http://redstate.com/stories/war/what_if_moveon_org_existed_65_years_ago Of course, a vile organization like moveon would never had existed then. It would have promptly been broken up and it's members imprisoned or executed.
1) are you comparing the iraq conflict to WWII? A. Dec 7th, 1941 ring a bell? When did Iraq attack us? B. Did saddam pose a direct threat to the American people? 2) I don't agree with moveon.org on a lot of things, like attacking gen. patraeus, but I think their hearts are in the right place; trying to save troops' lives...
I don't like that MoveOn tore down Petraeus, but at the same time, Bush is the one who sent a military man in front of Congress to answer for his policy and decisions. If Bush had any spine, he would have answered to Congress rather than using Petraeus as fodder. And while I don't believe Petraeus has "betrayed us", I do think his testimony was scripted, manipulated and sanitized. He was put in a no win position. Like it or not, a democracy means you have the right to be a Commie, or a Liberal. It allows you to dissent against the government. If you erode this, you erode the whole concept of freedom.
MoveOn.org is not about trying to do anything positive about Iraq. MoveOn.org is all about the George Soros distorted vision of what he thinks the USA should be. Their childish attack on General Petraeus--and just about everything else that they do--shows their true colors. guerilla, there is nothing that Bush could say that would satisfy the Democrats in Congress. Bush was not ordered to provide a report and recommendations. They demanded a report from Petraeus, and he gave his honest assessment. This is one of the most qualified leaders in the history of this country with respect to terrorism and counter insurgency tactics. There is not one shred of evidence that anything was scripted, manipulated and sanitized. It's just another wild, unfounded claim from the radical left--as scripted by George Soros.
I'm pretty sure Hitler was a threat because he declared war on the U.S. The U.S. entered the war against Japan because of Pearl Harbor but only declared war on Germany after Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.
How honest was the assessment of violence when it did not cover getting shot in the face, only shot in the back of the head? How honest was the assessment when it did not include Shia on Shia or Sunni on Sunni violence? Gimme a break. Petraeus met with the executive branch for 3 days prior to providing his report. I feel for the man being put in a terrible position, but he was, for better or worse, somewhat duty bound to present the war as the white house wanted it presented. He is honor bound to answer to the American people, without deep sixing his Commander in Chief. And the recent documentary I posted of how the violence in Anbar has been quelled indicates that it has a lot more to do with buying off the enemy than it does with surging our troops.
I still fail to see how anyone could have expected Petraeus to come back with anything except a positive view on Iraq. It was all very well scripted. Petraeus will end up looking like an arse a couple of years from now when we all realise he was just saying what his foolish Commander in Chief's controllers told him to say but it keeps the BS "war" on track so it's all good right?
That's basically the exact same thing I was going to say. It is run and funded by George Soros. The man hates America and is actively seeking to tear her down.
Where were you when Petraeus was explaining his viewpoint? The internal conflict is part of the political problem that he did address--and expressed dissatisfaction with the progress in some geographic areas. The bigger problem is Sunni and Shia violence. Personally, I don't think that Sunis and Shias will ever coexist. They have been killing each other since Mohammed died. Brutal, repressive regimes appear to be the only thing that keeps these two groups from ripping each other's throats out. This is the biggest threat to peace in Iraq.
It would of saved a lot of American lives not to fight Germany. That about it. MoveOn.org is all about the George Soros distorted vision The United States didn't have to go to war with Germany. According to moveon-classic.org the U.S. should have appeased Hitler like Britain and France
Dec 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Tokyo declares war on United States and Britain. Dec 8, 1941 U.S. Congress adopts declaration of war against Japan. Dec 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on the United States Dec 13, 1941 Hungary and Bulgaria declare war on U.S. So are you suggesting that we should have let the Germans declare war on the U.S. and then done nothing about it?
Sorry, Lorien, but this isn't accurate, historically. When Germany declared war on the United States. Japan attacked December 7, we declared War on December 8; Germany (along with Italy), as part of the Axis pact, declared war on the United States on December 11, and we reciprocated later that day with a declaration of war against Germany and Italy. War was made upon us by Japan, and declared upon us by Germany and Italy. We responded. Yes, by virtue of the above. An analogous situation would have obtained if Syria had bombed the Twin Towers and Iraq declared war as a Syrian ally. (Edit - sorry, posted before seeing chant's post. What he said).
We could have appeased Hitler. The US could have given him Canada. That would have worked just like it worked when Britian and France gave him Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia.
Britain wouldn't have allowed us to give Canada to the Nazis since they were still a crown country of the Commonwealth. Also I don't think most people would have liked the idea of Hitler being to our immediate north. And almost certainly it would have made it possible for the Nazis to launch V2s against New York, Boston, Washington etc. It's a bad idea and if you were the President back then we would all be speaking German right now.
Chant, I posted (then deleted), originally thinking he was serious; but as this was confusing, given the thrust of his argument, I reread his posts and believe he is being sarcastic - comparing Hitler and his actions to today's world, and that as appeasement was the wrong action then, it's the wrong action now. A flawed analogy, in my opinion, but I believe he was making this point. Bogart, this is your point, yes? To the OP's post. People forget just how divided the U.S. was over intervening in the struggle (going on in China for decades, and in Europe since 1938/39). We intervened in WWI, and it hurt. The isolationists had a credible reason to give pause, and the debate between interventionists and isolationists was a formidable - at times violent - one. When the U.S. was attacked and three enemy nation-states declared formal war against us, it galvanized the nation in a way that is not possible now. It isn't a question of a fundamental change of character in the American people - all of us want our families safe. It is a question of history, where our questionable involvement in ideological battles (with blood as consequence) over the last 50 years has informed the debate as it's framed today; and a question of the changed nature of our enemy. They are disparate, they are legion, and they are not defined by national boundary or statehood. We will not be the unified country that existed on December 8, 1941.
That's true. Appeasement didn't work in WW2 and it wouldn't work now. After Chamberlain, the British PM, gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler, Hitler invaded Poland.
Appeasement may not work, but Hitler had a country, allies, a standing army and a government to fight. Bin Laden has a bunch of caves full of guano.
Chamberlain, by the way, is history's fall guy; I think rightfully so. However, even putting aside the absolute war weariness of the globe, and understanding that no one (including the Tory Party at large) wanted a fight, save Hitler, it is important to see the historical weight that appeasement had as a successful strategy in Europe. And it continues today. War is a cudgel, not a scalpel. It is expensive, ruinous, and bloody. Thousands of significant treaties have been brokered in lieu of war, and appeasement, though it bears the negative connotations wrought by Chamberlain's diplomacy, is not an absolute wrong. I think that Shakespeare has it about right: Henry V, I:II:
Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths.When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength. Arnold Schwarzenegger