2007-11-23 00:02:31 · 10 answers · asked by ron j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
thats the ticket RKO.
2007-11-23 03:01:49 · update #1
Not much. Both agressors would like to kill all Jews, that's for sure.
2007-11-23 00:09:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Good point, everyone seems to think that BAD is always the opposite to USA. These days a lot of people in the world would disagree. But Iraq is more like that shambles that america didnt learn from called Vietnam. Iraq just seems to be the sequel. Im guessing in 20 years Iraq will become as equally a dirty word.
World war 2 was a big scrap that involved everyone (except south american, oh yea, and switzerland!!!) It was pretty black and white as who the bad guys were in that situation. But to be honest these days, who knows? History is written by the victors. Im curious to see how the USA will be seen in a few hundred years - dont just assume you guys are always going to be the good guys, if India and China decide the USA are the bad guys (like the USA did with USSR) then they will make the world believe it.
2007-11-23 00:40:17 · answer #2 · answered by jj26 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In WW II the key fascist nations of Europe (allied with Imperial Japan) were the obvious aggressors. Remember also the Japanese aerial attack at US naval base of Pearl Harbor. This war was basically global.
Gulf War 2 in Iraq is seen by many world observers as an US exercise in regime change to take better control of oil in this region. People wonder if you can 'export' democracy by military invasion which includes large numbers of civilian deaths.
Where after all were those notorious WMDs? There is evidence that the US has desired control in Iraq's oil resources for about 80 years.
2007-11-23 00:32:22 · answer #3 · answered by Tuxedo 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, if this were WWII there would be no Guitmo. We would have shot all those guys on the battlefield as being non-uniformed combatants. There would be a military government in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Anybody directing violence against anyone would be shot. WE would be in total control of the borders around Iraq. Not so much as a toothbrush would go through without our knowledge. Anyone found smuggling weapons would be shot. Any foreign fighters found attempting to enter the country would be shot. Today we have a kindler and gentler way of fighting a war.
2007-11-23 00:56:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
World War II was a war legally and Constitutionally declared by Congress to oppose an aggressor that endangered the United States of America.
The Iraqi 'war' is an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral,
unjustified military action against another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States.
2007-11-23 02:41:25 · answer #5 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The trial, conviction and sentence of German war criminals after WW2 at Nurberg is part of the body of International Criminal law and definately Sadam Husein was liable for commiting crimes against humanity(masacre of Kurds and
others),crimes against peace(invasion of Kuwait) and of course such crimes justify the death penalty for him and invasion of his country on the ground that his principal instrument for committing such crimes was the Iraqui army
which knowingly and intentionally perpetrated such crimes,and his country was in violation of UN Charter,articles
40,41 and 42(the last justifies military intervention),therefore the country of Iraq and its leader were definately the agressors,so the Iraqi war was a carbon copy of ww2 where
Germany attacked Poland (Iraq attacked Kuwait),England and France,guarantors of Polish independence,declared war
on Germany,USA ,UK and other allies/or ad hoc allies declared war on Sadam who,like Adolf Hitler, committed war crimes,crimes against humanity,crimes against peace etc
the present situation in Iraq is an anorthodox warfare or at best a police action because the insurgents are locals as well as sympathisers from other Arab countries and that is as
a result of the war not because of it;the war, as correctly president Bush said was actually terminated when he said it was terminated.The Germans could not do the same at the end of WW2 because the retribution would be very severe (counter measures are provided for in the Hague convention of 1907 but the Americans and others don,t enforce them-Ardan dy Pick said "you don't do war with a good heart and I tend to agree with him...)and because there were no German sympathisers to fight for a lost cause...
2007-11-23 01:42:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To above poster. Kindler and Gentler aren't really supposed to go along with war. What's different today is instead of killing spies we give em a state and everything else they want.
2007-11-23 01:38:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anime_Warrior 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One is a small regional skirmish, the other was fought all over the world and involved MANY more nations - and that's just for starters. Your analogy is not appropos here sorry
2007-11-23 00:06:34 · answer #8 · answered by Constitutional Watchdog 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Taxes were raised to fight WWII (we payed for it upfront) every body went there was a draft-wealthy people actors-politicians etc. were glad to volunteer..Americans were forced to ration......Bush's advice go to the mall and "Spend!!"
2007-11-23 02:06:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In ww2 we had many generals that foolishly got many Americans g,i,s killed. the generals of today try to protect and save there men and women
2007-11-23 00:18:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋