Risk of starting a political thread... but there's something I dont get...

[Tlaloc]

I just read an article on cnn about the anti-anti-war protest in Washington D.C. and there is something I dont get about the whole thing. The idea seemed to be "freedom is not free," and how it's so unpatriotic to oppose the war because it disgraces the troops in the war by insulting them and what the army does for this country. Now I dont like what's going on in Iraq, I think it's pretty awful actually, but I do admire the courage of the soldiers there. But, how is the occupation of Iraq fighting for OUR freedom? Isn't the whole idea about the war in Iraq about making another country establish a type of government that the U.S. deems acceptable? How is trying to force a Middle Eastern country to think in the way of the western world preserving our freedom?

[JenjaBen]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but the rationale could be that for every country that is free, there would be one less country to oppose us. It doesn't make that much sense, but thats all I got at the moment.

[ezstep]

 

Yeah! That's right!!! We should have never got involved in WWI or WWII for that matter!!! We shouldn't be in the business of fighting for other people's freedom.

 

 

I will not comment any further.

[Tlaloc]

Originally posted by ezstep Yeah! That's right!!! We should have never got involved in WWI or WWII for that matter!!! We shouldn't be in the business of fighting for other people's freedom. I will not comment any further.

 

 

Hey, if you explain yourself instead of just giving some kind of sarcastic rhetoric, you might convince me and I will agree with you.

[The Insomniac]

Originally posted by ezstep Yeah! That's right!!! We should have never got involved in WWI or WWII for that matter!!! We shouldn't be in the business of fighting for other people's freedom. I will not comment any further.

 

I'm going to drink beer and enjoy my evening but you might want to reread how we got involved in WWI & WWII.

[scarecrowbob]

Originally posted by The Insomniac I'm going to drink beer and enjoy my evening but you might want to reread how we got involved in WWI & WWII.

 

Yes, because Iraq is just like Germany!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

or Korea!!!!

 

 

{edity}

 

or Vietnam!!!

[phunkyhick]

WW1 and WW2 are not the best comparisons for Iraq.

 

I don't think Bush will have much positive remembered to his name other than that he was a Republican (only considered positive if you are Republican)

 

However, in all fairness, he was the President that had to deal with both 9/11 and Katrina.

[Tlaloc]

Originally posted by phunkyhick However, in all fairness, he was the President that had to deal with both 9/11 and Katrina.

 

You do have a point there. I doubt Gore and/or Kerry would have done any better unfortunately.

[tjs]

I've answered this question in depth on several occasions, but I don't feel like doing a lot of typing tonight, so I'll be brief. Basically, the idea that has driven US foreign policy for decades (regardless of who is in office, although the application of that idea has varied from administration to administration) is that, historically, democratic nations have not waged war on other democratic nations, and therefore spreading democracy will in turn spread peace.

 

Now whether or not this principle will continue to hold true in the future, whether or not it will work in the Middle East, and whether or not it will work where the main threat comes from sub- and international, non-governmental organizations all remain to be seen, but that is the assumption that the US government continues to operate under.

[pope_face]

Hmmm... I can see the reasoning behind the anti-anti-war protests, and I understand the whole "support your troops" deal... (I live in Canada) but personally I don't entirely agree with it. Now, maybe I'm just bitter, or jealous, or whatever else you want to call it, but I don't agree with Bush's handling of such affairs. True, I can see the benefit of going into Iraq to oust Saddam or to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, but at the same time I don't agree with his methods. The lying, the denials, all that just doesn't swing with me. But... maybe that's just me.

 

As for the whole Democratic nations don't wage war with other Democratic nations, that works to a certain extent. While full-fledged wars may not happen, there are more private battles won. I learned about the US's involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected Salvatore Ayende (sp?) in Chile, and the subsequent replacement of his party with a totalitarian regime that actually ended up slaughtering people. I can't remember if they replaced Ayende with Pinochet (again, sp?) but they helped place Pinochet in power. Mind you, this was because Chile had elected a Socialist government during the Cold War and the US felt threatened, but that is just one example of many others that did, and didn't happen. I'm not saying that the US is wrong, but I'm not saying it's right either. There are examples that could go either way. All I'm saying is that it's never quite as simple as "Go in, kill some bad MoFo's, and give the people a good, democratically elected government". Countries tend to have ulterior motives in this, and sometimes that information take a long time to come out.

 

As for the world wars... well, I don't know too much about the US, or most other countries involvement in them, but you guys joined pretty late. True, you did supply weapons and the like to the Allies, but there was no real effort put in until the Japanese attacked you and you were directly threatened. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but this is just the way I see. The US and it's people are pretty great, but some of the mindsets of the nation may be slightly skewed in relation to the rest of the world.

 

Philly

[xdamagexx]

most think we should help the world.. i think we should stick to our country mainly.. a little help won;t hurt but we over do it... no other country helps like us, and we got problems of our own here that need fixin to. what would our country be like if some other country got involved in the Civil War?

 

 

m/

[Thumper]

In the certain knowledge that this will piss off someone, here goes with my 2 cents:

 

Freedom isn't free. Someone has to step up to the plate and say 'this {censored} stops now' and be willing to back it up.

 

Protest is not unpatriotic. America is founded on the principle that the people have the right to petition the government to redress wrongs.

 

I'm looking forward to the day when once again America is respected as an ideal to emulate, not feared.

[NeonVomit]

If America had not done anything during WWII, we would all be speaking Russian now. Including America. So, America got involved because America realised that its own freedom was at stake, maybe from Nazi Germany? Imagine Nazi's taking over all of Europe for 10 years. And then getting cushy with Russia or defeating them. Who would be next?

 

I still think one of the best things that ever happened was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. If it wasn't for that, maybe America would never have gotten involved until it was too late.

 

 

That is all.

[NeonVomit]

 

Originally posted by Thumper In the certain knowledge that this will piss off someone, here goes with my 2 cents: Freedom isn't free. Someone has to step up to the plate and say 'this {censored} stops now' and be willing to back it up. Protest is not unpatriotic. America is founded on the principle that the people have the right to petition the government to redress wrongs. I'm looking forward to the day when once again America is respected as an ideal to emulate, not feared.

 

 

I think the ideals of American ways and principles are outstanding. They are the true light of Democracy in this world.

 

However, they're not being practised nowadays, IMO.

 

The founding fathers are probably turning in their graves.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by NeonVomit If America had not done anything during WWII, we would all be speaking Russian now. Including America. So, America got involved because America realised that its own freedom was at stake, maybe from Nazi Germany? Imagine Nazi's taking over all of Europe for 10 years. And then getting cushy with Russia or defeating them. Who would be next? I still think one of the best things that ever happened was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. If it wasn't for that, maybe America would never have gotten involved until it was too late. That is all.

 

 

Yes, and it was all the isolationists, communists (yes, they were a very vocal minority in this country in the 30's and 40's) and pacifists who helped make the US political climate such that we needed Pearl Harbor to get started.

 

The Navy at that time would have also agreed with you...if we had gone to war against the Japanese Navy with the likes of the Arizona, we'd have been crushed and not recovered. We had an odd assortment of quite obsolete ships and Congress was doing little to update it. Additionally, not having a 'conventional' navy forced us to use our carriers and proved the strategy of sea-borne air forces.

[Fran da Man]

About Iraq...doesn't War have to be declared by Congress?

Iraq has had how many transformations now of why we are there?

I fully support our troops, but i don't believe in this engagement.

Anti-War protests; during Nam i was a kid and thought that anti-war protesters were horrible people...now i'm older "i see their point" although i would never consider spitting in a soldiers face, (i wouldn't embaress or belittle myself to that magnitute) different time different Country different reason.

In 5 short years this admin. has turned this Country into the most disrespected Nation on Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ps: Cheneys knee surgery got more airtime and headlines than the Anti-War protest that took place right in our Capitol. WTF?

Priorities

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Fran da Man About Iraq...doesn't War have to be declared by Congress? Iraq has had how many transformations now of why we are there? I fully support our troops, but i don't believe in this engagement. Anti-War protests; during Nam i was a kid and thought that anti-war protesters were horrible people...now i'm older "i see their point" although i would never consider spitting in a soldiers face, (i wouldn't embaress or belittle myself to that magnitute) different time different Country different reason. In 5 short years this admin. has turned this Country into the most disrespected Nation on Earth. Ps: Cheneys knee surgery got more airtime and headlines than the Anti-War protest that took place right in our Capitol. WTF? Priorities

 

Yes, a Declaration of War is requested by the President and granted by Congress. The reason given by the President for action in Iraq is the same as it was,....that the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the region and consequently this nation. I'm not directly aware of him 'changing' that as a reason to go there. What has changed, as always does in chaotic situations, is the types of operations. American like things simple and quick, and political regime change is never simple and rarely quick.

 

I'm glad you can see the point of the Vietnam protesters. I can't. I find it interesting that one of NV's top military figures when interviewd after the war stated that they used to watch US news reports every night to see the protests. He stated that they were the most important strategy in NV's victory, and was certain that without it they would have failed utterly.

[Fran da Man]

What happened to WMD's? at one time this was bigger than ousting SH.

The Hussein regime is no more...and been gone for how long?

So now we are fighting to establish a Government...

The Bush method...lies and fixed polls. had 1 failed election...and do tell...what the hell failed?

[Undertoad]

Declaration of war: What you are witnessing in Iraq, and in fact what you witnessed the first week, is not really war. If we declared war on Iraq there would BE no Iraq remaining today, just a 51st state called Iraqivania. It would contain a lot of radioactive sand.

 

The real reasons: If you want to make the WMDs the issue, you still can. Hussein did try to procure WMD and had active programs, but no stockpiles were found, which is an illegal condition regardless and not one that those in favor of peace ought to be in favor of. Hussein may have in fact been pointing an empty gun at us and the rest of the world, but anyone with any common sense treats an empty gun as if it were loaded, especially if you don't know the status of the gun.

 

In order to have a safer and more peaceful world, it was and is necessary for the entire middle eastern region to stop acting like assholes and start getting in line and behaving properly. In a world where there is "assymetric warfare", this is much more true. In the olden days, it took a functioning, productive nation to develop and/or use a nuclear weapon. Today, and especially in the next few decades, that is no longer true. Terrorism allows massive strikes that cannot be responded to in kind.

 

In the olden days, "mutually assured destruction" meant that one productive nation with WMD could simply threaten to use them against other productive nations with WMD, and that meant that WMD would never be used. In the new days, terrorists or bad-acting dictators can use WMD without the victims even knowing who was responsible. This throws "mutually assured destruction" out the window. If a suitcase nuke was set off in NYC tomorrow, who would we nuke in retaliation? One senator had to throw out the notion that we would nuke Mecca, so that there would be some degree of understanding amongst hardass Muslims that there could be retaliation after all. Unthinkable? If you don't want to be nuklified yourself, such statements are necessary to maintain some balance of power in all this.

 

So: there is a high level of urgency for the M.E. to reform itself and start having elections and stop being tyrannical dictatorships. How do you DO that, exactly, without declaring ACTUAL war and just walking in and taking over?

 

Well the hope is, you can take a relatively progressive and sectarian country in the very middle of the middle east, with borders on all of the really stupid really hardass countries of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and turn it into a democratic, productive pro-American state as a model for all the citizens of the other hardass countries to follow. As a bonus, you also wind up with military airports that are within 500 miles of all nuclear facilities that could produce nuke weaponry out of the Middle East.

 

So on balance it is a very good idea indeed, maybe a totally essential one for the future of the world.

 

The problem is, what if it's done POORLY. Well, then it turns into a pretty BAD idea. Here is where you hope that the military planners have the complete and total understanding of how the transition will work, so that it is done WELL and doesn't turn into a mess.

 

We will know in the next six months whether it was a good idea or bad idea.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by Fran da Man What happened to WMD's? at one time this was bigger than ousting SH. The Hussein regime is no more...and been gone for how long? So now we are fighting to establish a Government... The Bush method...lies and fixed polls. had 1 failed election...and do tell...what the hell failed?

 

 

We're not fighting to establish a government. The Iraqi people are fighting to establish a government.

 

We did what the Iraqi people could not; we removed a ruthless dictator. They will eventually prevail in forming their new government, but as with all emerging nations, not without considerable pain.

 

WMD's? That *was* one of the reasons for ousting SH, so I don't understand what you mean by it being bigger than ousting him. Been pretty well covered ad nauseum that we got bad information and excercised bad judgement in presenting it to the US and the world.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying/asking here:"had 1 failed election...and do tell...what the hell failed?"

[Kaesh]

Patriotism is acting for the good of your country. Not for the good of its government, army or anything else.

[PrestiaRules]

Originally posted by The Insomniac I'm going to drink beer and enjoy my evening but you might want to reread how we got involved in WWI & WWII.

 

..rather reluctantly if the history texts I read were correct...

[bbl]

Originally posted by ezstep Yeah! That's right!!! We should have never got involved in WWI or WWII for that matter!!! We shouldn't be in the business of fighting for other people's freedom. I will not comment any further.

 

Really sad that war supporters have to go so low now. Trying to align Iraq with WWI and WWII.

[bbl]

Originally posted by tjs I've answered this question in depth on several occasions, but I don't feel like doing a lot of typing tonight, so I'll be brief. Basically, the idea that has driven US foreign policy for decades (regardless of who is in office, although the application of that idea has varied from administration to administration) is that, historically, democratic nations have not waged war on other democratic nations, and therefore spreading democracy will in turn spread peace. Now whether or not this principle will continue to hold true in the future, whether or not it will work in the Middle East, and whether or not it will work where the main threat comes from sub- and international, non-governmental organizations all remain to be seen, but that is the assumption that the US government continues to operate under.

 

Not quite.

 

I honestly don't believe that our government (no matter who's running the show) cares so much about "spreading democracy" as they do about establishing control in certain regions where it serves our interests.

 

We would never be in the Middle East if it weren't for oil.

[FARGreg]

 

Originally posted by pope_face True, you did supply weapons and the like to the Allies, Philly

 

 

 

Just to point out something most people don't seem to know; before we entered the war we supplied weapons to Germany and a good % of the American population and Government supported Germany.