![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, cjcampbell posted:
Jose wrote: I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we have already lost. Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars. Including wars we shouldn't be in. Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my family, and all that I know. But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam, Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia? (rest snipped for brevity) The differences between these examples are significant, and IMO, those that can't tell the difference are those that believe any aggressive action can be justified after-the-fact. Before *any* action was taken, Hitler attacked other nations. The case could be made that action could have been taken to stop Hitler sooner; so history taught us that lesson. Tojo's direct attack of the US is the reason we retaliated; we didn't do so on the mere notion that he may have had the capability to attack us and might have wanted to. As soon as Hussein attacked Kuwait it was time to move. The world agreed, and he was immediately suppressed; Hussein posed no *real* threat to anyone since that time. Iran is a situation where we are still experiencing the repercussions from our fiddling with their government since the early '50s. That mistake has cost us dearly in the region, and we have little choice but to ride it out. Sadly, our attack of Iraq has only complicated matters and created new problem that will have repercussions for decades (if not centuries) to come. Korea is another situation where the world has contained the aggression of the North, and won't really do much beyond that. Those living in the region have the most at risk, and they do not appear to be of the opinion that NK should be attacked a la Iraq. "Most thinking people" would agree. I don't believe that wars will end in our lifetime, but I do think that we can act more responsibly than we have acted by attacking Iraq. It was a stupid, ill-informed move, and compounding that with other stupid, ill-informed moves won't make matters better. Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
North Korea Denounces US Stealth Bomber Deployment | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 2nd 04 09:20 PM |
what bout north korea? What about it? | Anonymoose NoSpam | Military Aviation | 2 | May 5th 04 09:15 PM |
N. Korea Agrees to Nuke Talks | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 1 | August 2nd 03 06:53 AM |