CPAC...Round them up and Send them to Camp Gitmo

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Countries don't usually declare war on countries they have no problem with. I cannot believe that they declared war and then assumed that we would not react.

 

Had we not entered the war, I suspect that Germany would have ultimately been defeated by the Soviet Union (more landmass, more resources and T-34s kicked butt) who would probably not have stopped at the Rhine but would have "liberated" Europe all the way to the Spanish border. Not a picture that your paleo-conservatives would like, I suspect.

 

Hal

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

"Southerners often blame Lincoln for calling up 90,000 volunteers." The first great unconstitutional act.

 

I thought, in your view, the president gets to decide what's constitutional. Lincoln considered his acts constitutional, so (using your reasoning, where the supreme court's opinion can be ignored at will) Lincoln's acts WERE constitutional.

By the President of the United States:

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :

 

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

 

The Amerika bomber never existed.

 

Uh, so? It was a project Germany was working on before the US entered WWII, and shows hostile intent.

 

Even if it did, few could fly across the Atlantic at that time.

 

So if a country only manages to bomb the US a few times, that's OK?

 

America could have used its massive manpower and resources to build fighters and anti-aircraft batteries to make us virtually inpenetrable.

 

And do nothing about a country actively attacking the US? That's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, Germany was quite busy fighting the UK and the USSR. IF we weren't fighting them or aiding their enemies it is doubtful they would expense such resources to hurt us.

 

Eugen Snger agreed to head up his rocket development team back in 1936, years before the UK and the USSR were at war with Germany, and years before Lend-Lease.

[TheScout 10]

Merlyn you know that the Constitution requires the Congress to consent with the raising of troops. Who cares what the SCOTUS says?

 

You are also sounding like a warmongering!

 

So Germany was researching a bomber.

 

Other countries might be researching WMDs?

 

Should we invade them.

 

Who cares about Sanger's rocket program? Germany did not have a beef with the US.

[BadenP 93]

OGE

 

If you really are naive enough to believe that Bush did not know the truth about that intell then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you. Bush knew exactly what the truth was before he invaded Iraq, he wanted the world to believe in WMD's but it was truly all about his vendetta for threats against his dad by Sadam and OIL. Time to wake up and smell the coffee people.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

Merlyn you know that the Constitution requires the Congress to consent with the raising of troops. Who cares what the SCOTUS says?

 

Lincoln seems to have disagreed. So it's constitutional, right? His opinion counts, doesn't it?

 

You are also sounding like a warmongering!

 

A warmongering what?

 

So Germany was researching a bomber.

 

They were researching lots of things, including a bomber that could reach the US.

 

Other countries might be researching WMDs?

 

Should we invade them.

 

If they declare war on the US, sure. Germany declared war on the US, remember?

 

Who cares about Sanger's rocket program? Germany did not have a beef with the US.

 

So why were they working on a bomber specifically to bomb the US?

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I do beleive Bush was naive, naive enough to beleive Albright, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, then President Clinton and the host of others. If Saddam snookered Bush, #43 has plenty of company.

 

So, lets say Bush never invades Iraq, and cirla 2006 a sarin gas attack in the New York subway traced to Iraq kills a few thousand. All those people quoted in the clip would be screaming we knew he had them and the idiot Bush didnt do anything. Well, he did something.

[John-in-KC 311]

I guess you have not read Mein Kampf along the way, The Scout. Too bad. Apart from the insidiouness of the plan, it's an archetype of political polemic literature.

 

Hitler's strategic goal was world hegemony under the flag of the swastika. His agenda included:

- Racial superiority of the German people.

- Racial inferiority of most other societies.

- Absolute racial inferiority of the Hebrew people, to be resolved by their destruction as a people, worldwide.

- His research into atomic weaponry was one of the impeti to our research from 1939 forward, first under the National Bureau of Standards, and later under the War and Navy Departments through the Manhattan project. That he didn't get there was more a diversion of mindpower to operational needs of battlefield systems than it was desire to accomplish the mission.

- His research into rocketry and missilery was far beyond where the US was. His vision included ICBM reach.

 

No, the 3d Reich, from my assessment of the history, wanted to destroy the last democracy standing (Britain), which would have given it access to resources and factories. Then, it could have focused on fully isolating Switzerland and Sweden.

 

Then, the Tripartite Pact could determine how to attack America.

 

Japan just launched on its own time schedule.

 

This is my last post in this thread.

[BadenP 93]

OGE

Now you are just fearmongering, a favorite tool of the past president. You bet many people were fooled by the manufactured evidence which is a speciality of the Company.

[scoutingagain 20]

"Other countries might be researching WMDs?

 

Should we invade them. "

 

We'll apparently the previous administration thought so.

 

OGE, I seriously doubt Saddam wanted to snooker Bush into believing he had WMD or was pursuing WMD. He knew that would be the end of his regime.

 

I agree Bush, truly believed the intelligence he was presented. But, he was snookered by members of his own administration.

 

SA

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So when Albright and then President Clinton asserted Saddam had WMD, they were lead astray by the Intelligience that even then, in 1998 was being manipulated by the Bush Administration, which didnt come into office until January 2001.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Why did Saddam throw out the UN Weapons Inspectors if he didnt want the world to think he had something to hide? Why would be not allow the UN weapons inspectors to inspect where they wanted? Why didn't Saddam honor any of the 15+ UN resolutions asking/demanding they he comply with the armistice that ended the first Gulf War? Or else? What was the or else the UN had in mind? Why did the UN want to have weapons inspections in the first place?

 

I dont think Saddam thought that any western country had the nerve to make him face up to his committments, and by the French and Germans response to our actions, he was pretty much on target.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

OGE, Saddam had and used poison gas, but that has a shelf life of just a few years before it breaks down.

 

Using a vague term like "weapons of mass destruction" is a dead giveaway in my opinion. If intelligence suspected poison gas, say "poison gas"; if they suspect a nuclear weapon program, say "nuclear weapon program", if they suspect anthrax, say "anthrax", etc. Instead, "weapons of mass destruction" was the term used, because there were no specifics, because there were no specific indications of any particular weapons or programs. So we get Rice making allusions to nuclear weapons ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), we get Powell with a vial fake anthrax at the UN, we get the president and other government officials always mentioning Iraq whenever they talk about 9/11 or terrorism so much that a majority of the American public believe Iraq was behind 9/11, yet Rice never stated Iraq had nukes, Powell never said Iraq could make anthrax, and the president never said Iraq was behind 9/11. But it's obvious they wanted people to think so, to justify invading Iraq.

 

Another giveaway was how the reasons for invading Iraq kept changing after the WMD excuse couldn't be justified. Whenever people keep changing the reason for doing something, it's because they haven't told you the real reason and you haven't bought into any of their fake reasons yet.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Merlyn, that doesnt explain why the UN thought it necessary to have weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. If there wasn't indications of anything to find, why did the UN think they were necessary in the first place?

 

Maybe there wasn't any WMD, but why did Albright say there were in 1998? Why did Clinton think so as well when he was president?

 

Why did the UN pass all those resolutions?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Iraq was under UN sanctions which required weapon inspections; there's a good chronology here:

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

 

I'm certainly not saying Saddam was peachy-keen, but I think it's clear the Bush administration built up a case for invasion by deliberately deceiving the American public, as I've outlined earlier.

 

I think invading a country requires a bit more justification than rumors and innuendo created largely by my own government.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So how did Bush convince Albright and Clinton, while he was president that Iraq was a threat?