Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:01:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak.
I'm weak too; I can't pass up clarifying historical confusion.
'Tis an occupational hazard.
> We could have sat WWII out. I've read that this was the intention of our
> President.
I've never heard that. The general consensus was that FDR
(assuming you're American, of course) was particularly eager
to get into the fight, but the isolationist column was strong
enough to prevent it without a clear casus belli. FDR promoted
measures designed very specifically to provoke Germany (and,
as it happened, Japan--but that was secondary). Everything,
he said, short of war; that was the goal of the Neutrality
Patrols and Lend-Lease. In the event, we got sucked in anyhow.
What's your source for the statement that FDR was isolationist?
> While Hitler was trying to produce a master race, while Japan was swarming
> the orient, while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain
> involved in that plan?), America was just sitting back enjoying our safety
> and freedom.
Japan only really "swarmed the orient" after 7 December 1941.
Most of that expansion happened once they'd declared war on
Britain, the Netherlands, France, and the US. (China, of course,
is another story.)
Turkey and Spain into Africa? Huh? Both remained neutral for
the majority of the Second World War (IIRC, Turkey entered on
the Allied side relatively late). I think you're confusing your
wars--in fact, from the sounds of it, your centuries as well.
(Much of North Africa 'belonged' to the Ottoman Turks for many
centuries.)
> So America got involved, helped arm the allies, stopped Hitler (in the end
> of that one, we didn't even have the chance to touch the creep), sighed with
> relief as Russia erupted into a civil war (which I believe put a stop to the
> advance into Africa as well), and then had one last thing to do.
???? Russia never had anything to do with Africa, save in the
venue of the Cold War, but that's not what you're talking about
here. No civil war, either--not in WWII. WWI, however, is
another story.
> We were conten to sit and watch the show and Japan hit us while we were
> sleeping. Then when they were being driven back to their island they had
> the audacity to suggest that they might surrender to Russia? Russia had
> been part of the problem until their civil war occupied their attention!!
> It seems obvious that Japan had no intentions of really quitting, only
> pausing to regroup and lick their wounds.
Where did you hear this? Russia had no civil war of any kind
during WWII--they had a civil war during the First World War,
not the second. Russia and Japan didn't even go to war with
one another until after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima; Russia
wanted the Kuriles, Port Arthur, and the other half of Sakhalin
back (Russia lost those in the 1905 war against Japan).
Actually, Russian WWII vets ("Great Patroitic War," as they call
it) hearken back to that conflict as giving the socialist nation
meaning--it was a moment of amazing Soviet national unity, not
division. Without the Soviet Union on the Allied side, defeating
the Axis powers would have been far, far, far more difficult
(if even possible).
> It is my opinion that the bombing of Japan was the only thing we've done
> right since entering foreign conflicts. We couldn't get to the leaders and
> their supporters, so we took away their ability to make war. Innocent
> civilians died, it is true, but their descendents are all the better for
> that sacrifice.
Again, see back in one or another of these threads, where we
discussed the question of innocence in war, and the character
of war itself--what is war, anyways? Congress has not declared
war on Afghanistan. Congress *did* declare war on Japan and
Germany (and Italy)--but only after those nations declared war
on *us*. We're trying to finesse the criminals out of that
country by being selective; a full-blown war would lose us
most of our allies.
> If we had taken care of Russia early on, I believe Russia would be better
> off right now as well.
The Russians didn't go to war against us. We, in fact, tried
to invade Russia during that "civil war" you mention (1917-21);
US and Allied troops occupied Russian soil on behalf of the
Whites (against, of course, the Reds). The problem was that the
population of the country was with the Communists, not the Old
Regime Whites. As any strategist from Mao to Ho Chi Minh to
Gandhi could tell you, when the population stands against you,
when a large population stands against an invader, there's no
way the invader can win.
> Does this make it ok for us to "police" the world, no, it just so happens
> that some of our most horrendous deeds have payed off, while many of our
> charitable deeds have caused things to become worse.
>
> I was watching CNN last night and heard about the thousands of protestors in
> the UK. Negeria and other nations are now beginning to side with Afganistan.
>
> Why?
It's not the nations themselves. In the case of Nigeria, it's
not about Afghanistan so much as about the imposition of shari'a
in provinces with populations of non-Muslims. The demonstration was
merely the venue for a shooting; in fact, a lot of the really bad
violence has been directed by other Nigerians *against* mosques
and Muslim Nigerians. For us to equate that to "Nigeria is with Afghan-
istan" is to pretend that their world revolves around the US,
which would be kind of arrogant of us. Muslims protest, as they
should be allowed to do, but that doesn't mean their governments
are about to join the Taliban or even support them.
Note also that these demonstrations may be 4-5,000 people, but they're
in countries of tens--sometimes hundreds--of millions! People who
are satisfied don't generally demonstrate. If a state were to
side openly with the Taliban, then you'd see demonstrations.
Oh my, yes. Nigeria, for example, is very friendly to the USA,
in part because we buy a tremendous amount of their mineral and
agricultural output.
And don't forget those who are clearly on our side--China and
India. That's 2.2 billion people--1/3 the world population--and
their governments, with nary a demonstration in sight. Add in
most of the rest of the world, if you like. Those angry about
our actions are a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver (albeit an important
one).
> The Taliban has taken over approx. a third of Afganistan. If someone
> doesn't stop their progress hard and fast, more of the country will fall to
> the Taliban, more and deadlier terrorist regimes will be born there. To
> take a safe political stance now is far more dangerous to the future than
> our bombs.
The Taliban already controls nearly 90% of the country, and they
have since 1996. They aren't progressing, they're being beaten
back.
> We now have Anthrax popping up in three different states, originating from
> Malaysia of all places. I doubt that we will be bombing Malaysia however,
> as we well know that the source problem is in Afganistan. So we take out
> the nest, and chase after the survivors as they make themselves known later.
> Unfortunately civilians are going to die because the violence and its
> supporters are hiding amongst them.
This part of the argument is pretty cogent, but we disagree on
the size of the "nests" in question. I believe we can root out
the vipers without burning down the entire forest full o' trees.
For the rest, *please* check out a short history of the 20th
Century. I'm at a loss to figure out where you got most of
that stuff; most of it is factually just plain wrong, and if
you use it as the basis for your reasoning, then the conclusions
drawn are IMHO gonna be pretty shaky.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Hey, no problem. I'm the first to admit that I'm uneducated and really shouldn't be getting involved in these debates. This isn't the first time that I have been wrong about these things. Part of my problem is that I don't know (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
