Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Unnecessary wars taking their toll
Friday, July 30, 2010 | 2:04 a.m.
While serving in the military during the Korean conflict, I was young and gung-ho, but age has changed my outlook on wars.
I agree with and will support 90-plus percent of what President Barack Obama is trying to accomplish, but how can anyone agree with our troops fighting wars to satisfy political factions?
Is our president being led down a path of destruction by the hard-right media and a lot of stupid politicians? President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had to be the dumbest of the dumb. The second invasion of Iraq has created economic damage that may end up worse than that of the Great Depression.
Remember how the warmongers beat their chests on TV claiming great success for the surge in Iraq? The surge has accomplished only one thing in the Arab world — greater hate toward Americans. Iraq is far from a stable country or government, and the terrorist bombings are happening again. The dictator Saddam Hussein had Iraq under control; our actions put the terrorists in control.
The longer our troops and dollars stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more corrupt and dangerous those countries will become.
We may never completely prevent religious zealots from carrying out terrorist attacks on our soil, but stirring them up on their soil is no way to solve the problem. It took the Russians some time to realize their mistake in Afghanistan, so why have we placed our hands in a fire that will never go out?
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
George W Bush was "snookered". Snarlin' Dick Cheney created the Iraq war. He is the fool that told the fanciful lie about the yellowcake from the Sudan and the Plame lie that got his buddy Scooter Libby disgraced. Cheney's allegiance to the Halliburton Flag influenced his thinking. There was only one country in the world that could control Iran. That was Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. Once we took Saddam out of commission the Iranis took control of the Middle East. Now we find ourselves at the mercy of that shrimp Ahmadinijahn or however he spells it. George, Dick, Rove. May the fleas of 1000 camels fester in your shorts forever. We The People will hate you for a long time.
Barack Obama promised to leave, but has not.
More troops killed every day.
Where are all those people who elected Obama on getting out.
Where is are the Members of "Journolist" when they could do some good.
There is no heat on Obama to get out and noe Obama is part of the problem
More troops killed every day.
Mr. Ellis shows a great lack of knowledge of history and history of the region. If we leave the enemy at our back we will pay a terrible price. The only other way is to leave only glass.
I do understand that the Progressive movement wants these terrorists in this country so they can use the violence as an excuse to continue the destruction of our country in the name of security.
A very wise letter.
I forgot to mention that if Obama brings everyone home they will vote against him, so he has no choice but to leave them there until after the 2012 election cycle. That's why the Obama regime is working to make sure the vote from the military and other expats will not count.
This has been a steady paycheck for our defense contractors. The sad thing is, is the manufacturing of our arsenal is partly done overseas now and is not benefiting american citizens who should be making money on an american production line.
How secure should american citizens feel knowing that the weapons their military is using is being made in some foreign sweat shop?
Oh, by the way, Since the early Bush Administration, our defense contractors have been buying into foreign manufacturers corps. overseas. Now our defense contractors can have their weapons made cheaper over there than in the USA.
Patriots, everyone of them.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Don Ellis, a man of wisdom, insight and facts
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The head WarCriminalAWOLBush and his henchmen have brought disgust and hate to America that will come for generations ... why are they not prosecuted for war crimes?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Just the cost of one American troop is crimial from these lowlife liars who now live the nice comfortable life free to do whatever they want and even still being applauded by some to whom they give speaches - they have no financial worries or job worries or anything compared to the people they have harmed .... Ensignee is one of those henchman, too .... a man doing stupid things
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The cost of these wars alone, without even mentioning the other horrific issues the Decider gave America, is breaking the Treasury.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
End both wars this afternoon, close Gitmo, lift the cap on SS and raise up the taxes on the rich and the big corporations who all use offshore banks to avoid supporting America
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Enact laws banning pork and forcing a balanced budget
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Obama should hold a major press conference this afternoon and announce the things I have said ... he should appoint some retired Generals to put this into effect at once and oversee the bringing back of our Armies
:::::::::::::::::::::::
Have a good one !
The mid-east occupations have cost the American citizen over 1 trillion $. The military industrial complex has made over 1 Trillion $ on the mid-east occupations.
Same B.S. in Nam, if we publicly announce when we will pullout, the enemy will sit back and wait until we leave. We must defeat them now. Have we worked their masses down to where we are fighting more teenagers now?
We lost over 50,000 soldiers in Viet Nam.
Bless all our soldiers!
nez212: You need help, see a specialist!
Haha, WillieTanner only if you go with him.
nez212 - "I do understand that the Progressive movement wants these terrorists in this country so they can use the violence as an excuse to continue the destruction of our country in the name of security."
That has got to be the most idiotic comment ever posted here.
Thank you for the letter and your service Mr. Ellis.
nez: right on.
"The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act."
And who can forget AlGore trying to exclude absentee ballots from overseas military bases during his many florida recount attempts.
let's not overlook the influence of our jewish friends and their desire to have america fight their battles against their muslim foes with american blood and treasure...
consider the actions of these jewish folks...
richard perle...
paul wolfowitz...
douglas feith...
henry kissinger...
and on and on and on...
and let's not forget the influence of aipac...
just makes me sick...
america must stop being played by special interests...
like health care insurers...
like wall street...
like aipac...
what the hell is going on!!!
something that concerns me very deeply is...
did obama get played by his own military???
did they overly exaggerate the situation to protect their own turf???
i smell something fishy...
very fishy indeed...
Print "Pipelines through Afghanistan" in your address bar. Read the many stories on the natural gas and oil pipelines being built through Afghanistan.
Once these pipelines are built they will need to be protected. Our soldiers will be protecting this area for years to come.
Now the lunatic neo-kkkons have bill before congress authorizing war on Iran.
Stop the madness!
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...
nez212 writes:
"If we leave the enemy at our back we will pay a terrible price. The only other way is to leave only glass."
It's funny who effective propaganda "sticks." Personally, I was never fooled by Bush, Cheney, et al's constant hammering about Iraq and 9/11, constantly linking the two, so that in Republicans' minds, at least, the one caused the other.
Trouble is, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. And we killed between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqis because of Bush's incompetence. I'm sure they would appreciate Nez212's comment about leaving only "glass" behind. Kinda like Hitler referring to Jews and saying they should only leave behind "ash." Sweet.
And here you are, seven years later, warning us about the "enemy" in Iraq.
Incredible.
"I do understand that the Progressive movement wants these terrorists in this country so they can use the violence as an excuse to continue the destruction of our country in the name of security."
What an inane statement. Laughable.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda long ago left Afghanistan. They're in Yemen, Somalia and other countries now. They have no country. Never did.
Only a fool (Bush) would have gotten us entangled in both countries in the first place.
Colin Powell warned Bush, "you break it, you own it."
Well, Bush broke two countries, then handed them off to Obama. Being handed two completely broken countries is a lot different than deciding to invade them.
Great gifts.
AP
We went into Afghanistan nine years ago to get rid of Al Qaeda (who left a few years ago and are now in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere), and to get rid of the Taliban, who allowed them to operate in their territory. The administration at the time was sold on "quick victories" promised by Rumsfeld and didn't pay much attention to the prior history of military invasions in that country. For example, the Soviets.
The Soviets, too, had had a "quick victory," followed by years of a losing guerrilla war in which they killed as many Afghanis as they could prior to their withdrawal ten years after they invaded and their country's later collapse. Another great empire, the Brits, were roundly defeated by the Afghanis in a guerrilla war. Our administration at the time didn't plan for a protracted guerrilla war; instead, they moved the troops on to Iraq, where they expected another "quick victory."
That invasion too--supposedly to seize non-existent weapons of mass destruction--was declared to have been "won" (which is odd when you think that the whole purpose was supposedly to seize weapons of mass destruction) and then we quickly got bogged down in a long, costly and unexpected guerrilla war, which killed 4,000+ U.S. soldiers and wounded another 30,000, many of them seriously. Not to mention the 100,000+ dead Iraqis.
Meanwhile, the Soviets spent a decade in Afghanistan (we have spent nine so far), lost around 14,000 soldiers, and killed an estimated 100,000 to one million Afghanis. They had complete control of airspace and had no qualms about killing civilians. The Soviets had an average of 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at any given time. When Obama's surge of 30,000 extra troops finishes arriving, the U.S. will have about 100,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, just like the Soviets. Yet according to retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007-2008,
"The crucial aspect in this case is the ratio of security force to population...This would require one security person to every 50 people. In a country of about 32 million, this means about 600,000 security personnel would be needed to clamp it down."
Thus, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, yet we killed a lot of people and got killed and are still spending 5 billion a month over there, seven years after we invaded. Meanwhile, we're spending 6 billion a month in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda no longer exists, U.S. deaths are at an all-time high, and we don't have enough troops to occupy the country according to the ratios established by classic military counterinsurgency theory.
If Bush were still around, I suppose we would be invading Yemen and Pakistan right about now, in order to "seize Al Qaeda" and end the governments that give them succor. And then we would continue our strategy of invading countries and taking them over in order to chase a small band of terrorists who have no country in the first place and that can slip across any border they want.
In the meantime, I suppose we will keep playing this shell game and inventing new reasons for why we went to Afghanistan initially until America finally figures out that maybe this was a stupid strategy in the first place. The stupidest strategy in the world to defeat a band of terrorists who have no country.
Hmmmm.
The lesson to be learned? I suppose the oldest one: "take a good look before you leap."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_c...
AP
AP it must be sad to be as closed minded as you.
Are they now blaming Bush and Cheney for the failure of the Afghani surge?
fremmasmind - "Once these pipelines are built they will need to be protected. Our soldiers will be protecting this area for years to come."
Exactly what Bush and Cheney intended from the beginning. Waste American lives in a foreign country protecting Big Oil investments.
How stupid can the right and wingnuts be not to see the obvious?
Oil is more important than American lives and destroying the economy?
fremmasmind - "AP it must be sad to be as closed minded as you."
I'll value his intellect and judgement over yours any day of the week!
???fremmasmind???
you feeling ok there? what's close minded about AP's comment?
nez212 said....
"I forgot to mention that if Obama brings everyone home they will vote against him, so he has no choice but to leave them there until after the 2012 election cycle. That's why the Obama regime is working to make sure the vote from the military and other expats will not count."
AND.......
"I do understand that the Progressive movement wants these terrorists in this country so they can use the violence as an excuse to continue the destruction of our country in the name of security."
It appears that nez212 has just had a huge brain fart...
That Gump fellow had it right...."Stupid is as stupid does...."
rusty57 - "The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys"
I'll bet rusty57 got that from a right wing blog. As usual no research just cut and paste. Without knowing for a fact, I'll bet those two ex-DOJ people were Bush appointed. They are still trying to rewrite history along with other Bush cronies. You wingnuts are so desperate to find anything negative about Obama, you'll believe in any nonsense, which includes Fox.
Committee on Rules and Administration
Nov 17 2009
On Wednesday, October 28, President Obama signed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act into law, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will help U.S. troops cast ballots from overseas. U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Ranking Member Robert Bennett (R-UT), and original co-sponsors Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) led this effort to remove the barriers that too often disenfranchise military men and women.
Birdiedreamin - "something that concerns me very deeply is...did obama get played by his own military???"
Hmmm .. shades of Westmoreland, good point.
gbigs - "Obamas Legacy Of War Is Grim Grim, Indeed"
Another idiot who forgot who put us there, and then pulled troops for Iraq. Gadds people, how screwed up are you, do you have any working brain cells?
It's time for a little history trivia...
Who's the only American president to go to war to get oil and got none?
Do you wingnuts all eat or drink at the same place? If so check whatever it is you are drinking and eating, it's damaging what few brain cells you have left.
Wait a minute! It must be the fluoride in our drinking water!
just as macarthur told truman that the war in korea would be over by christmas, the same old fools told bush that iraq and afghanistan would be a cakewalk. well, dolores, it didnt work out that way because it was all a scam. this is the most expensive war in our nations history, yet we have people more concerned about the cost of education and unemployment.
El_Lobo - "It appears that nez212 has just had a huge brain fart..."
Talk about paranoia, another candidate for prozac!
May I add, the two brain cells he has left are too busy arguing with one another.
Generals work at waging war, without war they have no jobs!
"Who's the only American president to go to war to get oil and got none?"
Answer: There never has been a president that has said that we go to war to get oil.
(Unless you cite some blog of some dude who is in underwear in his mother's house.)
The terrorist organization known as al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Ladin attacked us on that fateful day in September. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan supported and protected them. He and they are the people we should have tracked down and killed or captured, instead of getting sidetracked into an ill-advised military adventure in Iraq. Bin Ladin was and is the real threat to us as evidenced by the ongoing attacks by his far-flung groups from London to Bali, from Mindanao to Yemen, from Somalia to Mumbai, attempted attacks on aircraft approaching the US and even in Times Square in New York City.
Saddam was an obnoxious tyrant who ruled Iraq with an iron hand and was an irritant to the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld administration and to other countries in the Middle East. But what was he capable of doing that could hurt us? Absolutely nothing except hurl empty threats of the use of "weapons of Mass Destruction" which our intelligence agencies knew that he did not possess, but the Bush cabal refused to believe. Bush did, to his credit, dispatch small numbers of Special Forces teams, CIA operatives and other clandestine forces into the counter to track down bin Ladin. These small groups of warriors, reinforced by a few battalions of Airborne and Ranger troops dropped into strategic locations, and supported by the use of extremely precise and devastating dedicated airpower soon had al-Qaida and the Taliban on the run. In two months, the Taliban was essentially swept from the country. With the invasion of Iraq, however, the immediate shift of effort and assets to the Iraqi Theater, everything changed.
The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake that has cost the US untold wealth, almost 5,000 dead and perhaps 35,000 wounded servicemen, as well as by latest estimates about 85,000 Iraqi dead. And what have the last eight years earned for us as a nation? Iraq today is a classic example of a country without a soul. the Iraqi citizenry has no concept of the collective good, and very little sense of any kind of national unity. Granted they can now vote, but what are they voting for? The government is so corrupt and unstable that no one in Iraq except those who expressly benefit from the corruption have the slightest confidence that the country will survive more than a for years without a takeover by another strongman like Saddam.
To shift the military assets from the Afghanistan to the Iraq theater essentially pushed the Afghan effort to the back burner and doomed the Afghan War to a long, protracted struggle. The Afghan force commanders were now denied the assets required to prosecute the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida. All the manpower, air assets, helicopters, tanks, artillery and all the rest of the beans and bullets required to defeat an enemy were now sent to the Iraq debacle. The Taliban have been able to reconstitute their forces. That's why we are still fighting in Afghanistan.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
"Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years."
"Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration -- tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations. These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.
Great post 23bigdon1, good to see a military man explain to the wingnuts the cost of a bogus war, and the lasting effects it has.
gbigs - "Vernos wants to live in a country that is NOT great. Fine. See You Vernos, have fun in Brazil."
Another idiotic post.
Have you served your country, or are you another chicken hawk?
I served, have you? I know what war is about, do you? I protected the rights of morons like yourself for the good of the nation, sometimes I wonder why when I read an idiotic post.
Getting Americans killed over a lie is a WAR CRIME! Bush and Cheney should be in prison! The fighting in Afghanistan would be over, but those two criminals pulled our troops to send to Iraq. What part of that don't you understand?
We create more terrorists everyday in Afghanistan and Iraq by merely being in their country. The deaths of their relatives even increases the numbers. It would take generations before we accomplish anything there. Would someone PLEASE describe what "winning" means in either of these wars.
WillieTanner - "We create more terrorists everyday in Afghanistan and Iraq by merely being in their country"
Hey Willie add these bases:
Kuwait
Qatar
Bahrain
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
Sinai Desert
I distinctly remember the Kuwaiti people cheering when the Trade Center collapsed. One, I'm a New Yorker, two, I worked in all those buildings that fell. Why the hell are we in that dinky arse country? Let them fend for themselves. That would give me something to cheer about!
gbigs writes:
"3000 Americans Died In An Attack By Radical Islam.
More than died in Pearl Harbor."
Yes, there were 19 attackers, most of them from Saudi Arabia. During Pearl Harbor, we were attacked by the Japanese nation.
And Bush attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. Although the Bush administration constantly linked the one with the other, knowing full well that there were no links.
"The USA, luckily is filled with heroes. Not cowards. The USA has a history of DEFENDING itself and others. The USA is a great country."
No one is saying that the U.S. is not filled with heroes. Lots of countries are. No one is saying that the U.S. in not a great country. You are confusing political leadership with the inhabitants of a country.
Osama Bin Laden fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He watched as a great power was gradually ground down during 10 years of guerrilla warfare and eventually retreated in defeat--then later collapsed.
Osama planned the 9-11 attack precisely because Al Qaeda was hoping that the Bush administration would be dumb enough to invade an Islamic country. It didn't matter which one. They no doubt hoped it would be Afghanistan, where they could do the the U.S. what they did to the Soviets. Which is exactly what has been happening for the last 9 years. Probably not in their wildest dreams did they hope that Bush would invade Iraq too.
They were wildly successful. All because the president at the time never cracked a book of history but instead habitually stuck out his chest and said "I'm the decider."
The U.S. is a great country--but during the last administration it was led by fools. Which is why we are currently involved in the longest war in U.S. history and continue to pay 11 billion a month for two wars which the Great Decider said would be "quickies."
Let me not forget the 5,000 dead Americans.
The 30,000+ severely wounded Americans.
The 200,000+ U.S. soldiers currently suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.
The 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqis who died because the Great Decider felt like invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.
Or all of the dead Iraqis and now Pakistanis who continue to die each day.
Because 19 men, most of them Saudis, attacked us on 9-11.
AP
AP another great post, including historic facts, thank you.
Even now insurance companies are making profits off our military dead by holding back death benefits.
This is capitalism, or a crime?
gbigs - "Vernos. Again. If you do not appreciate the sacrifice of real americans defending your home and hearth, you are welcome to find another place to live, truly."
You are a chicken hawk, aren't you? Only a coward would post something so stupid about "Real Americans" and the sacrifices they made. Let me remind you, "Real Americans" come from small towns and large cities. "Real Americans" come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, colors and religions. If you feel so strong about what you post as "Real Americans", why aren't you in the military? Is it just easier for you to cower behind your politics and not delve into the real world?
Chicken hawks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, yourself and others, should have a weapon thrust into their hands and sent to the front. Let's see how long a "Real American" can last believing in their political bullcrap!
If you haven't served our great nation, then keep your pie hole shut concerning military matters, plain and simple!
CorporalPebble....
Your reading skills have greatly deteriorated....Maybe you never had any...
The question was:
"Who's the only American president to go to war to get oil and got none."
The question said nothing about who's the only American president who said "that we go to war to get oil."
Hmmmmm...how many attempts did it take before you successfully passed your high school history class?
Three, maybe four?
Some of you people criticize Bush and some of you criticize Obama. These poor fools don't even lead our country until the speech is written or the teleprompter is loaded. They have their lines to deliver just like any other ceo does. Big business controls what our politicians put into law. Remember when they allowed outsourcing and said that as long as the Corporation has 1 office in the United States that has 1 desk and 1 chair and it doesn't matter if anybody occupies that chair, that corporation even if all production is overseas is considered an american based company. Change the laws to fit the business transaction. It happens everyday. Except when dealing with the rights of the citizens. I heard that word used sometime ago...I can't think of the importance of that word .Oh well...
gbigs says "Its fun to watch the left wingers strain to justify their empty notion that defending yourself when attacked is somehow inappropriate."
What did I miss? Did Iraq attack us? No, it was mostly Saudis. I guess Georgie boy was awol for his geography classes too. I answered the call for my country and you must have too since your so gung ho. Too bad you have a problem identifying the enemies.
if we were invaded by the chinese on both coasts,half our male population would be worthless, except for being used as sandbags for the frontline foxholes. dont delude yourself that we would fend them off with our under equipped national guard. by the time the army and marines returned from overseas, the war would be over. sunday worked for the japanese and it will do the same for the chinese.
Also gbigs, how about defining victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Try to keep the winning time frame under 500 years if possible. Unless you favor a "kill them all" philosophy that's how long it will take.
It used to be worth it to the people of our country to go off and get involved in a war, occupation. Of course that was back when we made our own weapons and it gave our country and our citizens work.
Now-a-days our weapons are made overseas, to the foreign businesses our politicians allowed our USA businesses to outsource our work from the U.S.A. to.
Our elected officials got a lot of explaining to do.
gbigs said....
"Appeasement produces innocent death. Hitler was appeased by Chamberlain, it cost the lives of innocent millions."
That's not something that all historians agree upon....Many historians say that what Chamberlain did actually gave the Brits a little more breathing room in terms of preparing for the war that came in 1939.
At the time of the Munich Conference in 1938, the Brits were totally unprepared for war.
Was Chamberlain merely trying to buy some preparation time? Recent documents say he was...
Many historians say that Hitler's time table for war & conquest was established before the Munich Conference in 1938, and Chamberlain's appeasement changed nothing...
The question said nothing about who's the only American president who said "that we go to war to get oil."
Oh.....I see.....you read minds. President XYX did not say that we will go to war over oil or write anything that said that that we will go to war over oil....but by magic you read his brain and poop out of your own butt you can say that he went to war over oil.
Hey, mind reader, can you guess what I am thinking now?
I wish there more of him in Congress. Tell it like it is about the Party of No and the games they play with other peoples lives:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...
The loco-local talk radio bigots, Fix News phony flag wavers, and the chicken hawks like: HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, SAVAGE, LEVIN do not complain one iota about the money wasted on Bush Wars and what is doing for the budget.
mred....would you like a piece of cheese with your whine?
Most on the right will disagree with me when I say this but we must stop serving as
the "policeman for the world."
What we're doing (fighting wars through out the world at the drop of a hat..) is exactly what the Romans were during at one point in time....
We all know that the never ending wars fought by the Romans was a major factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire...
Just like the many wars fought by the Romans, our current wars are bleeding us dry....
LBJ found out during the Vietnam War that it's impossible to have both "guns & butter."
That bit of information clearly escaped the Bush administration.....
Bush and his cronies actually believed that we could fight two wars in the Middle East, and still give tax cuts to most Americans....
The Bush administration also saw nothing wrong with running unbalanced budgets, and borrowing money from every "Tom, Dick, & Harry" on the planet....
Despite what those on the right believe, the tax cuts for the rich did not improve the economy, and did not result in the creation of millions & millions of new jobs....actualy the opposite happened!
We've got our back to the wall and it's going to take some time for us to get out of our current mess....
LBJ gave us the guns but soon took some of the butter away.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.n...
Ha! Ha! Ha! Look at what CorporalPebble just said with his 2:39 PM post.....
It's a perfect example of someone skating around and around in tiny circles, trying to "muddy up" the discussion waters by saying things that simply were not said....
He still does not understand the question that I posted about the only president we've ever had who went to war to obtain oil and got none....
Poor, poor, pitiful CorporalPebble...... My heart goes out to him!
It's becoming very, very clear why my little buddy sleeps over on the right.....
gbigs writes:
"Bush was FORCED to fight a war on terror."
Really--you mean when he woke up one day and found out that 19 men had attacked America and that 14 of them were Saudis, he sadly said, "now I'm FORCED to invade Iraq?"
What a joke.
What's even funnier/sadder is what the Republican National Committee Chairman recently said about the decision to invade Afghanistan. Michael Steel got it right--it was a "war of choice" and the decision to invade was really, really dumb. He just forgot which president had made the decision to go in!:
http://www.newsweek.com/spectrum/2010/07...
"The Democrats were not forced to destroy the economy with subprime NINJA loans, but they did it anyway."
You get 100% of your talking points from a billionaire Australian who routinely pulls them from his derriere.
Don't your fingers get stinky after awhile?
http://www.slate.com/id/2240858
AP
The difference in Presidents and their philosophical views is evident. LBJ installed the surtax to help pay for the war. GWB said no way. It would be better to get the population involved in the Afghan war if only in terms of extra money paid in taxes.
Bush and Johnson differences.
Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush aren't exactly two peas in a pod. Their views of government and society couldn't be more divergent. But this unlikely pair shared an aversion to home-front sacrifice. Each sought to preserve his domestic accomplishments: Johnson his Great Society and Bush his tax cuts (no moral equivalence implied or assumed). While both were fluent in the rhetoric of sacrifice, neither rushed to make that ideal part of the nation's fiscal policy.
But any similarity ends there. Bush has remained implacably opposed to any sort of tax increase -- apparently convinced, as Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, declared in 2003, that "nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." Johnson, by contrast, was ultimately willing to face the fiscal music, convinced that unbalanced budgets would undermine not just the war, but his social priorities, too.
The only difference was LBJ did not run after installing the surtax.
I thought 18 of the 19 were Saudis.
No matter, Bush would never attack the Saudis because his brother Bandar Bush was a Saudi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_...
gbigs said...
"Bush was FORCED to fight a war on terror. The Democrats were not forced to destroy the economy with subprime NINJA loans, but they did it anyway."
Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny....Yes, Bush was forced to fight a war against terrorism but that war should not have included the Iraq War.... There was NO NEED to invade Iraq....
AND MORE FROM gbigs....
"The USA is not a cop of the world. The USA has been the babysitter of the world. Twice in one century Europe tries to destroy itself and the world. And Asia did the same in WWII."
Yes, we fought in both World War I & World War II and an argument can be made that we did the right thing....
I don't have a problem with us doing what we did in both of those wars, along with the Korean War, but we should NEVER have gone into Vietnam or Iraq.... Unnecessary wars that cost us trillions...
We also pretty much "police" most of Europe, not to mention the far East (Japan) and the Middle East. Japan spends next too nothing on defense. The same can be said about Germany. We give Isreal billions every year in military aid....
We could cut our defense budget in half and we would still be spending more than the next four highest spending nations combined....
The military-industrial complex in this country is the "tail wagging the dog."
Like I said, it used to be that when we went to war, we put our citizens to work. Now we put other nationals to work with our Defense Contractors need for weapons. We have shipped the manufacturing to overseas labor now with our defense contractors setting up businesses overseas and hiring who knows who to make our weapons. They must love it when we start wars. Job security. Something the U.S. used to have until the greedy got greedier.
To compare LBJ with GWB is, in my opinion, a total waste of time.....
Both took this country to an unneed war but on most other things, they have nothing in common.
To compare the Bush tax cuts to the social programs enacted by LBJ is like comparing apples and oranges...
I can't think of a single thing that GWB did that can compare to the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) that was paased by LBJ....
Both were historic pieces of legislation....
for sgtrock: The world is full of tyrants. Saddam was as bad as any of them. However, if we had just wanted to rid the world of a tyrant, why didn't North Korea's Dear Leader qualify? Venezuela's Hugo Chavez comes to mind. The regime in Myanmar is as evil as Saddam's ever was. How about the many African dictators we could have gone after. Does the word "oil" have any context here? Wolfowitz assured "the Decider" that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Case closed.
This is not to say (as some do) that oil was the sole reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq, but it certainly was a significant factor in the decision. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld fully expected the Iraqi's to roll over and submit when faced with an enemy as powerful as the US armed forces. Then, the Iraqi oilfields would be our's for the taking. However, that was not the case, and the war to be fought on the cheap became an albatross around the administrations neck. We are going to leave Iraq eventually, but have we won the Iraq War? I see little evidence of that. Iraq is little different than before, except Saddam no longer calls the shots. The Iraqis still live in daily fear of their own police and politicians. The remnants of al-Qaida still exist and are capable of causing trouble. Car bombs detonate in bazaars and outside mosques every day. Local gangsters control large sections of Baghdad and some entire provinces without interference from authorities. While Saddam was in power, political assassinations were all to frequent, but mass casualties (except for the ones caused by Saddam himself) were almost unheard of. That is not the case today. So again I ask, what have we gained because of our sacrifice? Not much, I am afraid.
AP a man with your intelligence and integrity and you still believe what the Bush Administration fed the media about 9/11.
That's O.K. I guess, the most horrendous attack on the United States ever and there was no investigation. Firemen complained that they do all kinds of testing for even grass fires but on 9/11 our firefighters weren't allowed to take one test for forensics. No proof, no disproof.
Still nothing to proove or disproove any scenerio that would describe the events that happened that day. Everything is a conspiracy theory until somethng is proven.
Big don, why are you talking about al Qaeda and the car bombs. The U.S pays mercinaries to do this kind of work.
El_low_brow....now back walking his question and even will not address it.
Be sure the fold the white flag when you go home.
Is Bush still President?
I thought it was the other guy. You know...the one that needed 3 months to come the same conclusion that he started with....you know...the one that needs his teleprompter around all the time....you know that one who runs a White House that fires people based on some internet blog....you know that one that runs a White House that predicted the "stimulus" would bring unemployment to below 7% at this point in time....you know that one that ran a White House that was clueless about the big oil spill in the Gulf.....
He is the President. Right?
Good post 23bigdon1, removing Sadam Hussein also destabilized that entire region. It allowed Iran to start saber rattling.
Hey nitro, if Newt wants to start attacks on other countries, he should send his children first. If he has no children, then he should go.
That applies to any of the idiot chicken hawk war mongers. Stop being so willing to kill off others people children without sacrificing your own. Man, I hate those war mongering a-holes!
LBJ killed over 57,000 Americans and maybe 3 million civilians in Nam. Bush is just as bad. Two Texas politicians. The Civil Rights bill was an achievement that was tainted by the war.
Success through intimidation, it works all the time.
Rough - "LBJ killed over 57,000 Americans and maybe 3 million civilians in Nam."
Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford were all responsible for American troops dieing in Vietnam, you can't single out Johnson.
And I blame military leadership under Westmoreland, his lies made the situation far worse.
CorporalPebble said...
"El_low_brow....now back walking his question and even will not address it.
Be sure the fold the white flag when you go home."
Ha! Ha! Ha! My little buddy "pebble puss" has just won the award for being the most delusional poster on this board...
He attempted to change the trivia question that I listed, and now says that I have changed the question......
Here's the question again:
"Who's the only American president to go to war to get oil and got none?"
Maybe one of right-wing buddies will read him the question and explain it to him? We can only hope!
I see he's still "carrying water" for the "clueless man from Texas." No surprise there...
Every time I mention GWB's name, my little pebble friend gets up in arms and immediately runs to defend his hero. Why is that?
Maybe they're related? Maybe they were in the same history class? Maybe they went on leave (AWOL) at the same time? Maybe the little pebble guy is from Texas?
fremmasmind - "Success through intimidation, it works all the time."
Really, where were you during Vietnam? Or when that dinky country Somalia beat back and killed our troops.
El_Lobo - "I see he's still "carrying water" for the "clueless man from Texas." No surprise there..."
Is that a water or piss bucket?
CorporalPebble said....
"Is Bush still President?"
Only in your delusional mind my little buddy!
El_lowbrow has written a history book.
It is how it goes.
Bush started the war to get oil.
How does El_lowbrow know you? You might ask.
Is it a quote from Bush? Nope
Is it some written text from Bush? Nope.
El_lowbrow's proof is either some quote from obsure website that is run by some dude in his underwear in the basement of his mother's house
or
The proof comes from El_lowbrow's ability to read Bush's mind.
You pick.
I am not sure he even knows.
SgtRock writes:
"El_lowbrow has written a history book. It is how it goes. Bush started the war to get oil. How does El_lowbrow know?
Actually, that is just one of the reasons. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who is a Republican, stated that a year before the invasion of Iraq he walked into Cheney's office and the desks were covered with maps of Iraq with Iraq's oilfields prominently displayed. You can read it yourself, if you are interested, in Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
But there was more than that. If you are really interested, I would suggest you read what's on Wikipedia about "The Project for a New American Century." This was basically the blueprint written by the neocons themselves and the one that George Bush II bought into and followed. Attacking and invading Iraq, and even making up a pretext for doing so, were included in that blueprint--before Bush II even got into office. Cheney was a neocon. He stocked the White House with fellow neocons. The Project for a New American Century was their bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for...
If you are interested in pursuing your studies of the subject further, then I suggest you also read this article by Seymour Hersh. It details how the White House "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq, written by one of America's finest investigative reporters:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10...
These are all some of the reasons why we're still there, seven years later, paying 5 billion dollars a month in that country.
Of course, if you want to retain your own mindset, then I would suggest you read none of them.
But since you asked, the choice is yours.
AP
VernosB, you are correct. The removal of Saddam, as worthy as it was, did little to change the balance of power situation in the middle east. The Iranian government poses a very serious problem with their nuclear ambitions, the Turks are very unhappy with the Iraqi Kurd excursions into their territory, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia still hate Israel so the region is still in a state of constant volatility and unrest. Our collective sacrifice has gained us little in this area.
In my opinion, by all definable measures the Bush/Cheney led incursion into Iraq was a total failure. No matter how much they have tried to conflate the 9/11 attacks with al-Qaida, this is absolutely false, and there is no evidence to prove it. The Iraq invasion removed the warfighting materials needed in Afghanistan into Iraq, with disastrous results. Because that happened, the Taliban have been able over the last few years to very effectively reorganize, re-equip, reinforce and retrain the evil organization that had been almost completely eradicated.
They have returned to the urban centers as well as to the remote areas where they were once denied. Our forces, which had pushed the Taliban out now do not have the manpower or equipment required to do so. This is the situation we now face in Afghanistan. Regardless of how much SgtRock and the other idiologes defend their hero George Bush, it's Bush's actions which leave us in the position we now find ourselves in. Bin Ladin will most likely never be found and brought to justice, although we almost had him in the Tora Bora region soon after we sent our forces into Afghanistan. Had we stayed the course, which ironically became one of Bush's mantras while the Iraq War was in it's worst days we may well have gotten that evil man and completed our mission there.
Vernos I exaggerated,
35957 died while LBJ was in office.
20982 under Nixon.
9 during Ike's terms.
186 during JFK.
over 1000 died from wounds, injuries,and diseases in subsequent years. including Agent Orange.
I attribute all but but 195 to LBJ. He accelerated the whole thing in 1964. Without his fine hand there would not have been such a holocaust in Nam.
He directed the whole thing from the Oval office. He bragged that there wasn't a henhouse bombed in that country without his say so. You can believe what you want. More people agree with me than not. It is unfortunate that he (LBJ) was a Democrat. That must be tough to swallow as we all know that Democrats do not cause wars. Except in a few cases.
http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam...
I think that the mature way to approach the study of American Politics is to keep an open mind. Democrats are not without fault and Republicans are certainly not paragons of virtue. I can't understand why you all don't see that. You spend hours on here defending your own particular party. What a waste. We are all better human beings than the best politician in Washington, or anywhere else for that matter. I can't in all good conscience defend any one of them. Don't mis-understand me, I can see good in some of them, but I also see plenty of bad in all of them. I wouldn't waste a single breath defending them though. They ain't worth it.
Good post Rough, my pet peeve is people sending our children off to war, period. When I hear a chicken hawk start talking trash without serving, just grates my nerves.
We haven't fought a war in recent history that was worth Jack!
Rough - "Vernos I exaggerated, 35957 died while LBJ was in office. 20982 under Nixon. 9 during Ike's terms. 186 during JFK. over 1000 died from wounds, injuries,and diseases in subsequent years. including Agent Orange."
They are all still guilty of putting our people in danger over another "boogey man" syndrome calling it "the domino effect".
Agent orange is another one of those issues of returning veterans treated worse than dog crap. It still goes on now. What will the government do when these guys return and take their rage out on American citizens? Deny that they have serious problems? You can only do so many tours of combat before you crack and get that "glassy eyed dead" look.
23bigdon1 thanks for that last post. It's good to see a person who knows the works of the military and that region.
People should think long and hard before we ever get involved in another conflict there.
Agent Orange was a real killer. The Admiral responsible for the use of the defoliant called Agent Orange was Elmo Zumwalt. His own son was in country when Zumwalt called the air strike that dumped that dreck on those people. His boy eventually died from that stuff. Lets all pray for the Admiral. He's hurtin' for certain.
I didn't realize the elder Zumwalt died 10 years ago. He outlived the son.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/14/obitua...
Democrats refuse.....REFUSE....to accept respondibility for anything.
So I am not surprise they hand LBJ a big pass over Vietnam.
Hmmmmmm....CorporalPebble continues to give George W. Bush a free pass.....
No surprise there....
George's side-kick, Dickie Darth, said several times that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war.
The war was in the planning stage before 9/11 took place.....you probably don't believe that, but what's new?
Why do you think the energy summit that was chaired by Dickie Darth was closed to everyone but only a select few?
Nothing has ever been released to the public about what went on in the meeting...
The Bush administration had their eye on the oil in the Middle East from day #1....
Its only a matter of time until historians start saying that very thing......the invasion of Iraq was about oil. A few already have!
Of course, if Iraq had fallen quickly, some people maintain that military bases in Iraq were going to be used for an invasion/attack on Iran...
You are very naive my little buddy....
Continue to give the Bush*tes a free pass. That's what you do best!
I'm a Democrat & I've never given LBJ a "free pass" on Vietnam...
Like Iraq, we should NEVER have gone into Vietnam.
The failure of the French to take back Vietnam after World War II should have told us that the last thing we needed was to get involved in a land war in that part of the world.....
Charles de Gaulle warned us...
We didn't heed his advice...
Eisenhower And Kennedy were there on peacekeeping missions. The 'war' didn't start until after the gulf of Tonkin incident, during Johnson's Administration. Some feel this is why Kennedy was assasinated, because he wouldn't escalate the war on his watch.
Of course, any one and everyone has a theory on why Kennedy was assassinated.
Robert Kennedy always maintained that if his brother had lived, and had been re-elected in 1964, he was going to pull out of Vietnam....
Robert Kennedy also said that his brother was going to make great changes in both the CIA & the FBI.....
Robert Kennedy believed that both agencies had lied to the president on several occasions, including information about the Bay of Pigs invasion...
JFK came to the conclusion, during the Cuban Missiles Crisis, that many of the members of the Joint Chief of Staff were intellectual light-weights.
He told his brother that he was amazed that men with such limited ability had been able to rise so high in the government and in the military...
Many historians believe that LBJ would have been dropped from the presidential ticket in 1964. The Kennedy clan and the LBJ clan weren't getting along... Not sure who JFK was looking at as a possible VP candidate...
lot of suspects on that jfk thing, lbj included. they will tell the american public lies to get into a war, bush is not the only one.
rough; good post, you are correct about the democrats being as bad as the republicans, especially in lbjs' case. i cant picture lbj in heaven but i can sure see him with a shovel and a good set of knee pads. this guy was a wannabe and a bully; he did not want to go into history as the guy that cut and ran; instead thousands of young american boys were killed and maimed and we lost a war with a fifth rate country. sounds like another texan we elected president.
"The Bush administration had their eye on the oil in the Middle East from day #1...."
Let's take a look into the brain of Low..Brow.
Low_brow thoughts: "I am a historian. I have absolutely no proof that Bush had his eye on oil from day #1 and was the core reason why he went to war. But I can imagine it. That is my proof. I am a genius. I go write my history book. I cite my imagination as proof to support my theory."
Ha! Ha! Ha! It appears that CorporalPebble is now doing what he accused me of doing....being able to look inside some one's brain and know what they're thinking....
The little guy is very likeable but he's a mere light-weight when it comes to displaying critical thinking skills.....
I guess that's one reason he likes George W. Bush so much.....they have a lot in common!
Low_brow still has offer zero proof of his theory.
That makes sense because he can't.
CorporalPebble....
Proof? Proof? History will bear me out....some historians are already saying that...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Bush administration looked at Iraq and saw OIL....billions and billions of barrels of OIL......
You are forgetting that the Bush administration had oily feet... They were determined to keep this country tied to the use of fossil fuels, mainly oil.
Your blind love for George junior would be admirable if it wasn't down right scary....
What does your wife think about that?
As I read the posts this morning, I see many references to the Vietnam war, to LBJ, and opinions about who was at fault for our involvement: was it JFK, or maybe LBJ, how much did Nixon and Ford have to do with it, etc. Was the Gulf of Tonkin incident real or a setup designed to provide LBJ with an excuse to increase the US involvement? These questions will probably never be settled to everyone's satisfaction, certainly there is enough blame to go around, both for Democrats and Republicans.
What I don't want to see is our military bogged down in another Vietnam style mess. Now, thirty-five years after we lost over 58,000 troops there, American travel agencies are conducting guided tours of Ho Chi Mihn City (formerly Saigon). If we are in Afghanistan to find and kill bin Ladin, so be it, lets get it done and get the hell out. If we are there to build a nation, it will take a hell of a lot more in men and materials than we now plan to commit.
The military cannot do it alone. The civilian support elements required to develop and sustain the infrastructure and political systems necessary for a modern society must be put in place and provided with the tools and civil engineering expertise required for an emerging nation to grow and prosper.
If we as a country decide we are going to do this, we must first be sure we are committed to providing the troops, armor and air assets that will be required to once again drive the Taliban out of the country. We must again stabilize the political and economic situations, and back that up with the political will and civilian support necessary to complete the task. This is indeed nation building, which everyone says they don't want to do, but seems to be in the offing.
We cannot again leave our troops hanging as we have so often done. These are our sons and daughters (my son retired from the Air Force, one of my daughters was an Army Intelligence Specialist, and my other daughter has worked for NCIS at a Naval Air Station in California for twenty years), fathers and mothers, friends and neighbors doing our dirty work for little pay and in many cases, little respect for the sacrifices they make every day. They deserve better that that.
Don I agree with you. Since WW 2 It seems our country has been taking our strong and our brave and our young and puting these brave souls in dangerous positions, ones they shouldn't be put in, for reasons never really explained. I'm proud to say the young people that answer the call, to put on a uniform and defend our country have my total respect.
"....some historians are already saying that"
What historians?
Some flaky left-wing nut or some guy in his underwear posting to some blog?
Can you freaking cite something or you still just pooping stuff out of your butt?
gbigs, you are dead wrong on blaming the Afghanistan war on Obama. Regardless of what Michael Steel says, the Afghan war was started by George Bush. I don't fault him for that, it was the right thing to do. Where he screwed up was abandoning our people that he sent there when he went into the Iraq debacle. Learn your history.
How can you say he is failing to prosecute the war? He has sent over thirty thousand more troops than Bush had provided, and the UAV strikes on insurgent compounds and training bases are up to a level Bush never contemplated. Still, I guess some folks will never be happy with whatever he does. Some people (Dickhead Cheney, for instance) complain that he "dithered" before increasing the troop level. What he did was gather all the credible intelligence available in order to make an informed decision before committing more of our young men and women into a killing ground. Perhaps if George Bush had done the same thing before launching his adventure into Iraq, a lot of our kids would still be alive.
gbigs said...
"When it comes to war, the Democratic Party are the ironic perps:
1. Trail Of Tears - Jackson
2. WWI - Wilson
3. WWII - FDR
4. Korea - Truman
5. Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson
6. Afghanistan - Obama
Hmmmmm.......interesting post. I have NEVER seen the "Trail of Tears" listed as a war.....that's a new one on me.
Actually, one would think that if our little buddy gbigs is going to list America's wars, he would list all of them....
Maybe he's just "cherry picking" wars in an attempt to make his argument look valid?
War With Barbary Pirates......Jefferson (Jeffersonian Rep)
War of 1812-----Madison (Jeffersonian Republican)
Mexican War-----Polk (Democrat)
Spanish-American War.....McKinley (Republican)
World War I........Wilson (Democrat)
World War II.......FDR/Truman (Democrat)
Korean War.........Truman (Democrat)
Vietnman..........LBJ (Dem) & Nixon (Republican)
Ist Gulf War......Bush sr. (Republican)
2nd Gulf War......Bush junior (Republican)
Afghanistan War....Bush junior (Rep) & Obama (Dem)
******Of course, the Gipper's war in Granada should probably also be listed...
As you know, the Gipper was a Republican.....
In my mind, that appears to be a more serious war than the "Trail of Tears War."
By the way, I didn't list the American Civil War but as we all know, Lincoln was a Republican...
It's pretty difficult to make a valid argument that a particular party deserves the label of "war party," where as the other party is the "party of peace."
Lincoln did not go looking for war in 1861 but he was determined to up hold the Constitution and keep the Union intact....
Both Wilson & FDR had war thrust upon them. Wilson did his best to avoid war and was successful in keeping us out of the war from 1914, when the war started, until 1917.
FDR had no choice but to ask for a declaration of war against Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. The war started in Europe in Septemeber of 1939...
The Japanese invaded us because they were jealous of our nice sushi bars
The Trail of Tears war wasn't really a war as such. It was merely the rounding up of several Indian tribes in Alabama and Georgia in order to relocate them in Oklahoma. Kinda like we did in 2008. Relocating the African-Americans from Chicago to Washington DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Te...
I find the chutzpah of EL_Gasbaggo to be quite amazing. After his unwanted dissertations and assumptions regarding war. Geezus jump up and down. Nobody cares about your opinions of war.
I imagine that EL_Flatulento would conger up an opinion on the size of the feces found in the cat box if that subject was discussed, and if it was really a Republican cat or not.
Yeah Yeah I know. Flattery will get me nowhere. or maybe it is the old Sticks and stones rtoutine. Tell us more EL_Redundanto.
FDR had war thrust about him?
OH MY GOD.........It was the US that forced Japan to declared war on the US.
US had a oil embargo on Japan. Japan only had something like a years worth of oil until it ran out. It's choice was to withdraw from China in shame or go to war with US.
The US received intelligence almost on a daily basis that Japan was preparing to go to war with US because of the oil embargo. The US knew that the negotiations by the Japanese were a sham. The only thing that the US did not know was where and when the war was to start. And they found that out earlier in the day before the war started in Pearl Habor but were inept getting the information to Pearl Habor.
FDR was preparing the US military in Asia to go to war with Japan. They were beefing up forces in Philiphines. He had no clue that Japan would be bold enough to try to sneak a strike force across the Pacific to attack Pearl Habor.
The Japanese military leaders were under no delusion that that a war with US could be easily won.
Attacking Pearl Habor was a desparate act by the Japanese.
All the US had to do was end the oil embargo and the Japanese would have no desire to attack US.
FDR wanted war with Japanese so that he could enter the war with Germany.
amateur historians bore the hell out of me. the japanese were already at war in china and korea before any intention of attacking the usa. the oil embargo accelerated, not caused, the attack on pearl harbor.
dipstick....that is a dumb statement.
There is nothing.....ABSOLUTELY....nothing in the historical record where the Japanese had targeted the USA for attack until the oil embargo.
Their desires were only local Asia countries.
Your statement only makes sense if you believe that USA always wanted to enter the war and therefore believe that war was going to happen more on USA's part than Japan's part.
Can you cite anything anything where Japan was planning a war with the USA before the oil embargo?
When hell freezes over then get back with me.
Talk about revisionist history. SgtRock's statement that the US FORCED the Japanese to attack us has to be one of the most repugnant statements I have ever seen on any posting board in years. To say that absolves the Japanese of the blame for the "Rape of Nanking" as well as the torture and butchery of perhaps millions of innocent Chinese and Mongolian citizens. The reason for the oil embargo was exactly what SgtRock described, an effort to force Japan to withdraw their forces from the Asian countries that they had occupied by force since the early 1930s.
SgtRock apparently wants to justify the Japanese conquest of Asia and the dastardly sneak attack on us by saying that all we had to do was to lift the embargo and then Japan could continue their aggression in Asia and the Pacific without further problems because then they would have all the oil they needed to continue to fuel their war machine.
Regardless of what his other motives might have been, FDR took the action that seemed to be the only way to harness the aggression of a warlike country. That the Japanese did what they eventually did was entirely their doing, not FDR's. They had the option of scaling back their military adventures, of withdrawing from the mainland altogether or going to war, not only with us but with most of the free world, including England, France (for as long as she was free of German occupation) and many other countries. It was a desperate gamble which they lost, but to try to blame it on the US is absolutely senseless.
At least you stated the obvious....Japan had ONLY two choices.
Attack the USA or get out of China in shame.
It is obvious to historians that FDR was confident in result of the oil embargo.
To get Japan to attack the USA so the USA could enter the war in Europe.
If FDR wanted peace he would never pursue an oil embargo against Japan.
He knew that Japan would run out of oil.
Japan only had less than one year of oil reserves.
They had to make a decision.
They had to make a decision. True. The decision they made was theirs and theirs alone. The results of that decision was foretold by General Isoroku Yamamota, the planner of the attack, when he made the statement to his Staff as they celebrated the victory over the ill-prepared American forces at Pearl Harbor, that "I am afraid that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant". He, having been an aide to the General Staff and assigned to the Washington Japanese Embassy in the late Twenty's, knew the character of the American people.
He had advised against the war plans of the militant wing of the Japanese government to no avail, and was resigned to carry them out to the best of his ability, knowing he was fighting a lost cause.
The war started on Japanese terms, and was concluded on US terms. We did not force the Japanese government to do anything. To continue to try to justify that statement is useless.
Let's get this straight.
Let's say England was our major source of oil supply. Tomorrow they cut off our oil. They demand that we first give Texas back to Mexico.
We have only 180 days of oil reserves.
I would say that England was giving us no real choice. We would be forced to go to war with England.
You would say that US should just give Texas back to Mexico.
once again, we speculate about history. its a game no one can win and further confuses the facts as they are. when homer lea wrote his book " the valor of ignorance" in 1912 predicting the japanese attack on hawaii and alaska, the nipponese government ordered hundreds of copies for use in their military training academies. the japanese knew they were coming to attack us years before 1941. read the book and find out why.
wiki reports 84000 copies of homer lea's book sold in japan.
A specious argument that means nothing.
Would the analogy not be more correct if it was along the line that the USA invaded Mexico and England said they would cut the oil if we did not get out?
Excellent point, I wish I had thought of it. This should close out this argument.