Let's discuss 'Chicken Doves'

[GregoryA]

UncleVinny said:

Agreed.
So now it's a matter of how do we get out of there and save face? There's the old so-called Pottery Barn problem - "You break it - - you own it." So now Bush owns Iraq and we have to make it look good before we exit. That's what the whole election debate was about - Questionable planning for war, NO planning for an exit strategy.

I cannot disagree with you UncleVinny. As a conservative I find this Iraqi invasion a misadventure. It has put American military personel at grave risk and this is not based on any constitutional grounds. Fiscally it is a disaster. Bush is spending money like it's water.

The only thing I would differ with you over is that Kerry didn't seem to have a clear exit policy either.

[Ian]

Vinny doesn't seem to grasp that there are those of us who have the wherewithal to be against this war and not ANTIwar.

[UncleVinny]

The question remains then . .. What do we do now?

One thing is to stop the hemmorage - the loss of massive sums of money down a rat-hole.

[GregoryA]

Ian said:

Vinny doesn't seem to grasp that there are those of us who have the wherewithal to be against this war and not ANTIwar.

Precisely! I couldn't state it any better.

[Ian]

Thanks, I'll join you.

[TNRighty]

Ian, Gregory,

We agree on most issues, but I will have to respectfully disagree with your views that the Iraq war was a misadventure.

Of course this war has put American soldiers at grave risk, but so did WWI, WWII, and the American Revolution. What if we had decided not to fight those wars on the basis that it was too much of a risk to American soldiers? What would the world look like today had we not risen up and sacrificed lives for our independence from the British or taken the risk we took in 1942 when we entered WWII? What would the world look like in 20 years had we not decided to confront Islamic Terrorism and regimes like Saddam Hussein's that support terrorism?

We can't just fight the battles that we know will be easily won or are without risk. A battle with nothing on the line is a battle not worth fighting.

In the end, what are the risks of not taking action? We'll never know for sure, but using WWII and Hitler as a precedent we can certainly make a convincing case for neutralizing a threat before it materializes. One thing is for sure, Saddam Hussein will never become the menace Adolf Hitler became so long as he's sitting behind bars.

As an aside, If George Bush had told America two years ago that we would remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, overthrow and capture Saddam, oversee free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, eliminate 70% of Al-Qaida, and set forth a movement toward freedom in the Middle East, and in so doing would lose less than 1600 American soldiers in the process we would have told him he's absolutely crazy.

Two years ago opponents of this war said we'd lose at least 10,000 Americans fighting this "meaningless" war. They were wrong about the toll on American soldiers and the "meaninglessness" of this war. Tell the millions of Iraqis who braved the threat of death to vote that this war was meaningless.

The great thing about America is that we are willing to risk our lives to protect our freedom. Even greater is the fact that we are willing to risk our lives for the freedom of people outside our borders. America is the most giving, unselfish country in the history of makind.

As flawed as he is, we have a President who understands that threats to freedom anywhere in the world are threats to freedom here in America, and he sould be applauded for his perspective and foresight.

[Ian]

TNRighty,

I do agree with you that the casualties of this war are minuscule in comparison to WWII or Vietnam. Endangering our soldiers, as cold as it might be, is not the issue with me. Coming from a military family, my grandfather, father and two uncles were enlisted, I feel that I can take such a position. Let me make clear that I am not on the left side of this war, to the contrary, I am on the right side of Bush.

I don't believe that Iraq was the most threatening state in the Middle East, I think most of us can agree on this. The fact remains that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, who is lead by Islamic radicals, has had the capabilities of making WMD and was in the process, and Syria was a much better example of state-funded terrorism. So who is Bush's automatic choice? Iraq of course, because they have WMDs. We were led into Iraq on the basis of an imminent threat to the US, not because Bush wanted to spread democracy to "freedom loving peoples".

I guess my point is, and excuse me for a lack of articulation, I'm going on two hours of sleep, I don't feel like losing 1500 soldiers and being spent into record deficits so the Iraqis can have democracy. And these facts are particularly disturbing when the installation of an authoritarian govt would have given us the same end goals at half the war dead, a tenth of the cost and without the very real threat of an annexation by Iran.

And I don't believe your comparison to WWII is entirely accurate. Hitler was rampaging through Europe and had occupied Poland, and the Japanese had attacked us personally. Korea and Vietnam played into the policy of containment. The Iraq war doesn't compare.

Wasn't this called "Nation Building" when the democrats were in power? I disagree with it regardless of who is running the country.

[Patriot]

I must weigh in on the side of Ian, with all due respect to TN Righty, whom I hold in the highest regard.

Truth be told more men were killed in Pickett's Charge than in the entire Iraqi campaign. That, however, isn't the issue. The issue is that we're wasting an enormous amount of resources-- monetary as well as in manpower-- on the pet project in Iraq. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight", to use the old slogan from the Spanish American war.

In his inaugural address, FDR made a point of saying "this great nation shall endure, as it has endured"-- and we still maintain that attitude of optimism despite any national difficulty. But here's the reality: there's nothing to prevent a superpower from crumbling due to weak leadership, budget collapse, and thin resources. It's been seen time and again in the annals of time.

If you know you're headed toward a waterfall, the best thing to do is turn the raft around and paddle upstream, hell bent for legend.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Ian said:

Until everyone embraces peace (that's right, not just the evil Americans) then it is wholly naive to embrace an anti-war foreign policy. There are circumstances when war is the only solution i.e. the Third Reich. Your ignorant rantings would be better served if delivered in the direction of N. Korea or Iran.

America's involvement in the 2nd World War was to prevent the spread of Communism. If America hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have beaten the 3rd Reich anyway.

The reason why America won't invade Iran or N. Korea is because these guys can actually fight back. There's no way America will get involved in a war that might spill into the borders of the US. A war going on in America would seriously damage America's economy.

Any war that America has been involved in since the 2nd World War has been a money making scheme.

[Patriot]

Gonzo:


Welcome to the board. I fear you are a bit off-base in some of your beliefs.


1. America's involvement in the 2nd World War was to prevent the spread of Communism.


No, that was the reason we fought the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The Korean War was aimed to stem the expansion of the Communist Red Chinese; the Vietnam War was aimed to break the Communist hold of North Vietnam on the South. We fought World War Two predominately to aid our allies, Great Britain in particular. Yes we eventually became concerned with the spread of Communism, hence we used the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to send a warning to the USSR that our military was not to be messed with in the post-WWII era. However, stemming the reach of Communism per se, wasn't why we fought WWII. Rather, stemming the reach of fascism as exercised by the Axis Powers which threatened the Western alliances of NATO.


2. If America hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have beaten the 3rd Reich anyway.


Doubtful. The Soviets are renowned for having captured Berlin (thanks to General Giorgi Zhukov) in the last major battle of the War. However, prior to that the Soviets had lost an estimated 19 million casualties, both military and civilian. That's a higher number than the Jews who were killed by Hitler. WWII entirely drained Stalin's resources-- for example, even up until the 1960s, the Soviets were still using horse cavalry to transport artillery, most of which was vintage armor from the first world war. Could the Soviets have defeated Germany and the rest of the Axis Powers (Italy, Japan) by itself? Not likely at all. In fact, if you know about the Russo-Japo War of 1905, you're aware that the Japanese already had a history of defeating the Soviets.


3. The reason why America won't invade Iran or N. Korea is because these guys can actually fight back. There's no way America will get involved in a war that might spill into the borders of the US. A war going on in America would seriously damage America's economy.


Actually, the reason we're not entering a full-blown conflict with Iran or North Korea has more to do with international stability. Our reputation with many of our trading partners and Allies has suffered with the War in Iraq and it's too much to risk, at this time, to undertake new wars in new theatres of operation. Additionally, our military resources would be spread too thin. No one goes to war to lose a fight. In order to win, you have to enter one war at a time. Otherwise, the various enemy countries would form an Anti-American coalition and attempt breaking our global hold.


4. Any war that America has been involved in since the 2nd World War has been a money making scheme.


That's a frequent accusation that can't be backed up with any factual information. America has never profited, monetarily, from any of the wars it has fought since WWII. In fact, the sacrifices made both by the military and government have far outweighed any revenues brought in. The only war which can actually be said to have had positive effects on the economy was, in fact, World War II because it pulled the US out of the Depression. Aside from that, the only thing we have ever asked in return is enough land to bury our dead.

[Dr. Gonzo]

While the Soviets had suffered huge casualties, they were a much larger force than Germany. I admit that Western Europe is much better off than Eastern Europe because of America's involvement but I do believe that the main reason for America's involvement in the war was to get a foothold in Europe before the Soviets took most of it. Italy wasn't much of a force to be reckoned with compared to the Red Army and Japan wouldn't involve itself with Europe, they had enough problems of their own.

Well, in the midst of the war in Afghanistan, America invaded Iraq. If Iran and North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and bio weapons, the US would invade at least one of them within the next year. They're opting for diplomacy because they know that there's a chance of either of these countries attacking America or Israel directly.

While all of America might not have profited from wars overseas in the scale of after WWII, there are certain companies that make hefty profits as a result of America invading other countries, companies who would in turn have a lot of lobbying power.

[Patriot]

Gonzo:

While the Soviets had suffered huge casualties, they were a much larger force than Germany. I admit that Western Europe is much better off than Eastern Europe because of America's involvement but I do believe that the main reason for America's involvement in the war was to get a foothold in Europe before the Soviets took most of it.

America has always been against the spread of communism; hence the Truman Doctrine of Containment in the 1950s. Truman realized, to a greater degree than Roosevelt (who preceded him) that the USSR would pose a serious threat, ideologically if not militarily, in the post WWII world. But, bear in mind that the reason we entered WWII was in response to being directly attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in 1941. We had no intention of getting bogged down in Europe when we declared war on Japan. It just turned out that way due to the eventual needs of our allies.

Italy wasn't much of a force to be reckoned with compared to the Red Army and Japan wouldn't involve itself with Europe, they had enough problems of their own.

The Nazis overran much of Russia-- stopping only due to bad weather outside Leningrad, at which point the Soviets managed to rally and launch a counter-attack. Slowly they pushed the Reich backwards, but it was very slow and very, very, costly in terms of manpower and equipment. I don't think the Russians would have stood much of a chance against a fully concentrated Third Reich. As it happened, the Reich was dealing with several fronts and therefore couldn't commit to a full scale invasion. Hitler's Germany was like a wild tiger: if it hadn't been for the dogs of Britain, the US, and various resistance movements biting at the tiger's legs, believe me, that tiger would have had a lot more swiping power to claw the Russian Bear.

Well, in the midst of the war in Afghanistan, America invaded Iraq.

That's because Afghanistan was a quick takedown and our dogs of war, once unleashed, can't soon forget the taste of blood. The world must remember that the US is sovereign and anyone who tries instigating violence against us will be annihilated, like the enemies of Rome.

If Iran and North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons and bio weapons, the US would invade at least one of them within the next year. They're opting for diplomacy because they know that there's a chance of either of these countries attacking America or Israel directly.

I think that's a bit shortsighted. We don't have the resources to invade either of those countries within one year. Most of our personnel are deployed elsewhere at this point.

While all of America might not have profited from wars overseas in the scale of after WWII, there are certain companies that make hefty profits as a result of America invading other countries, companies who would in turn have a lot of lobbying power.

True, but those companies, despite their lobbying power, aren't in a position to influence policy to the point of congressional or presidential war-making.