And unfortunately, we the USA realized we should sit out, but changed our mind and created the WWII scenario by allowing the punitive actions against the loser, in this case Germany.
We were too powerful to sit out a World War, our national interests had become international. Our actions against the loser were not punitive enough. After a few years they were ignored and allowed Germany to reconstitute a military machine. Is why Germany was completely occupied after WWII and the victors are still there.
Wow, we should have starved Germany? They didn't start WW1 and the punitive action against them was so bad that it led to the rise of the Nazi party and extreme nationalism. Maybe we should have taken your extreme view on punitive actions in Iraq.
Actually it was the Kaiser who was the key to the start of the war. He guaranteed the Austrians protection from the Russians when they punished Bosnia. After that all the pieces fell and the armies took control and began to march.
Who said anything about starving them? I think it is clear that the West did not properly respond to their violations of the disarmament. By the mid-1930's Germans were openly rearming and modernizing their military in a very big way.
You do realize how bad things were in Germany prior to the national socialists taking over right? Should we have invaded then to make France and England happy? They insisted on the sanctions / punishment and the League of Nations was in control. We may have been too large to stay out, but that is exact argument those on the left who think we should stay out of the Middle East use on a daily basis.
What The West failed to do was make sure that Germany didn't re-arm itself. Yes, making them pay reparations didn't work which was why we did the opposite after defeating Japan and Germany in WWII. We poured money into their rebuilding and kept an occupation army on the ground to make sure that they couldn't re-arm except under our terms and our control. So you are arguing for us to become further mired in the morass of middle eastern politics? Why? Is there any logical reason to waste more $trillions and sacrifice more US lives for a place that is not essential to our interests? Or is it just because the right must be against any policy that Obama is for . . . even when it makes good sense.
No, you just pointed out why we should have kept force in Iraq instead of bailing completely. We poured money into infrastructure and didn't take oil revenues. The continuance of a substantial force - and screw the lack of agreement as we could dictate the terms per your own argument - would have prevented this debacle in Iraq, allowed us to do something about bordering Syria if we chose and anywhere else in the region. Your argument not mine (Germany and Japan). Obama said that Afghanistan is the "good war" but yet we are again, pulling out with an announced date. The straw man argument that the right is against any policy of Obama is so lame, you might as well just use the race card like the rest of the hardcore left.
The two key differences between Germany/Japan and Iraq is 1--We had vital national interests in the future of the Pacific and Europe. And 2--Postwar Japanese and Germans worked with us to transform their governments, economy, and military into modern democracies. They did not fight us with guerrilla insurgencies but rather joined us as allies and trading partners. The Iraqis never appreciated our presence, immediately began trying to kill our soldiers and wreck any plans for economic and political recovery. They have no interest in democracy, it's probably incompatible with Islam. And they have nothing we need and deserve nothing we offer. We don't need their oil, we don't need bases in Iraq, we don't need their alliance. We have no vital national interests that demand additional $Trillions be spent over there. We have worse problems. A big one is brewing in the Pacific with China and our military and logistical resources need to extricate themselves from the middle eastern cauldron that has been boiling for 1,500 years and be prepared for the next vital conflicts. So name me an Obama policy that the Republicans support! They have actually changed policies when Obama took action, so as to be against them. They were all for bombing Libya when Obama was insisting that the Europeans take charge in their own turf. But when he backed up our NATO allies with bombing support, the Republicans began blasting him for making war. They turned the tragedy of the Libyan embassy attacks into a political witch hunt. The shoe fits.
