Posted on 03/19/2002 7:36:22 AM PST by sheltonmac
Paragraph 3, last sentence. I copied it right out of the article. I am due an apology.
Absolutely not. However, most of the wars we've been involved in for the past 50 years have had some element of that used as and excuse for acting. The fact that we haven't attacked China is proof of the hypocrisy of such "justification."
Bosnia and Kosovo were both predicated on so-called human rights violations. The continuation of the Iraq conflict is most certainly "justified" using the Kurdish struggle as an example even while the Turks wipe out their Kurdish population and are called our "allies."
It was on the History Channel. I was glued to the TV screen. It was very good and I learned a lot that I didn't know before.
That's funny. Washington was elected unanamously and this was exactly his position.
Al-Quaeda is not a nation. There is a constitutional remedy for such things but alas, out congress and President do not respect the constitution and thus won't use it.
Please inform us how American intervention in WWI was better than an American presence in WWI.
You have stated that Japan was a legit situation where the President could act when such a threat was present even before an attack occurred. Well, we were attacked. And there were threats of more attacks. And we still have those threats of attack. If Japan was legit, why isn't Al Queda and its supporters who make the same threats?
That was your original objection. It is a strawman because it was this that you claimed was one of the statements that discredited author. He never claimed that our mere presence was what caused WWII. He said that our intervention in WWI is what helped predicate WWII. And he is exactly right. He is of course looking back. But his view is not unique. Churchill stated this explicitly.
Secondly, while you can nitpick that Bush originally sent in the marines. He also withdrew the marines as has been also pointed out on this thread. Since Clinton sent in the rangers in order to stop the looting of food supplies, it isn't that inaccurate to say that Clinton's orders were in fact related to the feeding of hungry Somalians. There were two distinct missions and Bush did not order the Rangers into Somalia. Your statements are just as inaccurate if you want to nitpick in this fashion. Shall I now believe all your statments to be just as irrelvant as you claim this entire article is on the basis of a very minor "error." (if indeed it is an error at all).
Japan is a nation. Al Quaeda is not. I'm surprised you don't know this.
I would go so far as to say that it would be unconstitutional for a leader to take Demidog's position. It is the reponsibility of the government to provide for the general defense.
No. It raises interesting challenges to those who think they are supporting American GIs when they elect officials based on how much of the public dole/welfare they will bilk from the hard working wage earner/entrepeneur in this country (emphasis on socialist philandering democrats with wealth redistribution agendas).
There is a case to be made for that. Why shouldn't those thresholds be high? When we send in troops, we are essentially asking them to forfeit their lives. Domestically, we do not make that kind of demand lightly. For example, before someone is sentenced to death in a court of law, they are allowed every luxury available under the auspice of "due process." The typical soldier in the field is not allowed that luxury. He is expected to kill and/or die when ordered to do so. If we are going to ask our soldiers to make that kind of sacrifice, shouldn't we at least make sure we are doing so for the right reasons? In my opinion, sending those 18 men to their deaths in Somalia, for no other reason than to deliver care packages, demonstrated a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life on the part of our government. In that situation, the Constitution was not threatened. The rights of U.S. citizens were not threatened. The security of our borders was not threatened. To say that those soldiers in Somalia died fighting to defend their country and fulfill their sworn oath would be an overstatement. It would merely be an attempt to con ourselves into somehow justifying their deaths.
Wrong. The invasion of France was because the French and British declared war on Germany as a direct result of Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hitler did not attack them because of Versailles. He attacked them before they could build up the strength to attack him. (That’s not saying he wouldn’t have done it eventually, but Hitler’s first aims at conquest were to the east --- liebstrauben.
To say that Versailles was the cause of Hitler's rise to power is speculative at best and not strongly supported by the facts. Germany had only been a 'nation' for 50 years or so at the end of WWI and had no history of democracy or self-government. Republican self-government was not wanted or admired among the majority of German people. They looked for a strong leader who would bring predictability. They wanted a totalitarian form of government because they did not trust that republican forms would work in Germany. Hitler took their natural inclination for ethnic self-identity, sprinkled it liberally with state socialism while promising the return to a fictions Aryan golden age that never existed and seized power with the consent of the people. He could have done the same if WWI had never happened or even if it had ended in stalemate, which would have been the case if the US had not entered the war. The German economy along with the economies of all of Europe, was in tatters at the end of WWI. The victors and the losers were all in equally bad shape. Germany’s economic situation was complicated by the end of monarchy and the governmental vacuum that followed. Italy, a victor in WWI faced the same inability to function in a democracy when faced with economic problems and also chose a fascist/socialist strong man as dictator. Did Versailles or the US entry into WWI bring Mousolinni to power?
I note your use of the past tense.
I maintain that Demidog will never have the opportunity to test his beliefs about military intervention because no one with that set of beliefs will ever be elected to the appropriate position of authority
I note my use of the future tense.
You will never have the opportunity to test your theories because no one will subject this country to the level of risk you ascribe to. Therefore, you argue from your position with no risk of refutation not because it is correct but because it is not testable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.