<p>Opie, I think that by Dec 7, 1941, the Roosevelt and the industrialists of America had already converted much of the US into a war state. US was already suppling CHina and GB with material for 2+ years. The military also knew that War was coming, The Pacific Fleet was being prepositioned in Hawaii and beyond.</p>
<p>
The United States possesses the greatest (in all respects) fighting force this planet has ever seen. Why are we so concerned about convincing other countries to come “help” us fight a war we would be better off fighting without them?</p>
<p>The advance into Iraq was just as fast this time around as it was in 91. He didn’t have to hold ground. He did however, abandon the Kurds to get slaughtered. They don’t count as one of your “other countries,” neh?</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>
You are, of course, speaking of GWB’s alternate quantum universe in which Iraq had WMDs, Osama has been captured, and John McCain can go shopping without an attack helicopter escort.</p>
<p>So you’re saying either:</p>
<p>1) I’m right and you just don’t want to admit it so you’re forced to throw this worthless turd of an argument at me to try to make my idea less appealing;</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>2) You think I’m wrong, but you lack the mental capacity to respond to, or form, complex thoughts and are just throwing turds because it’s fun.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>“to the bitter end eh FF? Are you going to go down in history as the last Bushie?”</p>
<p>Opie, I’m sure that this comes as a shock to you, but a statement of fact can be made that is devoid of any partisanship. The fact that you and others continue to make statements like the above, reflects on your inability to separate ideology from facts.</p>
<p>“reflects on your inability to separate ideology from facts”</p>
<p>gee, OK. What is my ideology again? 
</p>
<p>till the bitter end.</p>
<p>“Why are we so concerned about convincing other countries to come “help” us fight a war we would be better off fighting without them?”</p>
<p>My easiest guess would be to put the rest of the world at ease that we are not jack booted agressors bent on converting the world to our ways. Because of course OURs is always the best… </p>
<p>I guess we could sweep into Poland, then onto Beligum, maybe France and maybe into the soviet union… gee, I have no idea why we would want to put the rest of the world at ease by attempting to gain their help and support in a conflict… There’s absolutely no reason what so ever, no history behind having “allies” in a conflict. </p>
<p>“The advance into Iraq was just as fast this time around as it was in 91. He didn’t have to hold ground.”</p>
<p>was there a reason to hold ground? to eliminate the existing government and infrastructure? to create a vaccum that instability in the region? </p>
<p>" He did however, abandon the Kurds to get slaughtered. They don’t count as one of your “other countries,” neh?"</p>
<p>So your also advocating the US invasion and occupation of Darfur? the kurds aren’t a country, they’re a people. No different than those in Africa, asia and elsewhere that suffer at the hands of their governments. Are you suggesting that we (the US) take up arms against all those who wrong their people or the natives of their lands? </p>
<p>Should we attack ourselves for our slaugther and forced relocation of native americans? The Aussies for their slaugther of their native people or the countless others out there? Is that your idea of our role in the world. Military occupation of every place that doesn’t do it like us? Kinda stretches thin doesn’t it? </p>
<p>While I am just as outraged by injustice men do upon men, I question our role as the sole deliverer of justice world wide. I mean, you have to understand “team america” was just a movie…</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>3) it is not necessary to form complex replies to simplistic, jingoistic, and delusional world views (in which we “had” to fight a war, and required no one’s help in doing so), nor is it necessary to throw turds at something which is already crap.</p>
<p>This is not how you build empire. It is (and was in 2002) obvious that this is not how you build empire. To build empire, you do what Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander, Caesar, Suleiman, et c. did, you expand outward from your own borders, always maintaining a contiguous land mass. Iraq and Afghanistan hold no strategic value for this. The only strategic value they hold is to quell Iran. If we were attempting to build an empire we would first take Canada, most likely through “diplomatic” means (eg. Germany into Austria) then south into Mexico down to Cape Horn, securing the resources of the Gulf and Venezuela on the way. What we would NOT do if we were trying to build empire is take Iraq.</p>
<p>I care very little about the feelings of insecurity possessed by Europeans who vote to appease terrorists.</p>
<p>In World War Two, we needed allies because we couldn’t physically fight the conflict on our own with the overwhelming force superiority that we needed. The same overwhelming force superiority we can now achieve alone.</p>
<p>
Yes, there was reason to eliminate the existing gov’t.<br>
Are you implying that before we got there the Middle East was stable? (While grammatically incoherent, that’s how I read it. I may be wrong)</p>
<p>The Kurds are a people who have, since 1945 (<a href=“http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910601faessay6088/william-linn-westermann/kurdish-independence-and-russian-expansion-1946.html[/url]”>http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910601faessay6088/william-linn-westermann/kurdish-independence-and-russian-expansion-1946.html</a>) been actively seeking to establish an independent nation. </p>
<p>Yes, the Kurds were being persecuted similarly to the people in Darfur are being now. However, the gov’t doing the persecuting in Darfur did not invade Kuwait. If you will remember, THAT is the reason we invaded Iraq in 91. Not to help the Kurds, but as long as we were doing the job anyways, why not do it right and help them gain their independence? The parallel that you are attempting to draw is so vague it can do nothing but confuse the issue and you know this (The “If you’re wrong, by default I’m right” argument).</p>
<p>If we did not posses the best way of life we could, why would we not attempt to improve ourselves? That is the root premise of education, is it not? “I can live a better life than I currently do, so I will.”</p>
<p>“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>“I could move the coffee cup with my mind, I just don’t want to.”</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>“This is not how you build empire”</p>
<p>Gee, I didn’t realize that…</p>
<p>india was connected to England,</p>
<p>the east indies were connected to holland.</p>
<p>Morrocco was connected to france…</p>
<p>So I guess there’s only your way to empire build? </p>
<p>"Yes, there was reason to eliminate the existing gov’t. "
Why? what made them different? Try to answer this without the pot calling the kettle black OK? </p>
<p>“Are you implying that before we got there the Middle East was stable?”</p>
<p>Compared to today?..YEA. </p>
<p>"The Kurds are a people who have, since 1945 (<a href=“http://www.foreignaffairs.org/199106...sion-1946.html[/url]”>http://www.foreignaffairs.org/199106...sion-1946.html</a>) been actively seeking to establish an independent nation. "</p>
<p>Are they the only ones? Heck, we have a group of folks up county from us that want to cede from the US, and they’ve wanted to for awhile, should we help them too? </p>
<p>“the reason we invaded Iraq in 91”</p>
<p>And the reason we invaded the last time? </p>
<p>Go ahead, I’m sure you have mulitple reasons…
Whose country was Iraq invading this last time around?? </p>
<p>“why not do it right and help them gain their independence”</p>
<p>Why stop there, let’s go to my homeland and free Northern Ireland from british rule too!! What right do they have to block my family’s desire to be free of foriegn oppression? </p>
<p>T"he parallel that you are attempting to draw is so vague it can do nothing but confuse the issue "</p>
<p>excuse me? isn’t that what you’re attempting here?</p>
<p>“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”</p>
<p>Actually I have no problem with democracy, but since you’re trying to strech things into implying I’m some sort of commie, let me tell you how I feel…</p>
<p>Democracy like religion, thrives best when people come to it on THEIR OWN terms! When either is forced upon a people, neither can stand the test of time without continuous force being applied.</p>
<p>I think the fruits of democracy building (or lack there of) are abundantly clear. In all the countries on which we have “forced” democratic elections, Islamists have been elected. Islamists don’t believe in democracy, if you haven’t checked, unless you call extreme sharia law and theocracy democratic. LOL</p>
<p>Somehow I don’t think that these results were exactly what Bush and Co had in mind.</p>
<p>
Hard to find reason to fight the Protestants when you subscribe to their way of thinking, neh?</p>
<p>Exactly, all these WERE controlled by other people.</p>
<p>No people build themselves an empire with the thought “It’ll only last 50 years, but it’ll be one helluva 50 years.” They do it under the premise of the Romans: “This is going to be permanent.”</p>
<p>The colony idea doesn’t work. Which is proof that we’re not building an empire. We’re not establishing colonies.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>Do me a favor. copy-paste this: </p>
<p>“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”</p>
<p>into google and hit enter. Then, help me understand how using that is indicative of me thinking you’re “some sort of commie.”</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true some of the time, with notable counter-examples such as Germany and Japan.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, when you pooh-poohed a young person’s lament about the cost your war has to their future, I noted:
You responded:
Can you really be so blind as to think the only consequence of a war for those who don’t personally serve on the front lines is “seeing disabled soldiers in the future”? </p>
<p>How about seeing the national rate of substance abuse and homelessness skyrocket?
Do you honestly think that the younger generation will have no adverse consequences from Bush’s folly other than more debt and having to “see disabled soldiers”? I guess that’s the level of analysis which is required to defend the Bush Administration at that point, eh?</p>
<p>WashDad, I’m not sure what you intended your point regarding the national debt and WWII to be, but consider this: By the start of the Reagan Administration we had almost paid that debt off (yeah, it took 40 years.) Since the advent of borrow and spend voodoo economics the debt has now increased to the point that over 9% of your tax bill is used just to pay interest on the Reagan-Bush-Bush debt. Yes, we can “handle” this level of debt, which was run up entirely to provide short-term economic benefit for a small segment of society who avoided the messy duty of paying enough taxes to finance the various governmental activities - including the Iraq war - as they were incurred, by assisting the political futures of incompetent hacks like GWB. But if a real challenge were to face our nation (like a sudden realization that half-measures won’t suffice to deal with the consequences of global warming) we’ve got one hand tied behind our backs. There’s 9 trillion dollars worth of credit we can’t access, because we’ve spent it already. It’s kind of like taking out a second mortgage to pay for a Vegas vacation. Yeah - you can afford the payments, but what do you do when you discover you need a new roof? </p>
<p>Yes, we owe an apology - and more - to the younger generation for the short-sighted and incompetent actions of the politicians we allowed to take office.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m not trying to steer this conversation backwards, but I just came across this thread.</p>
<p>To those of you who think that women as well as men should be included in any draft-</p>
<p>Why would we need to draft women? There are more than enough able-bodied men in America to reinforce our military if a draft is needed. </p>
<p>Currently women are mostly restricted from combat operations. They can’t serve in the infantry, armor, artillery, special forces, etc. Basically the closest to a combat job they can get in the Army at least is to become an MP, and we have plenty of MPs. Drafting and training countless women to become something that under current law they cannot be does not make sense; why waste the money? I guess they could be assigned to support roles, but why change official policy when those roles can be filled under the current system?</p>
<p>Also, why do males hold a grudge against women because they can’t be drafted? That’s like women holding a grudge because men can’t become pregnant. Yeah, it sucks that the genders are different, but that’s life. There are pros and cons to being born a male and a female, and one of the cons (or pros) of being born male is the fact that you could get shipped off somewhere once you turn 18. Personally, America has given me enough, and if we ever get to the point where the country needs me enough to draft me then I’ll be happy to return the favor rather than b**ch about how my sister doesn’t have to.</p>