Would they be the free democracies, and economic giants they are today? Would their people have enjoyed the standard of living they have now? Keep in mind, US troops are STILL THERE after 60 years....
Why is Iraq any different?
2007-07-09 13:21:28 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We didn't "force" democracy on Germany and Japan? We BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF THEM. And installed our form of government. I guess they don't teach history anymore.
2007-07-09 13:28:55 · update #1
Chi guy. Pulling out of iraq will roll out the red carpet for Iran to go ahead and do what Germany did, and conquer the whole middle east. You think 3 bucks a gallon is high now, wait until you get your way and we surrender and clerics are running Saudi Arabia.
2007-07-09 13:33:39 · update #2
White star I'm not a retard. I know the fighting was over in 1945. it's 2007 and our troops are still there. The gist of the question is if it's ok in Germany and japan, why not have troops in Iraq in 2067? Wouldn't the end result be the same? we'd have a strong free ally?
2007-07-09 13:40:05 · update #3
I see a common theme with you liberals. It always goes back to how the war began. It began different so there is no comparison. That is false. It doesn't matter now how we got there. in all THREE instances, we went to war, overthrew the government, and installed one similar to our own. We FORCED democracy on them, in all three cases. The first cases were HUGE successes. BECAUSE WE STAYED. That is the basis of my comparison.
2007-07-09 13:55:20 · update #4
I don't know about Japan, but Germany would have had a much larger struggle when it comes to survival. The U.S., it's many bases and the support that was given offered a huge relief for an economy that didn't even exist. Even in 1950, there were many areas that were still in ruins.
The older Germans remember very well and appreciate us. The younger ones of today remind me a lot of our neo-libs.
Ja, Ich kann Deutsch sprechen.
And for the person who gave me a thumbs down, I spent 16 years of my life in Germany. Would you care to debate?
2007-07-09 13:28:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
That we should give up strategic base locations that are a kind of important right now, considering what is going on in several places. That would not only be foolish, but a serious risk to our National security. Those countries allow us to keep our bases and units there because of treaties signed at the end of the WWII, and the Korean conflict. They were valid, and considering what they did at the time, generous on the part of the United States. Unlike the former USSR who basically took advantage of the treaties to assume control of most of Eastern Europe, I think the US has been more than fair. No would be a big mistake. Added: My last duty station was in Puerto Rico. I was there when the decommissioned my unit and Naval Station Roosevelt Roads. They also decomed two Army Bases. Until then most of the People in the PR wanted the Navy out. Well a few months latter they felt the impact on their economy and now they want the Navy back. The Governor was quoted as saying "we didn't want the base closed, just the training to stop". Well you can't have it both ways, get the benefits to the economy, but please don't disturb us. Makes no sense.
2016-05-22 00:00:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our involvement in WWII was because the Empire of Japan attacked our Naval forces in Hawaii. We declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on us shortly after.
It was a world conflict involving almost every country in the world......
That is a whole different thing than the illegal conflict in Iraq. There has been no declaration of War-it isn't a war. Bush INVADED that country illegally. Iraq didn't do anything to us, didn't attack us on 9/11 - had no involvement in it.
Bush wants the oilfields...that is the only reason he took our soldiers in there. But, he wasn't smart enough to see the consequences of his actions - still isn't... Therefore almost 3600 Americans are dead and almost a million Iraqis...and he still doesn't have the sense to bring our young soldiers home.
WWII was a righteous war. This mess we are in now is illegal from the word go......it was a bully nation with a moron for a president who thought he could just march right in a take over.... The man is an sociopathic megalomaniac who is ruining our country...and has destroyed Iraq.
2007-07-09 13:51:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Did you know that germany wanted to take over the world and was taking most of europe?? Iraq very little compared to nazi germany and Japan. Most of the Europe was taken over and asia as well as Africa.. North America was next so yeah we had to do something and our allies were being attacked.. Iraq attacked an extermly small country which we fought them back, then invaded out of the blue. And in WWII we wouldn't have pulled out because our country will be in danger and we were next.
2007-07-09 13:48:15 · answer #4 · answered by Joshrules 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Does anyone remember that WW2 ended in 1945. Also, before we entered the war was already 2 years old, some Americans supported Hitler, and the Germans declared war against the US.
2007-07-09 13:33:55 · answer #5 · answered by White Star 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to assume that you're one of those Americans who likes to prattle on stupidly but then, thankfully, not bother to vote. It makes me breathe easier knowing that there is a strong statistical likelihood of this being true.
Japan and Germany were defeated states that surrendered formally to the Allies under recognized rules of international law. The subsequent US and Allied occupations of said states were executed POST-war with the legally founded sanction of both the governments and peoples in each state. They were not unilaterally imposed and then carried out CONCURRENT with hostilities. The US troops that remain in Japan and Germany today are there with the continuing non-coerced concurrence of each of those nations.
Why does a shtt-for-brains question like yours even deserve a reasonable reply, anyway?
2007-07-09 14:30:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That was a whole different situation. Comparing WWII to the fiasco in Iraq is like comparing apples to oranges.
Why are the people in the White House in a panic? Could the tide me turning?
2007-07-09 13:36:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
500 civilians would die in a night over Hamburg and 3,000 Allied troops would die in one battle In WWII. The news only showed the positives, like how many cities the Allies took over. Nowadays, the news reports negatives all the time even outside of the Iraq War. My cousin, who is serving in Iraq and is on the front lines and shot at all the time, says we are not seeing the positives that are happening in Iraq, like the schools being built and the numerous Iraqis running up to the troops and thanking them for bringing democracy to Iraq. Hitler and Saddam were no different that each other, but too many people were afraid of fighting Saddam, unlike the brave countries that fought in WWII. Hitler created genocide and so did Saddam.
2007-07-09 13:24:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
But ultimately who gained by WW2? Surely the USA.The countries in European Union are semi independent.They
could not get the NATO forces from their back.USA shall
have to give the price for dropping atom bombs in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.Can you imagine the situation if atom bombs
were hurled to major cities in USA? History never forgive
anybody for their past and present sin.The wheel rotates.
2007-07-09 13:56:56 · answer #9 · answered by samiran_bandyopadhyay 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Presscott Bush was a huge part in financing that war -a firm golld old fashoined nazi
So likely if you'd pulled out George W Bush would likely still be running the US
Thanks for the help from 1939 - 42 when you sold arms to Hitler and sent money - That helped the British Empire a lot buddy
2007-07-09 15:17:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋