Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US didn't consider the native americans to be equal nations, but rather savages on "our" land.

That was different... we are still 'restrain[ed] at war'.

That's a laugh.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, the nazi declared unprovoked wars to their neighbours, just ike he US did on Iraq, so I don't exactly see why you are drawing a parallel here, Ned.

An agressive war is basically any war that you join without you of an ally being attacked fist. Every war has hence at least an agressor.

So.

Party A wages war against party B, wins and takes lands from party B and gives it to Party C.

Party B demands the restoration of the stolen lands from Party C. Party C is willing to negotiate, but

Party A intervenes and calls off negotiations.

Party B then takes military action to return the stolen land.

Part B, then loses the subsequent war. It leaders are tried and executed for planning and "aggressive" war.

Moreover, later historians (Spiffor) declare the war "unprovoked."

The question, I believe, is whether the war was necessary to redress a wrong or to prevent a wrong from happening.

Given the above, Hitler might actually have had a better case than Bush.

[Spiffor]

In your example, Party B, whomever that may be, is indeed the agressor. It started a war for no other reason than territorial expansion

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ned
Gatekeeper, what do you make of this:

"Dr. Kay, the former chief C.I.A. weapons inspector, has said that his team learned that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons — but that all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had them. He said it appeared that the Iraqi officers were the victims of a disinformation campaign by Mr. Hussein. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/po...agewanted=2&th

It sounds like internal Iraqi politics to me — politics that got picked up by our intelligence services, brought to the attention of U.S. officials and, well, from there the rest is history, so to speak.

It's well-known that Saddam, especially after his 1990-91 invasion of Kuwait (and subsequent butt-kicking), hardly trusted anyone outside of his immediate family, so likely this was an attempt on his part to keep any internal enemies at bay, sort of like the same thing he was doing on the international scene.

Our intelligence services couldn't see past the deception, either, so they reported the info back to U.S. officials. But even with this false info in hand, our intelligence services apparently didn't paint a dire enough picture for the likes of Rumsfeld, who went on to establish his OSP w/i the Pentagon, an office, as I've said earlier, that proceeded to provide him with intelligence data more to his liking.

What would have Rumsfeld, et al., done had they had correct info all along, instead of incorrect info? The incorrect info — which showed Saddam with apparent WMDs, yet wasn't enough to deem him a severe enough threat to the U.S. itself — caused Rumsfeld to establish the OSP. What would he have done to justify invading Iraq if he'd had the correct info — showing little to *no* WMDs — all along?

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by debeest
Kudos to Gatekeeper, who shows a US flag and a stealth fighter with every post, for acknowledging that our government lied to us and the invasion was wrong.

Those of us who feel as if that was obvious long before the invasion still need to salute anyone who will admit he was wrong. There are darned few who will.

Hmm. That seems to be a bit of a simplification of how I feel on the issue, but I'll take your kudos and run with 'em anyway.

As for the U.S. flag, it's displayed because that's where I live (for better or for worse), and not all flag-waving Americans are single-minded idjits. The stealth fighter is a Civ thing, more than anything else, but I suppose it could be implied as a symbol of U.S. military might. After all, our air force has played a big role in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gatekeeper

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Given the above, Hitler might actually have had a better case than Bush.

Did Party B not attack first in this case?

[Ned]

Party B was obviously Nazi Germany. They had a good case, IMO, for going to war as their objective, the return of stolen lands, was arguably "just." In a way, Stalin was doing the exact same thing to Poland at exactly the same time. One cannot condemn Hitler without simultaneously condemning Stalin.

But - only the Nazi high command was put on trial. Stalin actually stood in judgment over these men. What hypocrisy!

Japan, on the other hand, did appear to be guilty of what I would describe to be "aggressive war." They were waging war to acquire territory that was not theirs from everyone in Asia.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
In a way, Stalin was doing the exact same thing to Poland at exactly the same time. One cannot condemn Hitler without simultaneously condemning Stalin.

But - only the Nazi high command was put on trial. Stalin actually stood in judgment over these men. What hypocrisy!

This troll is poorer than your usual fare, Ned.

I don't think Hitler is condemned mainly for breaking a treaty. He is condemned mostly for other things.

Besides, did Germany (or rather, the Central Powers) not start WWI as well?

[Ned]

Urban, the first shot was fired by a Serb.

[Spiffor]

Err, Stalin was at peace with Germany until operation Barbarossa took the USSR unprepared. And I don't see how nazi Germany had a good case in any way for starting WW2.

The Japanese did start an agressive war too.

Prior than that, the Austrians did give an ultimatum to the Serbs, and declared war. But you can hardly say there was an agressor in WW1, because all countries involved wanted to go to war (mobilization in Russia, Germany and France could have been avoided with restraint: the Brits and Italians have shown this restraint for one year)

[Ned]

Spiffor, are you unaware that Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Hitler did - and for the same reason -- to get back lands stolen from them during World War I?

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
But yea, there are some significant blemishes on our history.

Along with other nations - they have their own blemishes.

The World War II, some historians argue that the date should be set in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria. Yet some other historians argue that there was one World War beginning in 1914 with a lull in the middle and ended when the Japanese surrendered to the Americans.

[Ned]

Data, that's how we now view the Peloponnesian war: One war separated by a period of relative peace.

[Barinthus]

Yep

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Urban, the first shot was fired by a Serb.

Ned, the assassination could hardly be seen as the beginning of WWI. It might be the immediate cause of WWI, but not the start.