View Full Version : Is Iraq like WWII?
When WWII started, the thinking was to stay out of other people's business.
Also, when Churchill first became in charge, he made blunders I believe Dunkirk and Norway? And people were screaming and yelling that this proved it was futile to get involved. Curchill was always known as a "war monger."
Will history prove that the timing was right here? What further confuses me is the decision to go to war in Viet Nam (or wait, it was never called a war was it?) turned out to never turn the tide in public opinion. And we didn't defeat the communist dictators.
It seems to me that history shows that countries usually wait extremely long before they decide to go to war. And often it starts out to be a bumbling mess.
Is it even worth trying to see parallels in war history?
Bombardier
28-02-05, 09:29
Hmm good question.
Public opinion always takes a front seat in these matters, and in the days of WWII it was no different.
The thing with then and now is that the 'on the spot' accurate information available to us today far outweighs what was then.
In addition The threat then was Absolute, Hitler was invading the rest of Europe, here we had a threat from Suddam yes but no direct threat to any of the coalition,we also had the threat of instability in the Arab regions.
The threat is not as direct as that of Hitler , yet more a perceived threat.
The decision to go to war seems to be based on this perceived threat to our countries/World Stability and it seems that we do not want to dilly dally as we did in WWII.
I see thanks. I am hoping to go to college and make history my major. Although I read history 24/7 there is so much I don't understand I hate acting like I know what is right and what is wrong.
I often wonder if all the other people yelling and screaming about Iraq have done their homework.
Churchill was known as a "warmonger" because he could see what the Nazis were doing in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. He could see a military build-up and the direction in which the German govt. of the day were going. He was, if you like, a voice in the wilderness, warning of rearmament and political rebirth against communism and the Jews. The great depression only fueled the sense of desperation in Germany at that time. Churchill saw what was happening and warned against a new, rampant militarism in the hands of a Chancellor who had the oratorial skills to raise the hopes of the disenfranchised German people.
You mention blunders - Dieppe and Norway. These were actions taken by the Allied forces at the time, (the Canadians suffered the worst casualties at Dieppe) and were a way of taking the war to the Nazis. Britain and her allies at the time were neither strong enough nor able enough to throw masses of troops into action, they did not have enough. Commando raids were undertaken instead. Dieppe was a failure but the lessons learnt enabled the allies to perfect their plans (even then) for Operation Overlord or D Day.
Britain and France went to war in support of Poland. A great smear on Britain as they did absolutely nothing to help the Polish. France collapsed under blitzkreig leaving Britain alone. Joseph Kennedy the US Ambassador to Britain stated on many occasions to the US, to FDR and to anyone that would listen that Britain was doomed. Churchill needed the US on side and with us - he had to counter Kennedy's propaganda and did so in the dark days of 1940 - alone. Battles had to be fought with what the British had.
In this case, there was no dallying about. Britain declared war, stood up to the Nazis well before the USA joined and well before the Soviet Union was attacked (Operation Barbarossa).
Viet Nam I'll leave to the experts in US history, not really my sphere.
Are there parallels to the modern day? No I think not. Saddam was a menace and posed problems for the Middle East. The oil industry and the crooked UN did not help with their Oil for Assistance programme. The powers that be dithered, could not get the support it needed in the International community and decided to go it alone (that was already the plan if all else failed). Both governments lied to their elected representatives and to the people to go to war. They doctored reports, they blamed the intelligence services (who provided raw material which was then twisted to suit the politicians). The cause (to rid the M.E. of Saddam was right in my opinion) the way it was done was woefully and hopelessly wrong. Bush still remains; we shall see if Bliar survives.
Away from politics, I see no parallel here other than in this modern day, the wait to go to war was due to the fact that there was no intrinsic reason or justification for it.
Dieppe, not Dunkirk. Thanks soooo much. You wrote that very well and cleared that up for me.
I was thinking that Bush was the threat of the extremists and was thus the voice in the wildnerness like Churchill, but it doesn't appear to be that cut and dry.
I think the problem nowadays is a lot less clear cut as you state. The political process has changed vastly I believe and with the emergence of the spin doctor, who can believe what exactly is happening. I don't mean to go down the Michael Moore route or any of the conspiracy theorists, but what level is this threat? Is is as coordinated as made out? Bush was right to go hell for leather and destroy the Taliban. They needed taking out a long time before they were. Trying to link A.Q. to Iraq was a transparent piece of propaganda which nobody believed (I think) which sort of brings me back to where I left off on my last rant!
Bush is the most powerful man in the world and when he talks, others have to listen. A lot of people do disagree with him but after 11 September, the writing was clear. Those people had to sorted out. After that, keep going for the bad guys and terrorists (bearing in mind that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter) and grind them into the ground. Afghanistan is 100% better than it was but then, it was always a horror of a place to keep on side!
Given that Bush has more intelligence sources then us (as I assume the President of the US would) why would he chose to go to war? I mean assuming he is not Dr. Evil that is.
So if he does have the top level intelligence sources reporting to him I would guess that he made the best decision he could under the circumstances (being that people can be wrong). Of course, real life is not the movies so happy endings or timely happy endings might not occur under the most solid of circumstances.
Historically it seems that countries usually very slow to engage in war, perhaps the US should have acted during Clinton's terms or even before that.
I dunno, I hope to take some political science classes this year and if I do, I will report back with my official opinion! :P
The intelligence services can and frequently are a nightmare. They operate on the shady side of the street dealing with half truth and questionable contacts. For this campaign, the Brit int. sources were down to a general or two and the int appeared handsome however, with the ususal understatements, our lot said lots of probables, maybes and nothing too definite. The politicans we have rubbed up the brass as it were and it shone. As a result we went to war.
The US int. dealt with different sources including a chap who wanted to become Iraqi president! he'd lived in the US and had "contacts" within Saddam's regime. There was a lot of pocket lining going on and once again nothing definite. Colin Powell's infamous brief on WMD vehicles etc was specially prepared for him by the CIA. The pictures and talk he gave at the UN backfired on him terribly. The big point is that the Western "allies" had no firm humint (human intelligence or the Mk. I eyeball) on the ground. Electronic int. is great and can give you all sorts of info but there is nothing that beats what someone has seen first hand. Predator drones etc are great for what they can do but there is a limit.
If you remember during Clinton's time, the US attacked Afghanistan with cruise missile strikes on AQ training camps. No one important was on site (if anyone) and this was in retaliation for the African Embassy bombings.
Your first paragraph...heh, heh, heh! There are plenty of "Old Europeans" who consider Pres. Bush to be slightly to the right of Dr. Evil... It has been commented on that priority one on Bushes list when he became President was the toppling of S.H. Reasons range from the sublime to the ridiculous; oil to finishing off what his Dad didn't!
I have always had a hard time with conspiracy theorists .. and that people are operating from an evil base. Of course that makes me an idiot cuz look at Hilter, Idi Amin, Stalin, etc, etc.
I have always been convinced that if I was born into royalty ala Queen Elizabeth, someone could have pulled my throne from me in days. I have a hard time seeing interior motives in political situations. Its hard enough for me to grasp the exterior situation let alone the 100s of other secret plots going on at the same time.
So with all this shady intelligence, how would any of us, let alone the Pres, know what is really going on?
Generally speaking the people in charge know what's good and what's not but there are occasions such as we discuss that are not clear. The problem was getting accurate humint - S.H's regime did not permit that option - try it and get killed. Britain used a reporter (for the Times I think), to check on the nuclear capability of Iraq well before Gulf War 1. His name was Farzad Bazov and he was unfortunately caught. Everyone denied his role but he was executed.
Laziness contributes as of course our friends the politicians. Budget too expensive? - cut it! Too much to try and cover? - Streamline! we've heard and seen this way too often - the spooks in USA discovered tapes of the 11 September calls between terrorists several days if not weeks after the event. Too much stuff, not enough bodies to cover it.
Britain's MI5 have reacted (last year anyway) to domestic terror etc. by recruiting an extra 2000 agents. Adverts in the papers etc.
the President is briefed by his advisors who put the information in the simplest light and easiest form to digest. Who knows what happens behind the scenes - which mavericks can alter or change stuff already prepared. In Britain we don't have too far to look - we all know - for the USA, research is your homwork for tonight Pink5!
How am I supposed to research when I don't know who is feeding me the truth?
I am reading right now about man and agression. That it is innate to man's nature to fight and rape.
How am I supposed to research when I don't know who is feeding me the truth?
Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Your first lesson in intelligence. You have to sift the material, see what information repeats itself from other sources, what collateral information bears a relationship to it and then see if it makes sense. You collate all your sources, however spurious and then see what fits. Nothing is 100% and something maybe half way there.
I am reading right now about man and agression. That it is innate to man's nature to fight and rape.
Pardon me, but IMO the above is B*llox! I don't know how many times I've argued this over - I will leave that little sentence alone - for inate needs, see Abraham Maslow http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/senecavalleyhs/chdev/maslow.htm
Pink,
I found a good website that gets through most of the media BS, check it out. ORBAT.COM I know the editor and he is pretty scrupulous about his sources although his editorials will sometimes make you chuckle. He is not an American, he is from India so you are getting a good foreign view of events. He does live in Washington, D.C., but we can't hold that against him. The site is updated daily and you can reference a couple more sites from there.
Zofo is right about psychology. That was my first major in college until I found out most of those people were there trying to figure out their own problems.
Rotorwash
Thanks. I will check that out....
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.