I guess that whole "liberating Afghanistan" thing didn't turn out too well.

[RoxStar]

we dethroned the Emperor and gave them a constitution.

 

Have you ever heard of the Great War? We did the same thing at the end. It was a great sequel maker, we got WORLD WAR II

[edlib]

I think the problem is that the administration is trying to fight the War on Terror with sensitivity toward Muslims, rather than doing it the right way (and John Kerry, during the presidential campaign, said that he wanted to fight a "more sensitive" War on Terror) ... because the Left would have a cow if we actually did war the way it was meant to be done.

Liberal baiting again, RC?

 

Your statement seems a bit rich... I don't think you can realistically pin all (if any) of the blame for the failures for the way the "War on Terror" has been conducted on the Leftists. I thought this was an administration that took all the actions that needed to be taken for the protections of the American population, didn't care about anybody else's opinions, and doesn't need to ask permission from anybody to conduct it's foreign policies.

 

Exactly how much unchecked power are the American people expected to hand over to this Administration anyways?

 

If the Administration is being too sensitive towards the Muslim world for your tastes, then the only reason I can see for that is the fact that they might not want to ally the ENTIRE Islamic population of the world against us. We barely have the troops to conduct the limited conflicts we are in now... we certainly don't have the forces to engage in a world-spanning conflict of that magnitude... Not to mention offending several of our biggest trade partners in the mid-east who could easily cripple this country financially by cutting off the supply of oil and billions in investments.

 

But I'm amused at your idea that it's the only the bleeding-heart liberals that are holding the U.S. back from victory. That made me smile!

[Good Sir Knight]

Things don't change over night, it's funny that people expect entire cultures to change in mere months. The Iraq campaign has lasted three years and people expect the place to look like San Francisco, I could take a piss for three years.

 

My point? I don't think the Middle East is ready for democracy and nor do they deserve it. Because if we give them democracy, they vote for things like brutal Islamic theocracies.

 

Democracy will help change their culture, only through the free expression of ideas will intolerant societies change.

 

Oh and everyone deserves a chance at freedom....

[rccar328]

Liberal baiting again, RC?

 

Your statement seems a bit rich... I don't think you can realistically pin all (if any) of the blame for the failures for the way the "War on Terror" has been conducted on the Leftists. I thought this was an administration that took all the actions that needed to be taken for the protections of the American population, didn't care about anybody else's opinions, and doesn't need to ask permission from anybody to conduct it's foreign policies.

 

Exactly how much unchecked power are the American people expected to hand over to this Administration anyways?

 

If the Administration is being too sensitive towards the Muslim world for your tastes, then the only reason I can see for that is the fact that they might not want to ally the ENTIRE Islamic population of the world against us. We barely have the troops to conduct the limited conflicts we are in now... we certainly don't have the forces to engage in a world-spanning conflict of that magnitude... Not to mention offending several of our biggest trade partners in the mid-east who could easily cripple this country financially by cutting off the supply of oil and billions in investments.

 

But I'm amused at your idea that it's the only the bleeding-heart liberals that are holding the U.S. back from victory. That made me smile!

No, it's not only the left-wing bleeding heart liberals...but leftist thinking in more right-wing politicians (don't forget the neo-cons) definitely plays a role. It's undeniable that leftist "bleeding heart" touchy-feely thinking has in many ways permeated our society (political correctness is one of the fruits of this). Oftentimes our leaders get so hung up on not offending anyone that nothing substantial gets done...and let's face it - if we're going to seriously execute a war on terror in an effective manner, then we have a heck of a lot more Islamic nations to piss off (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.). And yes, those same Islamic nations could cripple our economy by withholding oil...which is why we should be drilling in ANWR and expanding our refining capacity, measures that have been blocked by leftists within the US government (because we might offend some endangered species [/sarcasm]).

 

As far as our military being stretched to its limits, nothing could be further from the truth. The United States has only begun tapping the potential power within its grasp. One of the reasons we won World War II was because we were more occupied with winning the war than we were with how the Nazis felt about us attacking them...and we poured nearly all of our nation's resources into that war - manufacturing, manpower, etc. (I saw a chart a while back comparing spending vs. GDP in past wars, and the current war in Iraq was one of the lowest in comparison with past wars...I wish I could remember where I saw it). There has been no draft. There have been few or no restrictions on what the people of America can and cannot do/buy. In World War II, people were encouraged not to buy cars so that the steel could be used to make tanks and planes and ships. Clothing trends became more skimpy so that cloth could be used to make uniforms for soldiers. Millions of Americans were drafted or signed up to go and fight a foreign enemy on foreign soil for the betterment of the people of the world. But now our leaders are afraid to take such decisive measures to defeat our enemies because Vietnam taught too many people to be ashamed of America...and now we are reaping the benefits of that travesty known as the anti-war movement.

 

One of the great legacies of America is that in times of war, our presidents have used unprecedented powers in order to win the war...and then given up that power once the war was over. But since Vietnam, America has become so polarized and paranoid (and afflicted with political ADD) that we don't even have the political will to do what is necessary for our own security anymore.

[edlib]

Ah... but what is "security"? (At least on the national scale...)

 

It could be argued that "Those who live by the sword..." tend to suffer it's fate in the end. Develop an aggressive, militaristic stance towards the world, and you will make enemies. When you are the fastest gun in the west, every young kid with something to prove is going to show up to bring you down. And no matter how good you are, eventually one of them will.

 

The more global security you try to provide yourself, the even more you are ultimately are going to need.

 

I don't know too many analysts who believe anything other than the idea that most of the problems we face in the world today are really our own damn fault for decades of sociopolitical interference around the world. Our constant pulling the strings behind the scenes and propping up unpopular leaders in distant lands to meet our own questionable "interests" has caused misery around the planet, and now there is a backlash against us.

 

The more outwardly aggressive and nationalistic we get, the more people will line up against us. Then we need to develop an even more aggressive stance. Inspiring even more hate. It's a never ending spiral.

 

You don't hear of too many jihads against Sweden...

 

A few decades of political neutrality and isolationism could clear up a lot of our problems. Pull all of our forces back to the homeland, shore up all the borders stronger than the DMZ, withdraw all financial support from everyone but our very closest allies, and say to the rest of the world: "So you don't like us or want our help? Fine! Take care of all your problems your damn selves!" Let's just see how long that lasts before our "interference" is begged for...

 

Of course that's unrealistic... but maybe a few baby steps in that direction would help. Us... if no one else.

I don't believe giving the Islamic world a brand-new Crusade for them all to rally against would, though. Besides... wouldn't that be giving Bin Laden exactly what he wants? I'd hate to think of us even giving him an intellectual victory by falling into the trap he set.

 

 

I believe the American people will get behind a a war, and even a draft for that war, if the cause and objective is clear and visceral. In WWII it was to stop Hitler, Imperial Japan, and the rest of the Axis.

 

In Vietnam (and the current conflict, for that matter...) the goals and the enemies are far less well defined. Who wants to go and die, or send their kids off to a distant meat-grinder, if you don't really understand all the reasons why we are there in the first place, or exactly who we are fighting, and what we are fighting for? It has to be a concept that gets you right in the gut if you want the American public to line up behind your cause. Intellectual concepts like "spreading democracy" and "stopping the spread of Communism" while both perhaps noble, worthy causes, don't have a strong, gut level reaction in most people.

 

It doesn't help that it seems like the people we are there to "liberate" don't seem to want us there anymore, or keep attacking us. At least the French appeared grateful after we rolled through.

 

Besides... there will never be a draft in America again,.. until all the Bush family kids are well beyond draft age, that is.

[toms]

Its not going well because it never could go well. These things don't.

It doesn't matter if there are liberal or conservative politics involved, or if the full might or just a small percentage is brought to bear. It doesn't even really matter in the end how competent or incompetent those in charge are.

 

Invading another country and changing their entire regime and culture is NEVER going to be smooth sailing.

 

WW1/2 is a strange comparison - because the war in iraq was over much faster and more efficiently than the war in europe. Its the peace that is the problem.

 

Germany after the war (either war) wasn't in much better of a state than iraq. Major infrastructure, government and economic problems... hugely unhappy population. The only real thing that stopped it sliding into an iraq style cluster**** was that it wasn't surrounded by lots of unstable countries.

Thats WW2, but after WW1 germany was in such a mess that the population turned to possibly the most evil guy ever... which is even worse than iraq is now.

 

Can anyone name a single war (excluding civil wars) that has lead to a happy population and a stable country? I can't think of one, but I certainly can't think of a time when its lead to happy, stable LOSERS.

[Good Sir Knight]

Can anyone name a single war (excluding civil wars) that has lead to a happy population and a stable country? I can't think of one, but I certainly can't think of a time when its lead to happy, stable LOSERS.

 

 

Well it depends on your definition of happy and stable in the geopolitical sense. Generally speaking, I'd point to Japan. Though their infrastructure was destroyed, the population was pretty happy to be out of war and they didn't seem to mind that we were occupying their country.

 

This is a gigantic generality though I think your question was pretty general too.

 

In fact I don't think there was any real insurgency in Japan, in Germany there surely was and instead of treating them like POW's the Allied Forces rounded them up and shot them on the spot.

 

As deplorable as it sounds, warfare was conducted in congruence with Geneva convention. Fighters captured without a uniform and without papers are considered spies at best and are subject to the mercy of their captors.

 

That's why I find it amazing that people point to Gitmo like it's a Gulag. The prisoners live better there than most of the homeless in our country and frankly, they should be thankful they're alive when you look at their rights under the Geneva Convention.

 

They're also lucky they aren't in an Afgan jail, talk about human rights there...sheesh.... (Which is really what this thread is about)