Why do repugs keep bringing up WWII in defense of the Iraq war?

[flygal]

Don't they remember most repugs were against it? Up until Pearl Harbor they were total isolationists. They're totally against nation building - unless there are sweet gov. contracts for their use out there.

I'm just so sick of them thinking they were the saviors of WWII when they initially thought nothing of defeating the fascist dictators.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. In the American Mind this is the last

good war, and the last war to actually fit the Just War definition (or rather as close as any real war can in the modern period)

[merh]

2. Because they are totally ignorant about the reasons for WWII

and they just see war as war. In other words, they are f'ckin' stupid!

[blonndee]

3. because they see their dads or granddads as heroes and

want to claim some of that for themselves by supporting an American war--ANY American war. They can't think straight. Look at how American movies and even news (esp. FAUX) glorify war.

[thefloyd]

8. Well if their dads were actually veterans,

they would not talk or boast about war. Veterans understad war is hell but a necessary evil.

[blonndee]

11. You'd think so, but my granddad was in WW2 and my dad SAYS

he understands a lot about war and calls it "a necessary evil" like you said but still supported invading Iraq.

[thefloyd]

12. hmmmm

Does he still believe Iraq was necessary after no WMDS were discovered? Was it your dad or grandad who supported the IRAQ war

[blonndee]

20. My dad. He says it was necessary because of Saddam. I think he

wants to believe that Shrubco wouldn't lie since he's supported them since the 2000 election.

[bluestateguy]

4. They live in a 1939 world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29

World War II analogies

In foreign policy neoconservatives have a tendency to view the world in 1939 terms, comparing adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden, and China to Nazi Germany, while American leaders such as Reagan and Bush stand in for Winston Churchill. There is also a tendency to accuse leftists, and others who oppose them as being appeasers. The fullest account of this is Donald and Frederick Kagan's While America Sleeps, the entirety of which is dedicated to these comparisons.

In addition, neoconservatives have a very strong belief in the ability to install democracy by conquest - comparisons with denazification in Germany and Japan starting in 1945 are often made.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Because,

Hitler was a "bad dictator" and Saddam was a "bad dictator", therefore the two situations must be identical.

In other words, Republicans will believe just about anything.

Oh, and WWII was so long ago that none of them can even remember that the Republicans at the time were against getting involved.

[thefloyd]

10. Todays CONS

don't even mention that traditional conservatism is about Isolationism

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Ironic. Hitler wasn't a "bad" dictator for almost a decade and then

morphed into an enemy post Pearl Harbor. Guess political and financial priorities change overnight. Remedy: war.

[ComerPerro]

6. Not to mention that many conservatives were sympathetic to Germany

and even to the Nazi party during the 1930's.

[thefloyd]

13. Wow I did not know that one.

[txaslftist]

19. Shrub's grandfather actually laundered money for the Nazis.`

You can google it for the details. He was either charged or at the very least investigated for it.

[Az]

7. Its a twsit to prempt an argument

The notion of going to war to create democracy has been rejected by every president there has been. A people must embrace Democracy on their own. Culture cannot simply have it dropped on them. All that will happen is the strongest cultural bias will take over and oppress the rest. Democracy only works when backed by a strong constitution that the people can internalise. This will not happen in a society still embracing a theocratic tribal structure.

In order to prempt this objection to their war cry they will site Germany and Japan as examples of war resulting in stable Democracies. This of course completely ignores the fact that their societies were drastically different than modern Arab nations. But it creates enough dissent to confuse any advance in this area.

It is a purely tatical move. One designed to head off a weak spot in their rational. Do not let it stop you. It is a smoke screen and nothing more.

[thefloyd]

9. Some Good points

I do not understand why CONS never thought it would be hard to train the Iraqi troops. If the Iraqi people did not fight for it initially why would they want to fight for it now?

[lnmike]

14. Because of all the ships and planes we've lost on the way to the Gulf!

Those A-rab navies and air forces are gonna win them the world :P

[Lexingtonian]

15. Because Iraq is too much like Vietnam

for them to bear. And not enough like Korea, Cuba, Panama, or Grenada.

[Skittles]

16. LOL

local radio wingnut was going on and on about Rumsfeld being called to the carpet - said CAN YOU IMAGINE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BEING CALLED TO THE CARPET DURING WWII? I called him and pointed out that that would have been hard to do, since the first Secretary of Defense was appointed in 1947. He said I THINK YOU'RE WRONG, hung up, and moved on to another rant.

[ladjf]

18. Because WWII was the last time we used our military for

good reasons.