human nature to war?

[Carol]

I agree that something akin to the Holocaust would test my moral fibre immensely. Would I be so angered knowing the atrocity is taking place and would I pick up arms to stop it? Or would I be comfortable feeling just as guilty as those committing the actions if i did nothing? By not doing anything would future genocidal actions be encouraged? What do you do?

It is good to know we are upgrading our nuclear weapons to be more precise and capable of destroying targets without destroying everything around them, and without leaving the area radioactive and uninhabitable.  

I want to see other improvements to our war activity.  Bush and Cheney really botched the bombing the Iraq.  They entered prepared to protect oil wells, but not the citizens and museum.  They left woman and children in a position of fleeing into surrounding countries, where the mothers had to prostitute themselves to provide for their children, in a culture where their own families would kill them for such morality.  And perhaps we should talk about how we armed Saddam and Bin Laden and gave their people military training, and why we did that?  All of this is getting away from our human nature, unless we are talking about our nature to have limited vision and failure to see the bigger picture?  That could make an interesting discussion.  

The citizens of Rome could not have known their need for a large military force was their need for the gold and other mineral resources essential to their economy and defense.  The average citizen could not have been aware of economic ups and downs, driven by the exhaustion of their supply of gold, and then newly found supply of gold, any more than we see the connection between our economic swings and supply of oil.  The average citizen of Rome certainly was aware of rising taxes, just as we are, without being aware of the gold and oil supply, decreasing the value of their currency and increasing the need to support a military that can, in turn, protect supplies of oil and gold.  I am saying we stumble our way into wars because we tend to know what is happening in our own lives, but not the consequences of our way of life that can be far reaching into other territory and far reaching into the future.  

When we think about the morality of war, our thinking tends to be very limited not only in not thinking about all the things I have mentioned, but also not thinking war can set off a chain reaction that we may very much regret.  Saddam may not have been  a nice guy, but the US has supported many tyrants in the process of securing oil rights, and it has made enemies with nations that attempted to nationalize their oil.  What has been done to keep the control of oil in US industrial hands is not regular news, and we are left to believe, those people who don't like us are just jealous of us, or they failing because they are not Christians.  We don't have a clue why these people on the other side of the world even know why we exist!  That makes our nature little more advanced than a troop of chimpanzees who know only their area of the forest.  Bush and Cheney and men like them, see politics very differently than the average citizen with family and job concerns.  Our ignorance is mind blowing!

Can you help me with this?  I feel like I am stumbling for words and have not achieved an adequate explanation of the human problem.   But maybe it is our responsibility to be better informed?   

Yes, around the world resources are being exhausted at the same time populations are increasing in size and the standard of living has sky rocketed.  Saudi Arabia can not maintain both the increase in population and increase in expectations for a high standard of living when the price of oil dumps and most certainly will not be able to maintain the standard of living when their supply of oil is exhausted.  How are these oil rich nations going to maintain a high standard of living when the oil is exhausted?  And what are these countries spending their money on?  WEAPONS.  Hello- how stupid can we be?   The killing is the direct result of having populations that are too large for the resources, and yes, this leads to genocide.  

Every area of the earth should be mapped for the resources in the area and the number of people and animals that can be sustained.  Don't dismiss the need to do this by telling me they can import what they need because needing to do so will lead to war.   Overpopulation and over exploitation of resources means someone has to be killed.

[Syne]

I agree that something akin to the Holocaust would test my moral fibre immensely. Would I be so angered knowing the atrocity is taking place and would I pick up arms to stop it? Or would I be comfortable feeling just as guilty as those committing the actions if i did nothing? By not doing anything would future genocidal actions be encouraged? What do you do?

Well, Hitler apparently said something to the effect of "no one remembers the Armenians", in reference to that genocide (that happened before the word had even been coined). So it is reasonable to assume a lack of response to one genocide could definitely contribute to the next. Some things are worth fighting, and even dying, for, especially when the future consequences can be so horrendous.

[Syne]

Bush and Cheney really botched the bombing the Iraq.  They entered prepared to protect oil wells, but not the citizens and museum.

 
Yet:

In the months preceding the 2003 Iraq war, starting in December and January, various antiquities experts, including representatives from the American Council for Cultural Policy asked the Pentagon and the UK government to ensure the museum's safety from both combat and looting. Although promises were not made, U.S. forces did avoid bombing the site.

On April 8, 2003 the last of the museum staff left the museum. Iraqi forces engaged U.S. forces from within the museum, as well as the nearby Special Republican Guard compound. Lt. Col. Eric Schwartz of the U.S. third Infantry Division stated that he was unable to enter the compound and secure it since they attempted to avoid returning fire at the building.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_M...g_2003_war

And:

If oil were a major factor for prosecuting war in Iraq, it stands to reason the United States would be getting substantial amounts of it. It may come as a shock to Greenwald as well as a number of other Americans, but with regard to importing oil, the overwhelming percentage of our imported oil does not come from the Middle East. Canada and Latin America provide the United States with 34.7 percent of our imported oil. Africa provides another 10.3 percent. The entire Persian Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia at 8.1 percent, provides us with a total of 12.9 percent of our imported oil.

As recently as December 2012, Iraq provided the United States with approximately 14.3 million barrels of oil out of a total of about 298 million barrels imported, or 4.8 percent of our total imports. And as this chart indicates, we were importing the highest amount of oil from Iraq before we went to war to oust Saddam Hussein.
- http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/w...old-ahlert

They left woman and children in a position of fleeing into surrounding countries, where the mothers had to prostitute themselves to provide for their children, in a culture where their own families would kill them for such morality.

 
Yet:

After Saddam Hussein fell in 2003, over 30,000 refugees returned home within two years. But by 2006, they were fleeing again due to sectarian violence that culminated with the al-Askari mosque bombing in February 2006.
...
The refugee traffic out of the country has increased since the intensification of civil war.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_o...80.9311.29

You know, aside from that fact that Muslim women are already treated like property and prostitutes, to be bought and sold at will.

And perhaps we should talk about how we armed Saddam...

Yet:

At no point, however, did the U.S. directly supply arms to Iraq. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...93Iraq_war

...and Bin Laden and gave their people military training, and why we did that?  

Yet:

U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them. Scholars and reporters have called the idea of CIA-backed Al Qaeda "nonsense",[10] "sheer fantasy",[11] and "simply a folk myth."[12]
...
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner.[14]

Bin Laden himself once said "The collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegation...osing_view

The average citizen could not have been aware of economic ups and downs, driven by the exhaustion of their supply of gold, and then newly found supply of gold, any more than we see the connection between our economic swings and supply of oil.  The average citizen of Rome certainly was aware of rising taxes, just as we are, without being aware of the gold and oil supply, decreasing the value of their currency and increasing the need to support a military that can, in turn, protect supplies of oil and gold.  I am saying we stumble our way into wars because we tend to know what is happening in our own lives, but not the consequences of our way of life that can be far reaching into other territory and far reaching into the future.  

Again, we imported more oil from Iraq before Saddam fell. You seem to be ignorant of facts and basic economics. Higher resource supply does not devalue currency, only the specific commodity. National debt is the largest driver of inflation.

When we think about the morality of war, our thinking tends to be very limited not only in not thinking about all the things I have mentioned, but also not thinking war can set off a chain reaction that we may very much regret.  Saddam may not have been  a nice guy...

Understatement of the year.

...but the US has supported many tyrants in the process of securing oil rights, and it has made enemies with nations that attempted to nationalize their oil.  What has been done to keep the control of oil in US industrial hands is not regular news, and we are left to believe, those people who don't like us are just jealous of us, or they failing because they are not Christians.  We don't have a clue why these people on the other side of the world even know why we exist!  That makes our nature little more advanced than a troop of chimpanzees who know only their area of the forest.  Bush and Cheney and men like them, see politics very differently than the average citizen with family and job concerns.  Our ignorance is mind blowing!

Your conspiracy theories are mind blowing. You conflate supporting nations against overt enemies like Iran and Russia with securing an oil supply smaller than any other we receive.

Can you help me with this?  I feel like I am stumbling for words and have not achieved an adequate explanation of the human problem.   But maybe it is our responsibility to be better informed?   

Yes, a responsibility you are obviously failing at.

Yes, around the world resources are being exhausted at the same time populations are increasing in size and the standard of living has sky rocketed.  Saudi Arabia can not maintain both the increase in population and increase in expectations for a high standard of living when the price of oil dumps and most certainly will not be able to maintain the standard of living when their supply of oil is exhausted.  How are these oil rich nations going to maintain a high standard of living when the oil is exhausted?  And what are these countries spending their money on?  WEAPONS.  Hello- how stupid can we be?   The killing is the direct result of having populations that are too large for the resources, and yes, this leads to genocide.  

Peak oil? That prediction has come and gone several times now.
Pakistan is the only Muslim-majority country thought to have nuclear weapons. Pakistan produces less oil than Denmark.

Every area of the earth should be mapped for the resources in the area and the number of people and animals that can be sustained.  Don't dismiss the need to do this by telling me they can import what they need because needing to do so will lead to war.   Overpopulation and over exploitation of resources means someone has to be killed.

The world population has doubled in the last 40 year...while the standard of living has been rising. Hence overpopulation and resource depletion are myths. You're paranoid and deluded.

[C C]

I agree that something akin to the Holocaust would test my moral fibre immensely. Would I be so angered knowing the atrocity is taking place and would I pick up arms to stop it? Or would I be comfortable feeling just as guilty as those committing the actions if i did nothing? By not doing anything would future genocidal actions be encouraged? What do you do?

In the case of WW2 at least (if I / we had been around then), most of the public wouldn't have even known that the Holocaust was transpiring till circa the end, or more afterwards yet. Though that Jews (etc) were being mistreated / persecuted in assorted ways, which didn't quite clang the Obliteration Bell, was well printed and broadcast. The obvious cause for the fleeing / attempted exodus from Europe including before the war, often barred by immigration quotas.

For decades the governments of the Allies also historically got off the hook for similar reasons of "not knowing", or of not taking the "rumors" of genocide seriously enough. (On the flip-side, many Jewish communists in the US refused to believe the "rumors" about Stalin's practices in Russia: The Horrible Irony.)

But actually the leaders of the Allies were aware of the Holocaust, and it just wasn't a priority. Speedily rescuing the "Jews, Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Freemasons, Spanish Republicans, Serbs, disabled, etc" from the Nazis wasn't an all-consuming priority. And needless to say, nary the point for declaring war on the Axis (whether one was directly invaded / attacked or not by them).

Allies knowledge of the atrocities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibi...atrocities

EXCERPT: The Allied Powers were aware of the scale of the Jewish Holocaust two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed, and had even prepared war crimes indictments against Adolf Hitler and his top Nazi commanders. Newly accessed material from the United Nations – not seen for around 70 years – shows that as early as December 1942, the US, UK and Soviet governments were aware that at least two million Jews had been murdered and a further five million were at risk of being killed, and were preparing charges. Despite this, the Allied Powers did very little to try and rescue or provide sanctuary to those in mortal danger. Indeed, in March 1943, Viscount Cranborne, a minister in the war cabinet of Winston Churchill, said the Jews should not be considered a special case and that the British Empire was already too full of refugees to offer a safe haven to any more. [...] Mr Plesch, a professor at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS University of London, said the major powers began drawing up war crimes charges based on witness testimony smuggled from the camps and from the resistance movements in various countries occupied by the Nazis. Among his discoveries were documents indicting Hitler for war crimes dating from 1944.

Allied forces knew about Holocaust two years before discovery of concentration camps, secret documents reveal: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...88036.html

- - - - - -

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/arti...d=10005182

EXCERPT: [...] In August 1942, the State Department received a report sent by Gerhart Riegner, the Geneva-based representative of the World Jewish Congress (WJC). The report revealed that the Germans were planning to physically annihilate the Jews of Europe. Believing the news to be a rumor-and feeling that any rescue action was impossible even if the report was true-State Department officials did not forward the report to its intended recipient, American Jewish Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was President of the World Jewish Congress. During World War II, rescue of Jews and other victim groups persecuted by Nazi Germany was not a priority for the United States government.

[...] After World War II began in 1939, American consuls abroad also screened refugees on national security grounds, making an already difficult immigration process even harder. Nevertheless, in 1939 and 1940 more than half of all immigrants to the United States were Jewish, most of them refugees from Europe. During those same years, a majority of all immigration to the United States came from Nazi-occupied or collaborationist countries. In 1940, for instance, 82% of immigrants to America came from these countries, most of them refugees seeking asylum. But by the time the United States entered the war in December 1941, American consulates had already closed in most of Europe and it became nearly impossible for refugees to escape the continent. Despite many obstacles, however, more than 200,000 Jews found refuge in the United States from 1933 to 1945, most of them arriving before the end of 1941.

- - - - - - - -

Auschwitz Bombing Debate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwit...ing_debate

EXCERPT: [...] Auschwitz was first overflown by an Allied reconnaissance aircraft on April 4, 1944, in a mission to photograph the synthetic oil plant at Monowitz forced labor camp (Auschwitz III). On 26 June, 71 B-17 heavy bombers on another bomb run, had flown above or close to three railway lines to Auschwitz. On July 7, shortly after the U.S. War Department refused requests from Jewish leaders to bomb the railway lines leading to the camps, a force of 452 Fifteenth Air Force bombers flew along and across the five deportation railway lines on their way to bomb Blechhammer oil refineries nearby.

[...] Since the controversy began in the 1970s, a number of military experts have looked at the problems involved in bombing Auschwitz and the rail lines and have concluded that it would have been extremely difficult and risky and that the chances of achieving significant results would have been small. It appears reasonable to assume that John J. McCloy was accurate in his early statements that the idea was never discussed with President Roosevelt. Later in life John J. McCloy may have found it expedient to share with FDR the blame heaped on him by average people and by those who seek to blame somebody in addition to the Germans for the Holocaust.

[Carol]

CC I am in awe over how beautifully you find, select and then post links.

We have the same problem today with Syria. Who is killing all the people? There is proof they are being killed, but there does not seem to be hard proof of who is doing it. Bombing Syria becomes an international problem that could lead to a more serious war.

How about this insane idea? The US is one of the few places that isn't already overpopulated and has enough resources to share. Instead of making multi-million dollar weapons that we can't use until it is too late to avoid war, we should use our resources to build cities for refugees. That is cities complete with everything needed for good lives. This would be a much better way to be a world leader, than leading the race for the most powerful military force and blowing up million dollar bombs instead of creating economic resources, and escalate war around the world, by selling weapons around the world. The US did not stand for military leadership until WWII.

If we had received all the Jews who wanted to flee Germany in the beginning, not only would we have saved their lives, but we would have shortened the war. Jews were essential to Germany's ongoing development of advanced weapons, and the world competed for them after the war. After exterminating many Jews, Germany realized they needed Jews for labor, and Germany would not have been able to maintain its war active if we had taken their labor force before the Germans realized they were needed.

With our ability to reason, we can do better than we are doing.

[Zinjanthropos]

With our ability to reason, we can do better than we are doing.

You know Carol, I'm happy having the USA as my next door neighbor. Why? It's not because they have Trump, social problems, religion, freedoms etc but because I feel safer knowing they are strong militarily. Perhaps that is selfish on my part but I wouldn't feel this way if I had any of the ME countries next door for instance. No one is going to invade Canada without expecting a reaction from the USA. The USA has a might that could, should they choose to enforce, cause mass destruction everywhere. If you battle the USA then you better be prepared to take it on the chin in return. Feeling safer as I do knowing this is probably because I realize there are belligerents in the world that go looking for a chance to make war but avoid the USA. I've heard it many times in my life, 'nuclear weapons have been keeping the peace'.....all relative, I know. I'd be more worried about the little tin pot dictator in NK than The Donald.

[RainbowUnicorn]

  Ah, I think we have assumed historians are authorities on truth, and that we need to remember "his story" is limited to a story about a person or group of persons who did something remarkable.   In the telling of the Persian invasion of Athens, history is not about the citizens who fled the city, leaving it unprotected and open for the Persians to loot and destroy.  Again and again, throughout history, people are fleeing from wars and today with the huge populations of refugees it might be obvious it is not human nature to war?   Is it possible that our telling of history has resulted in a distorted understanding of our nature?  

In fact, it is so against our nature to war that people must be forced into wars.  They can be driven into the enemy against their will.  They have been drafted into wars with punishments for those who are drafted but run.   

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?

punishments

you mean murdered ?

---

With our ability to reason, we can do better than we are doing.

You know Carol, I'm happy having the USA as my next door neighbor. Why? It's not because they have Trump, social problems, religion, freedoms etc but because I feel safer knowing they are strong militarily. Perhaps that is selfish on my part but I wouldn't feel this way if I had any of the ME countries next door for instance. No one is going to invade Canada without expecting a reaction from the USA. The USA has a might that could, should they choose to enforce, cause mass destruction everywhere. If you battle the USA then you better be prepared to take it on the chin in return. Feeling safer as I do knowing this is probably because I realize there are belligerents in the world that go looking for a chance to make war but avoid the USA. I've heard it many times in my life, 'nuclear weapons have been keeping the peace'.....all relative, I know. I'd be more worried about the little tin pot dictator in NK than The Donald.

Trump is only 100 days old.
the simile to his projection of power in a historical cause & effect socilogicaly or economically is like suggesting a herione addict is not an addict inbetween fixes.

just had a think Re the perception of what i said could be taken quite differently from my actual meaning.
my meaning is of the mind of the observing american making a statement of their own perception of the strength and or military stability of the entire nation.
thus the similie being one of a false premis based on non influencing factors to a general state of existance of the US internal systems,Agencies & military.

could he cause chaos sure. has he in some regards, womens march which was absolutely fantastic.
unbelivable show of solidarity of women in america and i think that really put the old patriarchal septic civic incumberments on notice that they had better catch up to the 21st century.

the existential threat to US Societyposed by mysogynistic styled culture which undermines business liberty and saftey of women and the general safety of modern society has been outlined.
good work !

[Carol]

With our ability to reason, we can do better than we are doing.

You know Carol, I'm happy having the USA as my next door neighbor. Why? It's not because they have Trump, social problems, religion, freedoms etc but because I feel safer knowing they are strong militarily. Perhaps that is selfish on my part but I wouldn't feel this way if I had any of the ME countries next door for instance. No one is going to invade Canada without expecting a reaction from the USA. The USA has a might that could, should they choose to enforce, cause mass destruction everywhere. If you battle the USA then you better be prepared to take it on the chin in return. Feeling safer as I do knowing this is probably because I realize there are belligerents in the world that go looking for a chance to make war but avoid the USA. I've heard it many times in my life, 'nuclear weapons have been keeping the peace'.....all relative, I know. I'd be more worried about the little tin pot dictator in NK than The Donald.

Okay, and can I stay in your home when I come to Canada for affordable health care?   

You make a good point, and aren't you glad you are not being taxed for that military expense and have a different health care system?  

In the long run, the military advantage does not resolve the world problems that can lead to a war with far greater destructive potential than ever before.  It is just flat out stupid to rely on military might instead of reason.  This reliance could also be the cause of international problems.  

When Reagon told us it was not necessary to conserve oil (energy) he was talking when an OPEC embargo on oil to the US caused a major recession.  Our economy was dependent on oil imports, and the only way to resolve this problem without bending to the mid east's request that we stop supporting Isreal, was a military solution.   When Reagan took office research on poverty disappeared from the abstracts and was replaced with research on welfare fraud.  The findings of that research were used to scapegoat the poor for our economic problems, and domestic budgets were slashed.   And money was poured into military spending.  We experienced a shift in wealth and power that is troubling us today.  

During the Reagan administration weapons were granted to mid-east countries.  The US supplied Saddam and Ben Lader with weapons and military training.  The US backs any politic power it can control, and eliminates the one's it can not control, in the mid-east and south America.  

The social and economic ramifications for the US are ugly but not as bad as the mid-east ramifications.  Ben Laden did not bomb the US, he bombed the Military Industrial Complex- the Pentagon and World Trade Center and a third unknown target, most likely a government building.   From the point of view of the mid-east, the oil companies of the US are behaving like the Mongols collecting tributes and threatening military destruction if they do not pay tributes.  If they do not do as the US tells them to do, they are bombed and then the bombed nation must pay for the war.  

And you are happy to feel safe?  How does what is happening make the world a safer place?   When Afghanistan becomes a safe place for US controlled oil pipelines, we will stop fighting there.   If the problem in Afghanistan were the leadership and the people, why didn't the US stay out of the USSR's efforts to deal with the problem, instead of arming and training Bin Laden's men so they could fight against the USSR?

---

Trump is only 100 days old.
the simile to his projection of power in a historical cause & effect socilogicaly or economically is like suggesting a herione addict is not an addict inbetween fixes.

That is funny, RainbowUnicorn.  

I have to use a string to hold my jaw up because the take over the Military Industrial Complex is so obvious.  Eisenhower warned of this but so did Tocqueville have some very interesting things to say the military and government and the need to hold them separate in 1830.   Laugh, we are so proud to have separation of church and state and we fought against Hitler's New World Order and when the Bush family bragged about us being the leaders of the New World Order, no one believed they meant what they were saying.  Now we have a president that couldn't do more to make the Military Industrial Complex (New World Order) obvious, and our neighbors like what we have become. 

Of course, our high tech society does not need education in history or philosophy.  As Tocqueville said in 1830, we no longer have a reason to think, because that is being done for us.  All we need do is appreciate the authority above us and follow along in this designer planned society.  Like in the book, "The Brave New World" banned the classics, and dispensed drugs to keep everyone happy.  

[C C]

We have the same problem today with Syria.

Also past examples like the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, the Rwandan genocide, (etc) illustrating the impotence of the West (if measured purely by willingness of direct military intervention to stop such affairs). The US even lightly contributed to the Indonesian communist purge of 1965–1966, in terms of training several hundred officers and providing the death squads with a broad database of resident "offenders".

How about this insane idea? The US is one of the few places that isn't already overpopulated and has enough resources to share. Instead of making multi-million dollar weapons that we can't use until it is too late to avoid war, we should use our resources to build cities for refugees. That is cities complete with everything needed for good lives.

"Everything they need" would entail existing services, retail-chains, businesses, and industries being lured there to provide employment. Banks willing to offer loans for start-up of the newcomers' own later enterprises. Such are scarce in even home-grown minority neighborhoods where the residents actually possess credit and identity records pertaining to their past. The latter would complain: "Why is the government helping out fresh, exotic strangers to this magnitude when it doesn't do the same for us?" The native homeless of America would complain: "Why do you build whole communities for homeless foreigners and not your own homeless citizens?" Overburdened tax payers and jobless members of the working class / proletariat would respond with their own feeling of neglect and brand of wrath at the voting booths.

Reservations didn't universally work so well for Native Americans. Isolating Middle Eastern refugees to their own urban complexes in remote areas that nobody else wanted (i.e., the land that would be available for such projects) would deliberately inhibit their cultural integration into American society. Setting-up a recipe for future disaster in all sorts of ways. (I.e., compare to the accumulating grudges of disgruntled Muslims in France that have been brushed off to impoverished, marginal neighborhoods away from the mainstream).

But contrast to the members of tribal nations in eastern Oklahoma who are just "out there" living and working with the non-Indians. The white people there supposedly brag about having insignificant degrees of Indian blood, and the Nations finance community projects that benefit everybody in their "dual-sovereignty" areas, not just tribal members. If ever chancing upon their newspaper "The Biskink", one might come away with a perplexed impression that the Choctaw (famous for their service in the two World Wars) are almost politically conservative -- the opposite of how counterpart tribes confined to a sequestrated "Rez" are / were traditionally stereotyped ideologically (during the later 20th century ... today).

[Syne]

How about this insane idea?  The US is one of the few places that isn't already overpopulated and has enough resources to share.  Instead of making multi-million dollar weapons that we can't use until it is too late to avoid war,  we should use our resources to build cities for refugees.  That is cities complete with everything needed for good lives.  This would be a much better way to be a world leader, than leading the race for the most powerful military force and blowing up million dollar bombs instead of creating economic resources, and escalate war around the world, by selling weapons around the world.  The US did not stand for military leadership until WWII.

So import Sharia law into its own isolated and ready-built communities for it to flourish? You're suicidal.

If we had received all the Jews who wanted to flee Germany in the beginning, not only would we have saved their lives, but we would have shortened the war.  Jews were essential to Germany's ongoing development of advanced weapons, and the world competed for them after the war.   After exterminating many Jews, Germany realized they needed Jews for labor, and  Germany would not have been able to maintain its war active if we had taken their labor force before the Germans realized they were needed.

Specious reasoning, at best.