Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
PSP, Germany can be used as an example against your argument as well. Europe turned a blind eye toward Hitler's political takeover and military build-up until it was almost too late. If not for FDR taking huge Bush/Cheney allegation type manuevers with our constitution at the time, England never would've had the equipment or weapons to defend itself. FDR skirted the constitution on his own accord, after private conversations with Churchill, by declaring a multitude of military equipment/supplies as surplus. It was then sold to private contractors that in turn sold it to England. Otherwise the US was forbidden to assist another country's war effort while not at war ourselves.
Despite FDR's clear liberties against the constitution, Germany still would've taken over Europe if not for Hitler's mad impatience. Just another year or two and Germany would've had the A-bomb and...game over. Leader nations took a major lesson from WWII - taking down a regional/world threat is best done pre-emptively. Only nuclear weapon capable nations are exempt from this strategy.
Until crazy whack-jobs stop brutalizing their way into the leadership of nations and threatening their neighbors or the world, there will be a cold, hard, necessary reality of war, fall-out, clean up, repeat step one. This will always be so, and the details of which nation and what economic system they use is simply beside the point.
You just cannot be seriously comparing the Lend Lease Act to England with the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, can you?
Let us really dig in to that for a moment.
FDR signed into law on 11 March 1941, and was a part of the "An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States".
And rightfully so. Every individual with common sense knew the stakes that were being played for, not only in Europe, but across the globe.
Now, let's look at Saddam's Iraq. There was no known immenent threat to any surrounding nation. His military had been nuetered and his ability to wage war completely shut down due to 12 years of U.S. troop presence in Kuwait and the "No Fly Zones". Saddam was only a threat to his own people internally and nothing else.
Colin Powell, in multiple interviews since the invasion and subsequent lack of any WMD's in Iraq has stated that he felt Wolfowits, Cheney and there henchmen fed him straight out untrue material to present to the U.N.
That's not anything like World War 2, where the threat was tangible.
No, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an aggressive act by the United States of America with no justification what so ever. We should be ashamed of ourselves for standing idly by without saying a word to our representatives and allowing it to happen without questioning it.
Supporting the troops is always a given, and should be, we had no choice but to be there.
But to allow the leadership of this nation to blindly lead us into a war of aggression (because that is exactly what the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was) is simply unexceptable. If individuals have not written or called their Federal representatives (both Senate and House) and demanded those responsible be held accountable, then we get what we deserve in our leadership as far as I'm concerned.
People tend to laugh that last statement I just made off, but stop and think about it for a moment, it's your responsibility as a citizen of this nation to do just that, if "we the people" are to be considered the government, then it can be no other way. "We the People" are at fault for what has transpired, we have failed to hold our nation and its leadership to the highest standards. This is the truth, and it cannot be disputed. No arguement brought forth has any legs to stand on, it's just chatter for chatter's sake at that time.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
