Antiwar Protest Quiz

Off Topic
1

“The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war…would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. . . . The American masses can best help…by fighting at home to keep their own liberties.”

Sound familiar? It’s edited to keep names from giving it away.

No, it’s not a statement regarding the War in Iraq. It was written in the Partisan Review 1939, regarding American deterrence of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

2

And some of our greatest liberal intellectuals signed their names to the statement Thunderbolt posts, including John Dewey and William Carlos Williams. It shows that even great humanist thinkers can be on the wrong side of history.

Maybe Thunderbolt and I read the same blogs, but I saw this quote from Tony Blair underneath the one Thunderbolt posted:

"I think it is very interesting when you reread the history of the late Thirties and the Second World War, the degree to which there was a very big disagreement between people as to how to deal with the Nazi threat. Not disagreement that it was a threat, but how to deal with it. And it seems almost extraordinary to us now that there were people arguing throughout the 1930s that actually the way to deal with Hitler was to make a gesture of disarmament. Now we look back and say, ‘How on earth could anyone have thought that was sensible?’ But that was for a time in fact the predominant view.

The second thing is how big a gamble politically President Roosevelt was taking in committing America, first of all to helping, and then to committing forces. It is sometimes forgotten that in the prewar presidential elections each of the candidates had to line up and say, ‘on no account will we get drawn into any European conflict’. And that’s why this transatlantic alliance is felt so keenly on their side as well as ours."

3

You know… the time and date of those statements is very important. If they are before Germany took action outside of their own country, they might just be right.

Looking at a handy-dandy timeline you can see that 1939 was only the very beginning. You can see in the following that only when directly attacked did the US finally get directly involved…

Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.

Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.

Anyhow, it appears that what you are arguing is that preemptive war should have been declared, as with Iraq, and that anyone arguing against preemptive war is wrong.

This is silly. Hitler and the Nazis were an aggressive militaristic nation out to conquer large sections of the world. The threat of terrorism is not easily tied to nations and military aggression.

These issues are very different and trying to tie them together to claim people opposed to current administrations policies are incorrect in their opposition is dubious at best.

However, go ahead, seek out the parallels, taking into account the timelines and attempt to show that preemptive military strikes are the best policy in all occasions. History is not repeating itself today – the threat of terrorism as warfare is somewhat of a new concept.

Disagreeing on how to combat it does not make people weak, pacifistic or otherwise fit into stupid labels used to attempt to belittle their opinions and coerce them to agree with you.

4

Vroom,

“Anyhow, it appears that what you are arguing is that preemptive war should have been declared, as with Iraq, and that anyone arguing against preemptive war is wrong.”

This is patently false. What I have quoted has nothing to do with the value of pre-remptive war, a completely different topic.

“This is silly. Hitler and the Nazis were an aggressive militaristic nation out to conquer large sections of the world. The threat of terrorism is not easily tied to nations and military aggression.”

Nonsense. Terrorists are radical ideologues that want to replace the current state of the world with one that suits their interests and beliefs (Shia law), and they want to do so by conquest. This, in substance, is no different than Hitler wanting to extend his Reich - they are one and the same.

The fact that terrorist organizations are not always easily tied to state sponsors doesn’t change their goals. Terrorists are simply shrewd fighters - they use the Western adherence to the law of war as a weakness to exploit. Just because Al-Qaeda doesn’t have tanks and conventional troops doesn’t make them less of an aggressive military force.

“However, go ahead, seek out the parallels, taking into account the timelines and attempt to show that preemptive military strikes are the best policy in all occasions. History is not repeating itself today – the threat of terrorism as warfare is somewhat of a new concept.”

There are parallels, obvious ones. And though we ‘never step in the same river twice’, the parallels provide for great instruction going forward.

And, your terrorism as warfare comment is useless. How war is conducted is not as important as why. It was a ‘new concept’ when American minutemen broke from traditional British marching engagements. The tactics of war will always change - terror is the new weapon, and though it represents a cowardly new direction - the motives are the same as we have seen in history. Hitler and OBL are cut from the same cloth - they want to reconquer what they thought was taken from them in the name of an ideology. Hitler wanted to reunite the German territories and re-establish dominance in Europe; OBL wants to reclaim Andalusia and the tracts of the Muslim empire, along with conquering Western infidel lands. Saddam Hussein was a wannabe Hitler, invading Kuwait.

OBL declared war on the US. The state of war that existed with Saddam never elapsed.

“Disagreeing on how to combat it does not make people weak, pacifistic or otherwise fit into stupid labels”

It may. If someone claims that the only to win this war is to reach out to the Middle East and love them, I’d consider that weak and pacifistic.

5

Thunder,

Sorry, got stuck in the “political threads” mode of thought.

Anyhow, we are going to have to disagree on our thoughts concerning terrorism and how it differs from convential warfare.

6

In my point of view, the war with Iraq was not preemptive, it was ongoing. They shot at British and American planes DAILY. (Let alone the fact that we did nothing when they tried to assassinate one of our ex-presidents; continued to harbor one of the leading perpetrators of the first trade center bombing; etc.)

If you agree to an armistice to spare your regime from being overthrown, you have to abide by its conditions, not flout them for 12 years.

Maybe the war between an “Iraq-Zarqawi alliance” was preemptive, but I think that was one of the weaker justifications for invasion.

7

VROOM,

Your history needs some help. You wrote:

“You know… the time and date of those statements is very important. If they are before Germany took action outside of their own country, they might just be right.”

Prior to 1939, Hitler had invaded the Rhineland, the anschluss had annexed Austria, and he had taken over ALL of Czechoslovokia.

Iraq has invaded two of his neighbors in the last twenty years, Iran and Kuwait. They were both wars of conquest. He has fired missles at Israel to try to draw them into war. He has supported terrorists (both Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists), fired chemical weapons at Iran and his own people, murdered a large number of his own people using other methods. The list goes on and on. The parallels are clear and history screamed out at us. Unfortunately, some people turned a deaf ear.

Then as now, there were people like vroom, Lumpy, Elk, kuri, kike, danh, who would rather us put our heads in the sand. They risked long term security for a lack of war in the short term.

Please also remember that we were involved in the Lend Lease program that supplied weaponry to our Allies starting in early 1940. This put our destroyers and tankers in harm’s way. Roosevelt, like Bush after him, saw the war clouds threatening. That is what leaders do. They lead. They use the best information they have and make decisions. They don’t vascillate (Clinton rattling his saber after the U.N. team was kicked out in 1998).

Jeff

Please make up a new name for me. The facts are as undeniable as is the pattern.

8

[quote]Brian Smith wrote:
In my point of view, the war with Iraq was not preemptive, it was ongoing. They shot at British and American planes DAILY. (Let alone the fact that we did nothing when they tried to assassinate one of our ex-presidents; continued to harbor one of the leading perpetrators of the first trade center bombing; etc.)"

Dude, they shot at American planes that were bombing them. Watch freaking Bowling for Columbine. Bush talks of helping the Iraqi people, but the U.S. supported Saddam while he was committing his most heinous atrocities, and since the end of the war have caused thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of deaths to Iraqi civilians through trade sanctions and bombings.

9

Jeff,

Nobody is claiming that Iraq was a model country prior to invasion. Perhaps that is partially the reason it had been attacked before? Of course, the US supported Iraq when it was fighting Iran… sigh.

In any case, if those reasons had of been used to justify the attack, then the discussions would be different. You aren’t really paying attention.

Not to nitpick on timelines, but:

March 15/16 1939 - Nazis take Czechoslovakia.

Besides, what is the point of this really. The comparison with Germany pre-WWII is silly. Iraq isn’t being attacked because it had plans of world domination. It wasn’t much of a threat when attacked this time.

You’ve gone around the bend.

10

Vroom,

Again you continue to ignore history. The parallels are clear. Btw, parallels, not mirror images.

Hitler gained momentum because the international community wouldn’t enforce the Versailles treaty - France and Britain equivocated and triangulated; Hitler revved up the war machine. Weakness invites aggression.

Hitler wanted his version of nationalism to gain steam so he could carry it into his conquest of Europe. Saddam had the exact same designs on the Middle East.

The lesson from WWII is simple - appeasement doesn’t work. When the international community fails its duty to make rascals comply, whether it’s the Versailles treaty or Resolution 687 (the conditional ceasefire), it emboldens the aspirations of the Hitlers of the world.

You want a good parallel of WWII? Read up on the Punic Wars. A lesson could have been learned from that adventure in civilization, but Chamberlain probably skipped his course in classical history.

Thank goodness Churchill didn’t.

11

I’m not ignoring history at all. For most of us WWII is far enough back that details around that time have mostly been lost. We know Hitler was evil and did bad things.

Arguing about that time and proving anything will be more than difficult. However, as ever, there were events leading up the situation that would have to be analyzed.

However, one of the big lessons that was learned, was that about a country converting from one with a normal political system into totalitarian one. This is why the left screams every time someone says it is “unpatriotic” to question the administration.

We might be oversensitive, but the issue is that of allowing only one viewpoint and having the entire populace echo the governments views mindlessly or fearfully.

I’m not really interested in debating the in’s and out’s of Germany or Hitler compared to Iraq. Especially in this forum where any attempt to analyze something or question an opinion would be twisted to look like sympathy or support for something obviously not worthy of those things. Lets not bother playing that game.

Next topic (or sub topic) anyone?

12

Vroom,

“We might be oversensitive, but the issue is that of allowing only one viewpoint and having the entire populace echo the governments views mindlessly or fearfully.”

Oversensitive - certainly. Reports of censoring viewpoints are entirely exaggerated. This is shameful victimhood and it plays well on the Left.

The ‘entire populace’ is far from ‘echoing’ the government: I can’t count the number of protests, speeches, academic lectures, journalistic pieces, and bestselling books and movies that are against the administration. There’s no shortage of opinion. There’s no mindless following - the folks that agree with the administration aren’t puppets, they are people who have done their fair share of thinking and opinion-forming. Your self-pitying assertions are ridiculous.

Many opinions are allowed, no one is being censored. Censorship and being refuted or ignored are not the same.

Yes, on to the next topic.

13

bigjoey wrote:

No! Who the heck told you that?! Our planes were flying over Iraq, demarcating the no-fly zones to protect the Kurdish and Shiite resistance in the North and South from Saddam’s revenge. They only bombed when they were shot at, and they targetted the anti-aircraft weaponry.

Are you referring to Clinton’s missile strike against weapons sites? That, itself, was a one-time deal.

Do I have to again?

The U.S. “condoned,” not supported, Saddam while the attrocities against the Kurds occured (who are now our the Iraqi citizens most supportive of the U.S.)

But that’s ridiculous. Just because we did harm then, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a different position now. In fact, it should argue for our greater responsibility in toppling the Baathist regime now.

That is incorrect. NOT through bombings–you have been grossly misinformed. But as for the sanctions, you may have already read they were my main argument for the invasion of Iraq–to end the international sanctions which were crippling the Iraqi people, killing (conservatively) 4000 children per month under the age of 5.

14

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
Dude, they shot at American planes that were bombing them. Watch freaking Bowling for Columbine. Bush talks of helping the Iraqi people, but the U.S. supported Saddam while he was committing his most heinous atrocities, and since the end of the war have caused thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of deaths to Iraqi civilians through trade sanctions and bombings.

[/quote]

I can?t believe that someone actually used Bowling for Columbine to make a point. That may have been the dumbest post on this forum. Try getting your news somewhere other than Michael Moore.

Me Solomon Grundy

15

[quote]vroom wrote:
However, one of the big lessons that was learned, was that about a country converting from one with a normal political system into totalitarian one. This is why the left screams every time someone says it is “unpatriotic” to question the administration.
[/quote]

I don’t think it’s very apt to compare the Weimer Republic’s transformation into the 3rd Reich to the United States war-footing after September 11.
I haven’t called you “unpatriotic.” In fact, your concern about this charge is strange because aren’t you Canadian?
But your remark above seems to trivialize what Nazi Germany represented, in order to demonize my country. Am I allowed to say anything about that without casting aspersions on your love for the United States?

And if you’re worried about freedom of speech, then you should find an Iraqi exile to talk to about living under Saddam.

16

Brian, your statement proves my point. I’m not demonizing anything. However, people have been called unpatriotic for criticism they have offered. Of course that is not state sponsored censorship, I have never claimed it was.

I know some people have trouble discerning the difference between outright censorship in law versus attempted censorship by private citizens. It’s a mob mentality type of thing. If you can’t see it or understand it, that is fine. We don’t have to agree.

However, if you can see it, you can see that when “everyone” starts calling critics unpatriotic then the critics will have to shut up or take risks for voicing their opinion.

You know, it isn’t just about the odd forum comment, but about people being threatened with violence for their opinions. You think this has not happened?

Am I saying anything evil about the US? No I am not. I am sure it will happen in Canada too when we are eventually struck by terrorists in some shocking fashion. I am saying some people have and will do that type of thing, perhaps not even realizing where that road eventually leads.

Relax.

17

[quote]vroom wrote:
Brian, your statement proves my point. I’m not demonizing anything. [/quote]

I don’t think so. Your comparison was lame and gauche.

18

I think some would say that trying to kill former president Bush for decisions he made as president was an act or war. If the republicans hadn’t been hounding clinton over monica lewinski they might have done something about saddam then.
Saddam held a grudge Alqaeda was a weapons delivery system for that hatred and intelligence wasn’t good enough to accurately predict what comes next, so Bush revoked Saddams ghetto pass and no longer has to factor saddam into the equation we call the war on terror.

19

I got another quote for you. Very apt indeed.

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us—that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” —Tom Paine.

20

biltritewave, the quote you post could justify any cause.