US Aid

[Judge Hades]

Wow, this is getting somewhat personal. Oh, in case you guys missed it because Bushie decided not to focus on Afganistan and "stay the course" the Taliban are back and gaining support. WAY TO GO BUSH! "

[alanschu]

I presented a timeline about US involvement in WWII establishing that the US was not a proactive participant (Many contries were conquered while we stood by) and not a volunteer (we were always second in every declaration of war) and it was mischaracterized and rejected.

 

I think that that was because your argument presented itself as being excessively passive, which actually was not the case.

 

China, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union all received significant amounts of aid from the United States.

 

China received significant loans from the US (and the UK), while the US also placed embargos on Japan. Funding was given through the cash and carry provision of the Neutrality Act, providing financial assistance to China. Pilots went overseas in the summer of 1941 to join the Flying Tigers.

 

Despite the UK not having any more money, FDR started the Lend-Lease, which ultimately provided $50 billion ($30 billion to the UK) in equipment and supplies. They also provided escorts and ships for the convoys, while also enacting a "Destroyers for Bases" exchange which gave the UK 50 destroyers in exchange for base rights in the Caribbean.

 

There were also American volunteers taking part in things such as Eagle Squadron.

 

 

And to be fair, Americans (and the Western Europeans) were still remembering the horrific experience of The Great War. The US may not have immediately jumped into the war, but the UK and France seemed equally as disinterested in going to war, opting for a policy of appeasement rather than resistance to Hitler's claims. Hitler was able to reoccupy the Rhineland, take control of Austria, claim the Sudetenland (and later all of Czechoslovakia), as well as Memel, without any retribution from the Western Powers.

 

A lot may have happened before the US was officially brought into the war on December 7th, but I wouldn't say they were just sitting around doing nothing before that happened. As for the USA's participation in Europe, some like to say that it only occurred because Hitler declared war on the USA. But unfortunately we'll never really know. Hitler did it in hopes of convincing Japan to help with the Soviet Union, but we can't say whether or not the USA would have just avoided the war in Europe. Given Roosevelt's sympathy for the plight of Western Europe, I doubt it'd be as difficult of a thing to do as it would have been prior to Japan attacking.

[Judge Hades]

From the way I heard Hitler did not want the US to get directly involved and had a major fit when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. While the history lesson is interesting I think we should be more concerned with the problems of today. Sure some of the mistakes made in post war WW2 are still effecting us today, like the formation of Israel in the Middle East, but there is nothing we can do to fix that now.

 

Allwe can do is ty to fix the problems we are facing today.

[Colrom]

I presented a timeline about US involvement in WWII establishing that the US was not a proactive participant (Many contries were conquered while we stood by) and not a volunteer (we were always second in every declaration of war) and it was mischaracterized and rejected.

 

I think that that was because your argument presented itself as being excessively passive, which actually was not the case.

 

China, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union all received significant amounts of aid from the United States.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said anything about isolationism or passivism - not a word - that is a characterization applied by others. Go check. You will not find those words in my writing here or elsewhere - anywhere except in this paragraph.

 

I agree with what you say with regard to the way events unfolded for the US prior to our engagement in WWII. With the caveat that there were quite a number of Nazi sympathizers in the US and many pro Nazi rallys and lots of anti Jewish sentiment (not to mention anti Catholic sentiment and anti black sentiment) and many did not share FDR's views. It is not clear how things would have turned out if Germany had not declared war on the US. Perhaps it would have been much the same just later - perhaps not. Certainly Churchill worked hard to try to get the US into the war on Britain's side and was not certain that he would succeed. I trust his sincerety about that matter. He considered US entry to be the deciding factor for Britain.

 

The critical issue for me is the distinction between responsibility and authority when it comes to claims of benevolent forceful interventionism.

 

Analogies with WWII fail because

a) we entered because others declared war on us and or attacked first - self defence is always a right

b) we did not enter proactively to make the world better

c) we actually had sympathies with the beliefs underlying the attrocious behaviors of those we wound up fighting.

 

This all ties into issues relating to police authority and just war theory. The problem is that most powerful groups historically annoint themselves with authority. Claiming benevolent intent is pretty common too.

[Judge Hades]

I don't see why there are analogies from WWII and today's problems in the first place. Hitler was not contained. Saddam was. Hitler was a threat outside his nation. Saddam wasn't. Hitler was an actual significant threat. Saddam wasn't and would never be. Hitler had strong ties with Japan, the nation that attacked the US. Saddam and Osama had no such ties and in fact were enemies.

 

I see no corelation between WWII and the War of Terror.

[Colrom]

I don't see why there are analogies from WWII and today's problems in the first place.  Hitler was not contained.  Saddam was.  Hitler was a threat outside his nation.  Saddam wasn't.  Hitler was an actual significant threat.  Saddam wasn't and would never be.  Hitler had strong ties with Japan, the nation that attacked the US.  Saddam and Osama had no such ties and in fact were enemies.

 

I see no corelation between WWII and the War of Terror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. You say it better than I do. Thanks.

[Judge Hades]

No problem.

[alanschu]

I never said anything about isolationism or passivism - not a word - that is a characterization applied by others. Go check. You will not find those words in my writing here or elsewhere - anywhere except in this paragraph.

 

You stated straight up that "US involvement in WWII establishing that the US was not a proactive participant (Many contries were conquered while we stood by)"

 

By stating that they weren't proactive, it gives the implication that they weren't being active in dealing with the situation. Or in other words, that they were being passive.

[metadigital]

Metadigital,

 

Please stop rephrasing my opinions to suit your rhetorical needs.

 

Please misrepresent the opinions of someone else for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Misintepreting"? I don't see much of that going around. I think this has more to do with the fact that Meta has repeatedly shot down your arguments and you have yet to answer to him effectively.

 

Perhaps your arguments would be more credible if you actually backed up your statements with pertinent facts, and sources. But your problem is you've repeatedly shown here and in past threads that you don't so much as shape your opinions on facts but on a left-wing political dogma. You come up with the vaguest things to support your POV no matter the credibility, and when someone proves you wrong on any topic, you either don't admit it or you ignore it completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I presented a poll and it was mischaracterized and rejected. (By the way the error in a poll result with perfect sampling is approximately the square root of the counted result - so if you oversample to get 150 Sunnis and half say the US should leave and if you accept that they are a good sample of Sunnis and were not bent by the sampling conditions (such as the guy with the gun writing down their name) then the full result will be 50% +- 6% not +- 100% as metadigital claimed.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't claim any such thing. I suggested that a poll of 150 people is not representative: Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3% ... Population 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.); 35% of 26M people = >9M Sunni.

 

To be clear, I can find evidence for anything, if I look hard enough.

 

In contrast, I stated the FACT that the democractically elected government of Iraq has wanted and still wants the Coalition troops to help them maintain security. And you still think your poll of 150 Sunnis is more representative than their own government! I know, let's save time, money and effort in 2008 and just ask 1500 people in the US who they want for President.

 

That is intellectual arrogance, or blind acceptance of left-wing dogma over observable and demonstrable fact.

I presented a timeline about US involvement in WWII establishing that the US was not a proactive participant (Many contries were conquered while we stood by) and not a volunteer (we were always second in every declaration of war) and it was mischaracterized and rejected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, no. You just posted the entire sesquipedalian entry of WW2, without any comment. It was the height of rudeness, actually, simply implying that I know nothing about the facts of the war.

It takes you guys seconds to say something that is nonsense and it takes me and others a long time to correct that nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's right. You are collecting evidence and presenting a cogent argument. Like dumping the entire WW2 wikipedia article without a comment. That must have taken you all of four seconds.

I don't have the time or the interest in you and your opinions to do that.

 

You can bully all you want. I'm not impressed.

 

The truth is out there - get it for yourself. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intellectual rigour is not bullying, unless you adhere to an inferior fallacy.

 

And I know the truth is out there, that's why I'm correcting your erroneous view.

[Tigranes]

Damnit, I missed the train again and now I can't comment.

[metadigital]

Oh, in case you guys missed it because Bushie decided not to focus on Afganistan and "stay the course" the Taliban are back and gaining support.  WAY TO GO BUSH!  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you are in favour of interventionist policies in Afghanistan?

Yes, we all know the Iraqi experiment is working splendidy.

 

Despite what you people say, the US (or at least this administration) has a clearly vested interest in Iraq. We'll leave once we're assured that the Iraqi people won't democratically elect a regime that doesn't support us. After Hamas got democratically elected in Palestine, we realized that we can't afford to leave until the place has been westernized and "made safe for democracy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No-one said there wasn't a vested interest. Many of us have noted that other countries do not have the attention of the US, currently, that perhaps should, like the junta that seized Burma (and renamed it Myanmar) and big corporations are happily and greedily using their enslaved populations to extract their oil, or Zimbabwe, or Nigeria, or Sudan (Darfur) and even Ethiopia and Somalia, still.

 

And don't forget the successful NATO intervention in the Balkans a decade ago, led capably by the US. It was "in the interests" of the US to bring peace to the area.

 

Just because the US happens to want to safeguard her energy supply, doesn't mean that an ethical imperative is necessarily absent.

That was the aim of the war from the very beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Supposition.

We care about the well-being of these people only as far as they can run their country in a way we can live with, and with Iran right there, looking to set up its own client kingdom, that's a long goal. What if we leave a "trained security force" and the country still splits into sects? Are we going to "help the people over there" then? This entire war will have been a waste. So we're there until that assuredly won't happen. And I've yet to hear a ****ing word about how we're going to make sure things are going to be stable when we leave. Except if we remove Iran's influence, and hmm, I wonder how we're going to pull that off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"We" I assume you are referring to the USA. There are troops in the coalition from more than one country.

 

I disagree with the connotation of your remarks: firstly, as a libertarian I am only concerned by people who would restrict the freedom of me (in the first instance) and others (second-order). Second, your comment is disingenuous: how many countries are actively interested in the rights of the citizens of other countries? When was the last time you cared if the Eretreans were over-run by the Ethiopian army? The FIRST ORDER of a government is defence of the tax-paying interests (otherwise they won't be getting any more votes).

And don't blow so much smoke about security. Paul Bremer [stupidly] disbanded the Iraqi army when he came to power in Iraq with the fear that the Baathists spread amongst them would cause unrest. Bungle #1 with a bullet in the mismanagement of the post-war state. When unrest hit without the army baathists, there was no army to keep the peace. Thus we had to train a new army, and it's not clear if that's even going to be adequate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, that was dumb. And not in accordance with standard military procedure, either.

This is our mess, and we're going to clean it up, because that's how the hubris of assuming people halfway across the world are our responsibility pans out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That conclusion doesn't agree with your earlier supposition.

 

But I agree; the absolute worst course of action in every imaginable way would be for the Coalition to pull out before the Iraqi state could keep order itself.

[Judge Hades]

 

So you are in favour of interventionist policies in Afghanistan?

Yes, we all know the Iraqi experiment is working splendidy.

 

 

The Al Qaeda and from that group the Taliban of Afganistan attacked us and we were in our rights to put them out of power. To wipe them out to a man as we should. I don't consider it intervening if we are responding to a proven threat against Americans on US soil. The problem is that we diverted our attention from securing Afganistan and invaded Iraq, letting Osama and his cronies slip between our fingers. We should have secured Afganistan and killed every Taliban and Al Qaeda personal within its borders, then restablished a democracy there and use that as a forward post for future incursions in the area instead of going recklessly into Iraq.