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

Another take:

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"?

But do the ends justify the means? (I hear that a lot fro Liberals, just before they strip me of my civil rights for my own good) Without this conquest what is known today as "liberalism" would not exist so you owe your very existance to these actions. Also, we didn't come here to conquer the Indians, the wars really only developed after they were unable to adapt to a different way of life. (and yes it sucks that THEY had to adapt, but someone ALWAYS has to adapt, either us or them)

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.

Well I guess if your a liberal you can't fight for freedom and self determination, because that is what that war was about! So the liberal thinking is it is better to be ruled by a dictator than free to make your own decisions. Ok, if that's the way you see 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.

You mean to stop the British from raiding our merchant fleet and stealing all our stuff!

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.

Texas voted for seccession from Mexico, and Mexico instituted the first cross-border raids into the U.S. to kill American civilians. THe real problem was Mexico was in such complete dissaray back then so there was no legit government to talk to and try and avoid the war. THe fact is Mexico was just as corrupt then as it is now, and just as as Mexicans were trying to get into the U.S. any way they could!

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.

Yeah, but ending slavery wasn't a bad consequence either. Reconstruction was going well to until the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS gutted it and instituted a type of aparthied.

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

So stopping Spain from taking over anouther country is bad? Or is it OK for Spain to be conquesting power?

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.

And thanks to the U.N. we're still there. Wait, if we control the U.N. why didn't they sanction military action against Iraq? Oh wait they did!

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.

Yeah, this one sucked. But it allowed cold wa tensions to be released in order to rpevent a greater conflict. Plus, the Viet Cong were ruthless bastards. Their first move into a city of village would be to execute ALL government officials, teachers and doctors. Yeah they're freedom fighters.

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

Duh, and thanks to Political correctness and Arab appeasement we were unable to end Saddam's reign then!

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".

U.N. authorized.
Plus it wasn't like it was a suprise. We said "you need to comply with the U.N. or we'll invade you" and Saddam said FU pussies. bad call

Fighting and war aren't in and of themselves evil. It is the reasonong behind them and how they are prosecuted that are. On the VAST majority of conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in the causes and executions of the war have been at least defendable. (I do have a little problem with the Chiqueta bannana incident).

No force on the planet operates with more dignity that the U.S.

Oh I am sorry I put underwear on your head AT LEAT YOU STILL HAVE YOURS!!!!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 12 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]422069[/snapback]</div>

Are you assuming fanatical republican control of the white house for THAT long??? :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 19 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]426178[/snapback]</div>

I don't think it matters who's in control. Vital resources are vital resources. Politicians are politicians. Big money needs resources to profit and politicians need big money to stay in power.

If the choice is:
Send our kids to ensure we get energy to keep our economy sputtering along.
OR
Let the economy die back.
Which will be the path chosen?

I for one, am extremely worried that my two very young boys will have no choice.
If we don't send our kids over there, there will be no energy and no economy, and NO JOBS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 19 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]426190[/snapback]</div>

I know I'm taking the hopelessly optimistic viewpoint, but it seems like we're fairly prodigal with our energy usage right now; there are lots of ways we can conserve and at least reduce the need to fight wars for oil.

I still believe that a strong conservation message early on in the war (instead of, "America: Open for Business") would have conveyed the seriousness of the conflict, and brought us together in mutual sacrifice towards a common goal.

I feel like we should examine and amend our own wasteful ways BEFORE plunging into conflict. It seems a bit disingenuous, otherwise, to complain about our "way of life" being infringed upon.

I'm not sure that Life even promises justice, let alone preservation of one's "way of life."

 

WE DIDN'T ATTACK IRAQ FOR OIL.

 

Devil's Advocate, You seem to assume that because i clearly stated the reasons and people behind the US's involvement in each war that i thought we were "bad" or that the war wasn't "just". The intention behind a war isn't what is at question here. The question was posed "are we a warlike nation?". As an answer, the proper response to to illustrate the wars we were involved in, and those we started, regardless of the reason.

Un sanctions for a war doesn't mean anything - the UN could sanction every war they want, there is still someone who "starts" the war.

Stop defending wars based on the reasons for them - did we, or did we not start the wars I said we started?

 

Conservation doesn't mean squat to someone who's starving. It doesn't matter how noble or moral your neighbor (person or country) is. If they have food and you don't, you will go there and try and get some by any means.

That's the crux of the whole problem. The oil age has give rise to an unprecedented rise in human population, like a virus on a new host. As oil production drops down the back side of the hill, you certainly can't expect the population to continue to increase (sustainable growth). And even as a hopeful optimist, how can you expect to even hold steady (in a peaceful way) the world's population without the massive energy input of oil? You can't put nuclear energy into your crops to make them grow. You can't wish food accross the ocean.

Billions of middle eastern people are going to wake up one day in the next decade and realize: "Hey! we live in a desert, can't grow food, and all the oil money just stopped coming in!" Wth do we do now? Who do you think they'll be angry at?

The wealthy middle easterners will pack up and move away, leaving their populations to wither and die. They know how to screw their poor too! With no oil flowing out, no food will flow in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 19 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]426238[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

That's what I've always said too...

If we did, how come gas prices suck?

Now, if we "attacked", which we didn't technically, we performed a pre-emptive maneuver which yielded resistance (we gave Saddam the option to leave, we gave them a million 2nd chances to comply), and gas prices dropped to $0.75/gallon, that would give that theory some credence.

So to all those who think we went in for oil, SHOW ME THE OIL!!!

 

The oil was supposed to pay for the reconstruction. yeah, right.

preemptive maneuver my behind. It was an attack. The stated reasons for attacking - terrorist connections and nuclear weapons - didn't exist.

 

You still don't get it.

Why is gas expensive? They want it that way. The oil companies need more money coming in so they can afford the increasing costs it takes to meet the ever rising demand.
We are NOT in Iraq, to pump out the oil and lower the gas price!
that would hurt the profits. We are in Iraq because it's pretty damned clear that it might behoove us to have a military presence in the middle east when 80% of the world's DECLINING oil production is in that region. We wore out our welcome in Saudiland, as evidenced by the % of 9/11 attackers that were Saudi. Iraq's better situated anyways!"

We did NOT attack Iraq to "grab the oil" and run. We need a military presence if we hope to continue receiving a flow of the most valuable commodity on the planet.

Five years from now, Iraq might be the ONLY significant country to have NOT PEAKED in oil production. THEN, we'll be taking the oil (we hope).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 19 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]426246[/snapback]</div>

Ah, Understood.
But your question is spurious. It is similar to the queery "have you stopped beating your wife?" (similar)

This is because, unlike liberalism in general which reall cares what the rest of the world is doing, you only ask is the U.S. a warlike nation? What youneed to determine first is "Does the U.S. exist in a warlike world?!" answer YES.

Just as microcosms cannot not be used to refute GW (only support it), the actions of the U.S. as a warlike nation or not cannot be judged without examining the actions of other citizens on the world stage at the times the wars occured.

When examined on a global basis are the actions of the U.S. warlike? The answer is NO.

War should ABSOLUTELY be defended based upon why it are started!!!! There are just wars. I'm sure there are a couple hundred thousand (or million) Sudanese who wish they had oil in their country right now so that the world would give a crap about their government massacring them!

War sucks, but at times the only thing worse than war is "peace". Peace at any cost is not a recipe for freedom.

 

Tell me, what makes a war just? Does the fact that life may be better for the Iraqis make the war there just, or do we base it on the reasons we went there - reasons that were falsifications by our leaders.

Does the fact that the civil war led to the freedom of slaves mean that war was just, even though it pitted brother against brother, son against father, family against family in a war that was really fought over money and influence?

 

That McCain ad on the bottom of the page rules:

The decision of the Senate made on March 27 to call for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.


It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.


Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.


We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.


We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.


If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.
Signed, [YOUR NAME]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 19 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]426296[/snapback]</div>

When if you do nothing, someone will kill you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 19 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]426238[/snapback]</div>

Hey, maybe if you type that in REALLY big letters it will magically become true.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 19 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]426249[/snapback]</div>

We went in for oil. We lost the war because the commander in chief is a moron. Therefore, we got no oil. Pretty simple, really. When you lose a war you don't get the spoils.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]426475[/snapback]</div>

But that still doesn't make any sense. Even if you argue "moronicity", we still have the bigger guns, and the ability to surround oil fields and refineries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 19 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]426484[/snapback]</div>

History is full of cases where the better general with the smaller army won the battle. History is also full of cases where bigger guns were of no use because the conditions of the fighting made them useless. The Brits had superior forces, but they were inadequate against the American Revolutionaries' tactics. Seems to me I heard about a gun so big it couldn't hit the enemy because it always shot over their heads. And in Vietnam we massively our-gunned the VC, but all our firepower was to no avail as long as we were not willing to nuke the country and kill everyone in it, which would have been a poor choice, since we were supposedly there to "save" the people from "communism."

In the case of Iraq, the morons in charge imagined that if they defeated the Iraqi army, there'd be dancing in the streets just like when we liberated France from the Germans. So they had no plan for the insurgency that was bound to follow in a country where nobody wanted a Christian occupying army, and where people are willing to give their lives to resist an invader.

So, yes: we've got bigger guns. But we lost the war, and so we get no spoils. We went in for oil, but we failed. So, no oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]426475[/snapback]</div>

it is amazing here - we got no oil. how much oil did we get from iraq b4 and after the war and during the war? and if we want to invade a country for its oil i suggest other targets besides iraq.

JJEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

Why does everyone think "for the oil" means "now"?

It's NOT about oil for TODAY, it's about oil for TOMORROW! In fact, less supply is GOOD for American oil companies today, as they make more and can invest more in new production (including Iraq) which takes years to come online and give us TOMORROW's oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 20 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]426700[/snapback]</div>

Just to clear up something, you have a point that 'big guns' don't win wars (they sure do help though, ask Japan) but the VC didn't counteract our 'big guns'. Our guns killed the VC good, it was just that the politicians kept the army from pointing the 'big guns' at the enemy!

By the way there was dancing in the streets after we won the war. Its just that the number of other ruthless scumbags in the middle-east looking to take advantage of the power vacum was undurestimated.

We were in Germany and Japan as onoccupying force for almost 20 years. Heck we are STILL in Kosovo!!!!