autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

I have to agree with you. Hitler invaded and took control of Poland, and basically the rest of the world turned a blind eye. However, upon Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland it was then that Great Britain and France declared war with Germany in 1939. Hitler's goal was complete control of Europe, and eventually world dominance. This was certainly different than our intentions upon invading Iraq. To me, that's a significant difference between the two events.

THEMRED7007

That's history...what's your take on Iran ???

pauleveritt Loc: Erie, Colorado

My take on IRAN is that the United States through Jimmy Carter's well meaning but naive view of the world, gave IRAN's version of Saddam Hussein protection to the Shah of Iran. In the 1950s, this SAME Shah was overthrown by the Iranian people. President Eisenhower gave his approval to putting the Shah BACK on the throne and he was as brutal a dictator as Saddam ever was. Oh, but wait, it was the Cold War and we needed Iranian listening posts to keep an eye on the Soviets and the Shah was anti-Communist and an US ally so that made all alright so we OWED HIM. This is why IRAN hates us today. The Russians have given SNOWDEN safe haven and we are still mad about that. What if the Russians had given Bin Laden safe haven? That is what WE did to IRAN. When we lost IRAN we had our GOOD BUDDY, enemy of IRAN, Saddam Hussein provide us with listening posts to replace the ones we lost in IRAN. They were second best but they were better than NOTHING. Saddam fought a protracted war against IRAN and eventually was able to end the stalemate. Saddam used chemical weapons on some Kirdish villages that supported IRAN and we heard about this on the news in the US for TWO DAYS and then it fell off the front page because we still needed those listening posts. Saddam had borrowed money from Kuwait and they were wanting payment. Saddam wanted the price of oil to go up to $18 (yes, count'em 18) dollars per barrel and Kuwait would not go along with that. Saddam then ASKED OUR OPINION of him annexing the Kuwaiti oil field to which we replied
that "that is an internal Arab affair". Saddam interpreted that as US permission so he REANNEXED the country of Kuwait that was created by the stroke of a British official's pen in 1924! We were "OUTRAGED" by "NAKED AGGRESSION". George H. Bush got Gulf War I going to try to win re-election. Saddam tried to have George H. Bush killed for double crossing him. George H. Bush IGNORED all of the reprisals against Iraqis would helped the allies in Gulf War I. Desert Storm was all about George W. Bush using the US military to settle a personal family score. In the process George W. Bush violated the first two protocols of the Nuremburg tribunal. Protocol 1 - Conspiracy to commit breach of peace. Protocol 2 - Breach of peace. The Nuremburg tribunal sentenced German government officials to HANG for these two charges. I guess the winners make the rules and WE have nuclear weapons and they don't so it makes it ok that we installed governments in Afganistan and Iraq.

In answer to my earlier question: What this the difference between the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003; the answer is that the United States got away with it and Germany did not.

We have NO RIGHT under international law to replace governments not of our liking. President Gerald R. Ford was strongly of this opinion too.

chienfou Loc: Valley Stream, NY

I guess the same could be said about Japan taking a bite off our burger. Look at all the Japanese stuff we've bought and continue to buy. Sometime I wonder who really won the war. Oh! let's not forget Germany.

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

You can definitely say that. I can remember when it started and the stuff was consider "Jap Junk," but the quality level evolved greatly over time to where it surpassed our US comparable products. Kind of the same story with the evolution of Korean products, and we'll probably see this next happening with "made in China" products. When that happens, I'm sure it will have Japan Inc. and Korea Inc. shaking in their boots a little.

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

The whole history of the Middle East is one changing alliances and borders with way too many fingers in the pie but it has been that way for centuries. The Cold War made some strange bedfellows and a lot of foreign policy dictated by fear of the communists. Korea and Viet Nam certainly can be attributed to that.

But your original question was Poland and Iraq - decades apart and different world dynamics going on. In the context of invading to replace a government we don't like, I agree that we should not. And after we "evicted" Iraq from Kuwait, we did stopped and did not go into Iraq.

Right or wrong about our invasion of Iraq in '03, we did not go into their country to replace their government with our government, to rule their country as Hitler did with the countries he invaded, and Russia did with the countries behind the Iron Curtain. All that being said, I believe it's way past time for us to get out of the Middle East. I think a lot of things there would settle down if we would just bring our people home.

THEMRED7007

Thanks...agreed, the U.S. does have a way of meddlin, and todays administration doesn't have the wheelbase to carry it .
The U.S. needs to take the "cuffs" off of Israel...they are there, live with it every day, understand the region, and know how to get a job done well, IMHO.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Wow! I was sure we did go into Iraq for about 10 years after we evicted them from Kuwait. I'm glad I was wrong. Whew!

I do agree with getting out unless they attack us directly. Usually when you stop smacking the bee's nest they stop stinging. Blowback is hell except for the merchants of war. They pray for it.

Billynikon Loc: Atlanta

Always found it interesting that the nuclear apologists forget the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed more than the individual nukes. And why did it take two? if they were clear headed rationalists, one should have done the job.

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

Am I confused? I thought we stayed out of Iraq after Kuwait. We crossed the border during Desert Storm but didn't go on to Baghdad. Some wanted to go in and finish off Saddam but Bush said no. I don't think we went back until like April 2003 when we actually did go in.

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

Simple, the emperor made no attempt to surrender after the first one was dropped..he only did so after the second one

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

Even after the second one there was a an attempt to overthrow the Emperor when he did want to surrender. And when he made the announcement over the radio/pa system, it was the first time the people had ever heard his voice.

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

We should be that lucky here ;-)

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

Wouldn't that be nice. I turn off the sound and/or change channels.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

This is correct. This is one of the many aspects of WWII that has been sanitized by historians. Historians have also decided not to discuss matters like Japanese cannibalism, torture, medical experiments on POWs.

One of the most famous photos from WWII showed a Japanese officer beheading a captured Australian soldier. Some Japanese officers (the enlisted didn't carry swords) engaged in contests to see who could murder by beheading more POWs. The ongoing "scores" were reported in Japanese newspapers, with excitement and the style of reporting on sporting events.

A friend of mine was in the military in China preparing for the invasion of Japan. He told me when he heard that we had a weapon to end the war, his feeling of deliverance was "indescribable."