply would have made the public outcry even worse, in my opinion.

While there were compelling reasons, I don't think anyone ever made the case that we really needed to get involved in WW2 until after Pearl Harbor. If FDR had really tried to make the case and been able to convince people of the need, maybe we could have entered the war earlier. However, given the isolationist tendencies and unhappy populace, I don't think it would have worked.

I see Bush making the same mistake here -- there may be good reasons to go to war, but he's doing nothing to convince the American public of it. This time, I believe Americans would support the war if given good reasons. Partially due to the hatred of Saddam Hussein, partially due to 9/11, and partially due to the fear of WMD. For some reason, he still has made no effort whatsoever to try to make the argument, though.

So you DO believe in Keynesian economics.

I do believe that pumping money into the economy during weak times helps stimulate the economy. I disagree with the idea that we'll then make up that deficit spending during boom times, because of the political reality of politicians loving to spend money. Thus, when we do finally have a surplus, I think we have to do everything possible to try to keep it as long as possible, especially if the recession in question isn't being consumer-driven (as this one wasn't). That's a discussion for another thread, though.

 

Originally posted by MacBeth
That's specious reasoning...

The old 'specious' word again...

we know we're right because our leaders have info..we know they have info because they wouldn't do this without info..we know that because they're our leaders...

Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

I have never said that they have enough information to declare war, or that they wouldn't do this without info. I'm not naive...I remember Nixon..do you?

I only said that they are privy to information that we will never see (unless of course you're in the Cabinet or are a senior officer in the CIA, then I offer my apologies).

The rest of you post is irrelevant since you gave me credit for things that I didn't say.

 

That's a ridiculous analogy...First of all, if you're going to make a pre-WWII parallel, we would have to reverse roles with the British, as this time we are the world power clashing with a possible tyrant, while Britain is the reluctant ally, with Blair playing the role of FDR.And if you'll remember, we didn't get involved in that whole WWII thing until AFTER we were attacked, and even then we only declared war on Japan...People forget this, but we never declared war on Nazi Germany, Hitler declared war on the U.S. in compliance with his allies...something we wouldn't do in support of ours..We said it was none of our affair, until we had no choice. So to ridicule the British for, at worst, doing what we did, in the face of a lesser threat than Hitler was, is unfair, innaccurate, and hypocritical.

 

1) What's wrong with specious?
2) Sorry, I thought my summary was accurate, but obviously you'd know better, in that they were your thoughts.
3) Not only do I remember Tricky Dick, I was Deep Throat...
4) I still don't get what the point re: the insider info is..It seems both obvious and irrelevant if you're not using it as support for the invasion.

 

Major,

I think we see eye-to-eye on most all of this. I agree that it appears that Bush's team is erring, but I prefer to wait to see how it all shakes out before firming up an opinion on it. Batman's re-creation may be on target, but I am not sure yet.

I believe FDR was trying to make a case for earlier entry into the War, but as you argued, he couldn't go against public opinion. He certainly was walking a thin line when he started supporting Britain somewhat surreptitiously. It was also good that he geared-up for war against the public's wishes, or we may have been in a bad spot in '41.

A good, brief read: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/nf/featured/fdr/fdfp.html

If I recall, we were also isolationistic prior to WWI, but public opinion was manipulated by our leaders...imagine that.

 

MacBeth,

Germany, Japan and Italy had <i>THE TRIPARTITE PACT</i> which bound them together.

<A HREF="http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/pre-war/361125a.html#3">SOME DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE ALLIANCE OF GERMANY, JAPAN, AND ITALY DURING WORLD WAR II</A>
<i>
Summary of the Three-Power Pact Between Germany, Italy, and Japan, Signed at Berlin, SEPTEMBER 27, 1940. (THE TRIPARTITE PACT)
The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.

Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend co-operation to such nations in other spheres of the world as may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to their own, in order that their ultimate aspirations for world peace may thus be realized.

Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:


ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.


ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.

<B>
ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
</B>


ARTICLE FOUR
With the view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, members which are to be appointed by the respective governments of Germany, Italy and Japan will meet without delay.


ARTICLE FIVE
Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not in any way affect the political status which exists at present as between each of the three contracting powers and Soviet Russia.


ARTICLE SIX
The present pact shall come into effect immediately upon signature and shall remain in force 10 years from the date of its coming into force. At the proper time before expiration of said term, the high contracting parties shall at the request of any of them enter into negotiations for its renewal.

In faith whereof, the undersigned duly authorized by their respective governments have signed this pact and have affixed hereto their signatures.

Done in triplicate at Berlin, the 27th day of September, 1940, in the 19th year of the fascist era, corresponding to the 27th day of the ninth month of the 15th year of Showa (the reign of Emperor Hirohito).
</i>

What was the name of the pact that bound the US to enter WW II on the side of the British prior to December 7,1941?

 

1. It just seems like a few, select bombastic words are oft-used on the BBS, one being speeeeecious (LOR fans pick that one up?). It can also come off as patronizing.
Nothing's really wrong with specious. If I had argued what you thought I did, it would have been very appropriate. Maybe I'm just being touchy tonight.
2. Ok.
3. Uh, I'll let this slide without a retort...but you'll owe me
4. I was only saying that they do know things we don't, therefore, its difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Bush may not be overly bright (ahem...), but many on his team are. That is why I will reserve my opinion until we get a little more info. That's all.

 

Umm...What was the Neutrality Act?

Ooops! Guess not!


We really were involved before war was declared, anyway. The US was heavily supporting Britain long before Dec 1941 under Lend Lease and even before that (FDR was tricky!).

 

The first quote sounds like the US shouldn't get involved unless the people (in the form of Congress) support it.

In the second statement, it sounds like you are giving the United States a <i>shot</i> for not stepping up sooner to aid Great Britian and other Allies in World War II when the sentiment of the people (in the form of Congress) was against it.


So which one of your posts is correct?

 

I can state that the people let their allies down out of fear/apathy/selfishness without stating that FDR would have been justified had he declared war without popular support. I actually would have supported the non-intervention stance had we not shown many times since that we WILL get involved, but only if it suits our own interests. Even that might be arguable, but the fact that we claim moral superiority, and wave the Defenders of Democracy and Freedom flag every time we go in to support our own interests makes me ill...

 

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020904/afp/020904053625top.html

Summary: Colin Powell admits to divisions in the administration, but downplays them. Says Bush will make final decision. Sounds like nothing new, but points out so many worthy old topics of discussion.

Colin Powell's saying all the right things, as he always does. He's a good soldier and he would make a good president, but lesson number one, which cannot be avoided, is NEVER believe Ari Fleischer. He is a professional liar and it's amazing to me he doesn't get any more guff over it, especially given the fact that no one since or before Clinton has done it so smugly and no one, including Clinton, has done it with so little reason.

Lesson number two is, having read the following Powell article, who will make the big decision for Bush? We all know he will not make it himself. His advisers (unofficial and official) are divided. It will not be a concensus decision. It will come from someone who has his ear. Anyone dispute the fact that every single one of his senior advisors (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, his dad) knows more and is better qualified than he is to make the decision? No. I didn't think so.

This is one difference between him and all our other modern presidents. They will all say he made the final decision, but we know he will not do so. Bless him, he's just not smart enough. And also there are far smarter people surrounding him, whether I agree with them or not. Nothing earth shattering here, except the fact that Ari Fleischer's not just a spinner but a liar, and the troubling reminder that Bush is supposed to make a final decision about committing troops to war. So, just for kicks, who do YOU think will actually decide? Will it be surprising uber-hawk Cheney? Pragmatist deputy-hawk Rice? Popular moderate Powell? Or quiet old dad, who's let uncles Brent and Lawrence do all the talking for him?