Seriously, Don--I'm not trying to trick you into thinking this war is the same as WWII. I'm truly trying to get you to think about something from a point of view you haven't before. You're not going to turn into a Republican if you just calm down for one second, sit at your computer, and think about what I'm saying--and it might help you understand why there is a defensible position that's not the same as yours. Simply put:
IF it was right for the US and UK to be the "good guys" to the Axis Powers "bad guys" in WWII;
ANDthe US and UK were FAR, FAR more nationalist/jingoist, more propagandizing, more war-mongering, more racist, more imperialist, more accepting of opponents' civilian deaths, more tolerant of our own soldiers' deaths, more willing to make deals with the devil (cough cough Stalin), and more self-serving than they are now;
THENit can sometimes be OK for us to play the "good guys" even whilst being somewhat jingoist, propagandizing, war-mongering, racist, imperialist, etc.
I think it's important to understand this logic to give us some perspective in deciding just how much the current failings of our countries should impact our level of support. (There are obviously other issues to consider there as well.)
Well if I may remind you Kevin, the UK was at war for 2 years before the US got involved in the "War in Europe"... and there was a clear reason for that war, comparisons between the World at War then and this war forced upon us because of some Bush family vendetta and based on lies is too absurd to begin debating... The enemy was across the English channel, not several thousand miles away. A better comparison would have been to the occupation of Iraq after WW I by the British and French armies, who by the way, were the first to gas the Iraqi population. Yes it is "toed", my apologies, but misspelling my english phrases is far less a "faux pas" then not knowing your history, which the U.S.A. seems to be doomed to repeat at infinitum.
Again (quoting myself from the comments list on the original story): "my point here is to get reasonable, open-minded people who are against this war merely to CONSIDER that the arguments they use are often precisely the same as those that were argued against our fighting in WWII (as well as the those against the difficult, costly years and years of rebuilding Germany and Japan after the war). I want folks to think about why, despite our country's myriad severe problems at that time, it was still right for us then to take the simplistic position that we were the good guys, and they were the bad guys, and we've got to beat them."
And to clarify: I am not convinced that our going into Iraq was right. I am not convinced that we shouldn't pull out soon. One can obviously make extremely reasonable and compelling arguments against our being in Iraq or staying in Iraq.
But it is important to recognize that the WWII-era US and UK were FAR, FAR more nationalist/jingoist, more propagandizing, more war-mongering, more racist, more imperialist, more accepting of opponents' civilian deaths, more tolerant of our own soldiers' deaths, more willing to make deals with the devil (cough cough Stalin), and more self-serving than they are now--but virtually everyone agrees that we had the moral authority to fight that war tooth and nail.
Oh, and it's "toed the line," Don Who Works At The Newspaper, not "towed the line."
Is Kevin Hales from Durham, North Carolina working for the military? What criticism on the war on the Iraq is too critical in the American Media? Every mainstream news organization towed the GOP line for years, now all are clambering to catch up on the reality of the Iraq shambles, and this is being too critical? Working for a news paper you see a lot more critical and horrific news items Mr. Hales will never see, and if he did I don't think he be so anti-criticism. And how many times have I heard the WW II analogy. When was Saddam Hussein invading Europe and bombing US Territory? The U.S. Media should show the actual horrors of this war, the dead children the remains after a car bomb and stop being the jingoistic mouth piece for this war mongering imperialism. Then see if there is any pro mouth pieces left for this profoundly immoral occupation, instigated by a corrupt amoral hypocritical administration...
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
On The Media is funded, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation.