Al Quada and our news media, Democrats have something in common

Easy. Axis Powers vs Allies. Hence the name World War II. Come on, now.

Yeah, and outside of the USS Cole and WTC, al-qaeda never attacked us. :hihi:

Way to downplay the U-boat incidents. That's still more attacking of us that Hussein did. Moreover, Hussein was not actively attacking anyone at the onset of our war.

 

For Hitler, treaties were something to be torn up when it was inconvenient to honor them. There's no reason to necessarily believe he would have honored the TriPartite Pact if FDR hadn't forced his hand. In fact, he was quite perturbed that the Japanese had attacked the US...he hadn't anticipated war w/ us until 1943-45 at the earliest, if at all. What were the Japanese going to do if he didn't honor his committment?

 

Apples and oranges. We're talking about Iraq. You anti-war types are the ones that keep insisting on differentiating between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, remember?

And way to downplay the instances of Iraqi AA batteries firing upon Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone...a breach in and of itself of the cease-fire
agreement.

 

Does any of that change the fact that he was attacking and invading foreign lands at the time we engaged in war with him?

The UN Security Council didn't agree that this was a breach of the ceasefire. Before you discredit them, remember that you were using one of their resolutions as justification:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm

 

Once again....what did any of that have to do with us? Why should we have gone to war with him over that? If there's such a compelling reason, then why DIDN'T we go to war w/ him until Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan? He wasn't attacking us.

I won't even go there, since the UN has already since been shown to have been in bed w/ Saddam in the Oil-for-Food thing, and was thus unwilling to even enforce their own resolutions (sort of like the British bobbie yelling at the fleeing criminal: "Stop!!! Otherwise I'll yell 'Stop' again!!!).

But back to the subject at hand: what real difference is there between that, and the U-boats firing upon American destroyers?

 

Umm, because they are different. . . (I'm not anti-war btw. Afganistan was obviously the right thing to do. I'm anti-the Iraq conflict, until I get proof somewhere that it was justified beyond, Sadaam was a bad man.)

 

I made this point to refute the completely asinine comparisons of W's Iraq invasion to WWII. If Hussein had been, or even had the ability to, attack/invade others in his region, then I would feel that we were justified. However, that is completely NOT the case.

Again, you can't use UN resolution violations to justify an invasion if you're going to discredit the union as a whole. You simply cannot do that.

 

Well, you've failed to do so. The truth is, the situations are a lot more similar than you'd care to admit, and you're unable to show any hard evidence to the
contrary.

Why not stop throwing red herrings about UN resolutions out there, and answer the question: How is Iraqi AA firing at Allied aircraft in the no-fly zone any different than U-boats firing on US destroyers?

 

Ok then, why don't you go ahead and list for me all the countries Saddam had invaded in the couple of years prior to our invasion. You must be keeping a secret from the rest of the world.

Because we didn't fire at the U-boats first:

How many people died in those coalition fired-upons?

 

Saddam invaded Kuwait. That was enough right there.

You're missing my point (whether intentionally or not, only you can answer).
My point is, if you apply the same standard of why we shouldn't have gone to war w/ Saddam to WWII, then you should apply the same standard to Hitler. Hitler's invasion of other countries didn't affect this country one bit. There was no United Nations at the time to request our intervention. If Hitler's
invasion of neighboring countries was alone enough of a reason for you to go to war w/ him, why wasn't it enough of a reason for FDR?


On November 22 U.S. and British aircraft fired at a communications facility near Al Amarah, 165 miles southeast of Baghdad, in the sixth day of bombardments in a week. The attacks take place in the southern region of the country, where since the 1990–91 Gulf war, Washington--together with its junior British partner--has declared its prerogative to control Iraqi airspace, barring flights by Iraqi military aircraft and bombing any defense facility it sees fit. Imperialist forces have imposed a similar "no-fly" zone in the northern region of Iraq.

Oh, please. "Washington--together with its junior British partner"? "Imperialist forces"? Where are you citing this crap from? The Pyongyang Times?

You just blew a lot of your credibility w/ me there, pal. I'm not usually one to discredit sources, but this is a bit much for me. But hey, if YOU want to buy into it...