were we wrong to attack Germany during WWII? Are not humanitarian reasons enough to remove the leader of a country such as Milosovich...Saddam Hussein..when they commit genocide..or should we turn a blind eye and just concentrate on things in our own country?
2006-09-14 10:54:36 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, they did declare war on us after we declared it on Japan. That is the same as being attacked I think. But yes, Sadaam needed to go.
2006-09-14 10:58:16 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think ideally when a leader like Hitler emerges the world community should take steps to deal with the situation peacefully before it escalates into a wordwide conflict. That said, realistically sometimes we are obligated to join in wars, WWII being the prime example. The situation with Saddam is trickier as the Iraqi culture is very different from ours, how do we determine what is acceptable given a nations culture and what is so great a violation of ethical standards that we need to deal with it? It is hard to decide if a nation is better off with or without their current leader, and if our own interests are affecting the decision to invade or not. I think given our stance as one of the most powerful nations in the world, it is our responsibility to interfere in situations of mass genocide when we can help, but at the same time do our best to allow other nations their sovereignty. Its a very slippery slope, I think it would be nearly impossible for any nation to find a balance that makes everyone happy.
I think the important thing in entering any attack on a nation or a nation's leader is that we are doing what we think is best for the people of that nation, not our own, and that any strike to overthrow nation's leader should have the majority of the other world leader's support. This would serve to maintain (or build) our respect and allies in the world community. If we act against the rest of the world, we do little to further international relations that might help resolve problems in the future without having to resort to a war.
2006-09-14 18:14:55 · answer #2 · answered by Caroline 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Germany was part of formal military alliance with Japan so the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor implicated Germany. If you think humanitarian reasons are enough to go to war, well then you wouldn't mind declaring war on China, the sooner the better!
I think not! Oh by the way, the coming civil war in Iraq is going to be one hell of a blood fest that will make people remember Saddam's reign as the good old days>
2006-09-14 18:15:17 · answer #3 · answered by spicoli 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US shouldn't spend money on attacking other sovereign countries, especially when it has $ trillions of public deficit.
During preexistent wars it's common for peaceful countries to ally with others against others for strategic purposes. Even France and the Soviet Union had to do it, even if they're against the American attacks against peaceful dispotic countries today.
Even if Hitler managed to conquer the world, his regime and mentality wouldn't have lasted long. The more countries you invade, the more different cultures you need to subjugate. And revolutions occur everywhere, every day. If the world decides it wants democracy, it will prevail even against Hitler or Stalin or anyone. And after decades, the remains of the Nazi theories in the countries that were invaded by or allied with Germany are much more imperceptible than the remains of the communist theories all over the world, even though the Soviet Union didn't expand much during WWII.
2006-09-14 18:27:56 · answer #4 · answered by jarynth2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should help protect the human race. Dem. think we should turn a blind eye. but I believe that we should get in there and make the world a better place. Can you imagine how bad the world would be if we hadn't had stepped in with Hitler. Maybe 50 years from now we will be able to see the benefits better as a whole population that Saddam is out of power.
2006-09-14 17:58:50 · answer #5 · answered by leahb1979 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler attacked our Allies. When Saddam attacked our Ally (Kuwait) we attacked Iraq until Saddam was driven out of Kuwait. Hitler was also allies with Japan, which had attacked the US.
Granted I haven't been to Iraq but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the friends and families of the estimated 30,000+ dead Iraqis probably do not look on the US as humanitarians or as liberators.
I'm not pleased at who the leader of the US is (he seems to have some Hitler-like qualities himself such as ignoring international law) but I'm not hoping for a foreign power to come to the US and kill 30,000+ Americans to get rid of him.
2006-09-14 18:04:18 · answer #6 · answered by frugernity 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
History states that the United States declared war on Japan on Dec 8th 1941 because of the attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. On hearing this Hitler declared war on the United States believing that Japan would bring about a lose to the United States as Japan hadn't lost a war in 1500 years.
2006-09-14 18:04:57 · answer #7 · answered by Akkita 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler did attack us. Did you not know that the German uboats sank several of our ships right off the Florida coast? As for turning a blind eye, that is what got us into a world war when the leaders of the world tried to appease Hitler like they are doing Iran now. It is said that history repeats itself and that a man that doesn't learn by the past is destined to repeat the failures in the future.
2006-09-14 18:02:01 · answer #8 · answered by child_of_the_lion 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hitler's subs were attacking US flagged ships prior to the start of the war, Hitler's ally, Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on the US several days later.
Did you flunk sixth grade history class.
There is no correlation.
Their country, unless if affects the US national interest, leave them alone. People get the government they earn and tolerate.
The US is not the world's policeman.
2006-09-14 17:59:42 · answer #9 · answered by Dane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well... there a a few ideas here I would like to talk about...
Hiter did take over most of mainland Europe... that's nothing to sneeze at...
and Hussein's genocide seemed to be slowing down quite a bit, if it wasn't important enough to invade when it was at it's peak in the 80s and 90s, why do we care now... and why do we care about Hussein when Darfur is 3 times worse, as far as death counts?
basically, why do many turn a blind eye when they want to, and pay attention when they want too?
2006-09-14 18:09:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Germany declared war on us after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Since Japan brought us in to WWII and Germany sided with them, we declared war on Germany.
We don't have to turn a blind eye, but we don't have to invade their countries either. We, along with other nations, can impose trade sanctions and cut them off from the rest of the world.
2006-09-14 17:59:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋