World War 2 and the Media

[??????????]

Option 2 without a doubt. I could see the headlines, "Over 4000 Americans killed on the beaches of France, who's to blame?"

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Except of course both wars are completely incomparable in every single way...

Plus Germany declared war on the US first, unlike in Iraq where it was an aggressive action, done for no apparent reason.

[??????????]

Except of course both wars are completely incomparable in every single way...

Plus Germany declared war on the US first, unlike in Iraq where it was an aggressive action, done for no apparent reason.

Yes, invading Kuwait and continually violating a known ceasefire are not hostile actions.

[minionofmidas]

Easily, but with the kind of media coverage the US had in 1939, getting into the Iraq War in the first place might have been impossible.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Easily, but with the kind of media coverage the US had in 1939, getting into the Iraq War in the first place might have been impossible.

Explain?

[JSojourner]

The honored American tradition since, arguably, the Spanish American War, has been to only attack those who attack us.  Or to attack those who clearly attack an ally.

In World War 1, we entered the war for many reasons.  But, in the main, it was the unrestricted warfare of German U-boats on American shipping of all kind. 

In World War 2, we entered the war against Japan when they attacked a military installation on U.S. soil.  Pretty clear cut.  Germany and Italy both declared war on the United States.  We had no choice.

In Korea, our South Korean allies were under attack by North Korean and Chinese forces.

In Vietnam, until now the most spurious of U.S. wars of the last century, there was at least some evidence that US forces came under attack.  Tonkin proved a sham.  But an ally (S. Vietnam) was under attack.

In Kuwait, our Kuwaiti allies were invaded an occupied.  (Personally, I see little difference in brutality between Saddam and the Kuwaiti or Saudi royal families.  They're all butchers.)  But an ally was attacked.

In Afghanistan, President Bush did precisely the right thing.  We were attacked by Al Qaeda, which received cheerful support and encouragement from the then-Afghan government.  Democrats CHEERED Bush for this and we'd gladly cheer him again if he would get his head out of his ass and start thinking about OBL again.  ("I don't really think about him any more.")

The war in Iraq was, even more than Vietnam, based on a web of lies.  We cherry picked the intel, ignoring anti-war intel and favoring intel that said Saddam had WMDs.  We completely ignored reality in believing the preposterous notion that Saddam was linked to 9-11 or AQ.  Saddam, a devoted secularist, had been near the top of OBL's hit list for at least a decade.

There is no comparison to World War 2.  Now, if FDR had gotten tired of fighting the Japanese, Germans and Italians...and decided that Finland's forced alliance with Hitler was a threat to American security, and then sent the Marines into Finland -- then you would have a comparison.  Thankfully, Roosevelt was no knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing moron like The Decider.

Come to think of it, even if Iraq DID have WMD's -- why invade and occupy?  The Soviets and Chinese had WMD's out the wah-zoo.  People like Harry Truman and Ike and Reagan had the good sense NOT to try to invade and occupy the USSR or China.  Never mind that crazies like Tailgunner Joe and Curtis LeMay thought we could (after massive nuke strikes, no less).  We beat the Soviets by practicing patience, diplomacy and toughness.  Though still Communist, China is far less a threat than she ever was. 

The only reasons we invaded Iraq are as follows...

1.  The Decider believed it would give him (and Congressional Republicans) a boost in popularity. And it would give them a blunt object with which to continually beat down Democrats and thoughtful Republicans -- "If you question our leadership in wartime, you are Defeatocrats! You hate America!"

2.  The Decider and his advisors thought it would be a convenient, popular and relatively bloodless (for us) way in which to enrich campaign donors from the military industrial complex.

3.  As divergent as these two governments are, the House of Saud and Israel both lobbied hard for this war.  Saud could promise riches of all kinds (not just monetary but influence, too) and Israel?  Well, anyone who doesn't do what Israel wishes can be branded an anti-Semite. 

4.   The Decider viewed Iraq as a torture state and wished to set its people free.  Well, it *was* a torture state.  But so is North Korea.  So is Pakistan.  So is Saudi Arabia.  In fact, it was a lot easier to be a professing Christian in Iraq than in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait OR Pakistan.  Saudi Christians, if any even still exist, end up with their heads on chopping blocks.  In Iraq, the foreign minister was a Chaldean Orthodox Christian.  So while The Decider possibly "meant well", he certainly was selective in wanting to spread truth, justice and the American way.  He could have started doing so in Kuwait.  Or New Orleans.

5 The Decider believed Iraq would topple quickly, we would be hailed as liberators and the dominos would start to fall.  Syria, Yemen, Iran and so forth.  This logic, though flawed, is the most noble and understandable.  I can see crossing your fingers, rolling the dice and hoping the invasion works.  But The Decider wouldn't even LISTEN to dissenting opinion.  There were plenty of voices saying our invasion would only Balkanize Iraq.  And would do so in such a way as to make Kosovo and Bosnia look like a Church Ice Cream Sociable. 

Seems they were right. 

[minionofmidas]

Easily, but with the kind of media coverage the US had in 1939, getting into the Iraq War in the first place might have been impossible.

Explain?

The US media would have been much more isolationist back then. Also, with much better contacts to Iraq's ruling clique. And there wouldn't have been any "embedded journalists" in the modern sense in the US army.
Bush would NOT have gotten the kind of free pass he was given to spread whatever false rumour he liked, which means he wouldn't have gotten congressional approval for his war at all. (Whether the media back then was *better* than now, is much more open to debate...)