Do you think there will be children of kindergarten age today in America...

It's been stated before.The war on terror is going to last a long time and you might be right,and the worst part is,it could be thier children too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(charliem @ Apr 12 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]422082[/snapback]</div>

Spaces are your friend. Especially after punctuation like periods and commas.

To the point of the thread, i doubt current children that young will be going into Iraq. At least, not as part of the present war. At some point we will withdraw. I think that the next elections will hinge on this very issue, and that the people currently feel so horrible about the way the war is progressing that they will vote into office someone who will pull out. If it doesn't happen this time, then one of two things will happen - either the next president will find some way to actually win in Iraq, put the insurgency down, and stop the killing, or he won't have a second term and whoever succeeds him will pull the troops out.

So we have somewhere between 2 and 6 years until we're out of Iraq. Not long enough for these children to grow up, thankfully.

 

In the late 60's and early 70's, I have my first recollections of the TV news reporting terrorism in England. I recall wondering what kept 'those people' over there, and from not coming here and terrorizing us (I was also busy locking my bedroom windows so the Zodiac wouldn't come in while I was sleeping)...

..but, to me, at that time, the U.S. seemed so powerful and shiny and clean and scientific and well on the way to figuring out everything. And, I guess, this perception of our Country was enough to explain it all.

I'm not sure what's changed; my perceptions have, I suppose, as well as our stature among nations of the world.

Personally, I believe this isn't a problem which force alone can solve. For this reason, I too suspect that the war will require a U.S. presence for many, many, years to come.

I think this is actually a real learning experience for us, if only we'd let it be.

It's a lesson in limits.

It's a lesson in finances and *fiscal* conservatism.

It's a lesson on how the 'validity' of a foreign culture can't be measured in the things it builds or how vehemently it can defend itself.

It's also a lesson about the bankruptcy of the Northern European social engineering juggernaut, the high water mark of which occurred in England, sometime during the Victorian Era.

But, we probably won't see it that way.

We'll see it from the perspective of (for example) "My lifestyle demands a large vehicle with a big, powerful engine, so I can tow my boat and bring all my stuff along, too." Then we'll assume this is some sort of God-given baseline (not to mention, something to which everyone else in the world aspires) and go to war when we feel that our right to live in this manner might be violated.

Never mind that my family vacationed in a 170 cubic inch straight six powered Ford Fairlane wagon, and we always got to our favorite vacation spots just fine.

The WTC was destroyed because it symbolizes Dollar Diplomacy and our efforts to use economics to spread our culture.

It is the infringement of our cultural and religious mores upon others which continues to exacerbate the conflict. And this is something which no troop surge of any size can overcome.

So start that college fund now; your kids may need the draft deferrment!

 

Pinto Girl!

Wells said. I vote you as poster of the month!

/Robert

 

We will be in the Middle East for a long time. Look we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea 50+ years later and they don't have oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 12 2007, 04:42 PM) [snapback]422284[/snapback]</div>

You don't know the difference between a "mission" and a "war"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 12 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]422126[/snapback]</div>

Hi PintoGirl

I think I have to ask some questions because I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say and I might have to take issue with some of your points. First, how else would you deal with people that believe they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others through the power of the state? Second, How else do you measure the validity of a culture other than through the things that it builds and by things I mean institutions, freedoms, mores and whatnot not bridges, skyscrapers or material things. I say this because I believe that is what you also meant, right? Third, the WTC was destroyed by terrorist, plain and simple. We did not force our culture upon them by means of economics’ or military force for that matter. Do you have any facts that show we force our culture on anyone? I mean we do insist that countries, businesses and people that deal with the USA as a whole and the citizens therein, deal in a honest, fair competitive manner as do all other nations and entities in the world. So I guess I don’t understand how this caused the WTC to be destroyed? At a loss here until you fill in the blanks.

Wildkow



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Apr 12 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]422237[/snapback]</div>

You might also want to add that we didn't take the oil from 1) Kuwait, 2) Iraq (Gulf War I and so far II) 3) Saudi Arabia or 4) Afghanistan (no oil but the charge was still laid) as was the outcry of many when we went into the area the first or second time. Even though we still maintain a nominal presense in all those oil important countries. Do we impose our culture through economic or military means? We do not although I suspect that the women in each one of those countries pray to Allah each night that we do.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 12 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]422284[/snapback]</div>

I believe that this has been refuted many, many times. The commander of the boat asked for that sign for the men and women under his command at the end of their Mission, at the time the longest mission deployment ever for a nuclear powered aircraft vessel I believe. It was put up before Bush got on board, without his or his staff’s express wish and in the end it proved correct as major combat operations with the government and military forces was effectively over. Navy officials supposedly asked for the sign and the White House had it built for them. A key part of Bush’s speech is this . . . "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." Parse that out and you see that he did not think that the war was over and we could claim victory. The nation building (something Bush said he would not do) and the suppression of terrorism is still ongoing. He also rather plainly stated that it was the end of “Major Combat Operations†a plain understanding of those words very clearly shows he did not think that the “War†was over and done just the major combat operations. In addition and also very plainly stated he said “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.†I have no idea why the sheeple of the DNC and the MSM still think this is pertinent as the only reason it was ever an issue at all was because the democrats feared he would use the trip for political gain prior to the 2004 election, and I’m sure Bush did also. That’s over and long gone, give it up already.
The Navy’s official position is this "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, said. "The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.


Wildkow

 

Yeah, and Georgie was forced by the Navy to place his podium lined up with it so it appeared in shot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Apr 13 2007, 12:28 AM) [snapback]422457[/snapback]</div>

Really?

Wildkow

 

The war on terror is going to take a long time not only in Iraq,but all over the world.Batten down the hatches and keep your guns cleaned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 12 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]422069[/snapback]</div>

All wars end eventually. It ends when we go bankrupt, or when the public gets disgusted with all the death and expense. Today's kindergartners will not fight in this particular war. But America is a warlike nation, and war is profitable for people in high decision-making positions, so they will fight in other wars. It is not possible to predict this far out what country will be the "enemy" when today's little children reach military age.

Perhaps by then we'll be fighting in Canada to take their fresh water. Don't laugh! Fresh water is going to become more valuable than oil some day.

Or perhaps rising sea levels will wash away so many of our important cities, and these wars will so cripple our economy, that we'll be reduced to a second-rate nation and we won't be able to defend ourselves from Mexico, much less engage in wars of conquest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 13 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]422606[/snapback]</div>

I think I saw all this on a Mad Max movie once.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 13 2007, 08:00 AM) [snapback]422606[/snapback]</div>

Your connotation is that we seek out war as an extension of our Public Policy. At least that is my reading if I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected. We do not seek out war as a nation.

Indian War – Maybe or Yes, we probably should not have fought this one but as in the next two there would not have been an America without it and we did not have much choice. We did not seek out war.

American Revolution and the War of 1812, No and No, well they subjugated or attacked us forcing us into war didn’t they? Not to mention there would be no America without these two wars.

Mexican-American War, No, it wasn’t Mexico’s and they instigated the battle if I remember correctly. You can correct me on this if I am wrong.

Civil War, No, How much longer would slavery go on without this war? Beside the fact that once again we were forced into the battle.

Spanish-American War, Yes or Maybe, I don’t remember a lot about this one so I’ll give it to you.

WWI or WWII No and No again both times the threats came from the outside and the U.S. was forced to defend itself.

Korean War, No, UN Sanction War and American was a member.

Vietnam War, Yes and No a part goes to you, but just barely because of the way it was fought. I have never had a problem with someone standing up for someone else’s freedom’s.

Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, see above we did not seek out the first two and I’ll give you Iraqi Freedom.


My count, 7 decisive No’s, 4 Maybe’s with ulterior motives and 1 decisive Yes and maybe 1 not so decisive Yes, both with an Ulterior Motive.

America is not a warlike nation and does not seek out war as a Public Policy.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 17 2007, 11:47 PM) [snapback]425183[/snapback]</div>

I recommend Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States", Gore Vidal's "Dreaming War" and "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace", and Mark Twain's essay "To The Person Sitting in Darkness", just to name the first few writings that come to mind that cast a sharp spotlight into the dark corners of that black assertion and reveal its total falsehood. One of Gore Vidal's books (I can't recall which one of the two) lists by name and date every "hot" military expedition instigated or supported by the United States - the list fills many pages in small font. Your list ommitted the Phillipines, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, East Timor, and many more places where the US sought expansion of empire or the overthrow of governments hostile to US exploitation of their countries' resources.

When a single nation outspends every other nation on the planet combined on the apparatus for waging war, where such expenditure dwarfs even its own domestic investments in all other endeavors, it's ridiculous on its face to say such a nation isn't warlike.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Indian War - that's a decisive yes, not a maybe. Granted, we weren't America at the time, but we came, we conquered, and we took their land. We were the invaders. Ever hear of a little phrase the coined back in the day called "Manifest Destiny"?

American Revolution - You say no, I say yes. As a people we started a war against our own government. Sure, we had reasons behind it, etc, but in the end, it was us who started it.

1812 - We declared war for a number of reasons, primarily to try to stop British embargo's relating to their war with France and to stop the British from helping the Native Americans against our encroaching settlers. Seems like this one might be a yes as well.

Mexican-American war - We started it when we annexed Texas, a move that Mexico didn't recognize and they sought to bring their territory back under their control. We started it.

Civil War - How can you say no to this one? We were fighting ourselves! Don't kid yourself into thinking the war was about slavery - that was just the feel-good part of it. It was really a war of money and power - agriculture versus industry.

Spanish-American War - caused by US demands that Spain stop the insurrection in Cuba. Definite YES to this one.

WWI or WWII - Agreed, both of these are a no.

Korean War - No, but not because the UN sanctioned it (after all, we pretty much control the UN...). It's a no because the war started when North Korea invaded South Korea.

Vietnam War - This was basically a civil war that we became involved in as a staging grounds for the cold war. I'm not sure we can say either way as it really wasn't our war.

Desert Storm - no, it started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Iraqi Freedom - a definite yes, as we basically said "terrorists that have nothing to do with them attacked us, so we're going to step in and invade, because we need to look like we're doing something so we can get reelected".

So by my count (with actual evidence to back it up), that's 6 wars we started, 4 we didn't, and one we became involved in when we shouldn't have.

How can you say we aren't a warlike nation?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 18 2007, 02:47 AM) [snapback]425183[/snapback]</div>

Why do you bother arguing with "hate-America" people? They are hell bent on finding all that is wrong with America, they are anti-Capitalist, they are anti-Democracy for others, they are anti-freedom of religion (or fot that matter they are anti-God) for others, they are against individual success and a gradation of income and capital accumulation, they believe in dictators, in torture, in mass graves, in ignoring the obvious, they want America diminished, they hold as their idols Stalin, Chavez, Castro, -- they only exist in free societies - .

Why do you bother? They are enablers of our enemies - perhaps not intentionally - but in the end their desires would weaken us, leave us vulnerable, empower our enemies - they believe America was founded and formed and developed in a vacuum.

The fact they think we are a warlike nation speaks for itself.

Defense rests.

 

Says the man cheering on our invasion of Iraq