It is 1940 - do you do nothing about Japan and Germany?

[rufus dog]

Could you imaging the DU discussions on those!

Seriously doesn't it all come down to the process and methodology? I grew up in a time when Germans and Japanese were allies while they were enemies of my parents generation. If we parked our asses in their respective countries for a decade would the outcome have been different?

[grahamhgreen]

1. Fact is, people don't like war, they tend to get along fine until

the war mongers stir them up.

[rufus dog]

2. War friggen sucks

And should only be used as the last option.

The question is can it always be avoided and is the outcome always bad?

[Newest Reality]

4. And those war mogers in modern history

seem to have had a big and vested interest in making a lot of money from the racket. Profit comes first!

[Catherina]

25. +1 n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Your analogy has no merit.

It's a internal armed rebellion that the rebels have choosen to undertake willingly. They have to face the consequences of that choice. If they lose, maybe they'll be samarter the next time. It's a cruel world sometimes.

[rufus dog]

6. so your opinion is that we stay out of everything outside of our borders?

Does that include when a previous administration arms a foreign country to the limit and then a dictator takes over and slaughters his enemies?

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. We need to encourage less barbaric methods of "regime change"

than this kind of roman circus. It's actually been done before, but what do you care. Drop more bombs right?

[Hugabear]

8. Romania comes to mind

Brutal regime, yet eventually the people rose up and overthrew their government.

[KoKo]

83. We "been there and done it." The OP is "instigating, insinuating" with NO VALID COMPARISON...lol's

[rufus dog]

91. No the OP was to show how fucking ridiculous the comparison to Iraq is

Along with Obama is just like Bush. Nearly unsubstantiated by facts but a very effective talking point designed to weaken a Dem and strengthen a Repub.

But then again it may have been too nuanced!

[Boojatta]

57. "They have to face the consequences of that choice."

Hypothetical scenario: the government of Iran responds to your posting behavior on DU by issuing a fatwa against you and a million dollar reward for anyone who will deliver you alive to interrogators in Iran.

Question based on the above hypothetical scenario:
Will you be smarter next time?

Comment:
It is, after all, a cruel world sometimes.

[The_Casual_Observer]

82. Pardon me, but that was the most twisted weird hypothetical scenario

I can't even imagine.

[Boojatta]

93. Have you heard of Two-Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time?

[killbotfactory]

65. The rebels tried to change things peacefully and were answered with RPG's and Cannons

I guess if German Jews took up arms to prevent themselves from being murdered you would have held the same opinion of them, that It's their problem for fighting back and we shouldn't get involved?

[The_Casual_Observer]

81. The rebellion started with the local military turning on the govt.

it was never a peaceful deal.

[killbotfactory]

90. The military turned after they were ordered to attack protesters.

It was peaceful until Gaddafi felt threatened and started shooting anyone in the streets opposing him.

[ingac70]

5. If you'll recall from our history books.....

we weren't at war with German or Japan until late 1941 (DECEMBER).

[davidinalameda]

12. FDR supported the UK effort against the Nazis

we were at war-declared or not

[Javaman]

24. Britain was our ally. Germany was not.

as per treaty we were bound to support Britain.

China was our ally, Japan was not. As per treaty we were bound to support China.

That's how it works.

[ingac70]

59. While US companies heavily invested in the NAZI regime. n/t

[defendandprotect]

9. Well, if would have helped to lock up Prescott Bush and DuPont and other elites who

worked to assassinate FDR -- ?

Then there was the Franco thing -- who was right there?

Arresting Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush would have gone a long way to keep Hitler

from getting the financing -- and GOLD -- that supported him.

Maybe we wouldn't have cut off Japan's supply of oil -- ?

And maybe even if it was as far as the concentration camps this time we might have

bombed the railway tracks?

And look at Japan at this very moment -- while Germany is saying they're foling on nukes!!

[KoKo]

86. So TRUE....!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Libya is trying to conquer the world? Invaded Poland?

[Sherman A1]

27. Let us not confuse the issue

with the facts. :hi:

[KoKo]

84. True...the facts would get in the way of Trolling...it's better to "point out facts."

lol's...:D

[grahamhgreen]

11. I just realized - it worked for Switzerland...

[nemo137]

17. Yeah, becoming a defacto German client state worked out fine for them.

[Swede]

33. The Swiss,they liked the cash.

Liked it a lot.

[Bucky]

35. The modern "Switzerlands" are the companies that got rich selling weapons to Ghaddafy

No one gave a crap about his forcing poverty on the oil-rich citizens of Libya until the flow of oil was threatened.

[Chisox08]

13. In 1940 the US did nothing about Japan or Germany

We didn't go to war with Japan until they attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. We didn't start fighting Germany until early 1942. Sure we sent arms to the UK and had economic sanctions on Japan but we didn't send in our military until Japan attacked first.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. If you're the US? The answer to that would be "yes"

[readmoreoften]

15. Saddam Hussein is Hitler!

Heard that script before. Not a big fan of the movie's ending, though.

[AsahinaKimi]

16. I can't think about 1940's Japan

While there is suffering going on in Japan right now, ..sorry.

[sabrina 1]

18. Go back further and think, if someone had stopped the 1st world

war, there would not have been a second.

[Selatius]

19. I do not believe the analogy is valid at all.

First off, Qadhafi is not running an expansionist war, overrunning country after country unlike Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Secondly, Qadhafi isn't actively or even routinely blocking international sea trade routes by indiscriminately sinking trade ships that enter disputed waters. Thirdly, Qadhafi has no realistic plan to build and utilize nuclear weapons unlike somebody such as Adolf Hitler. Fourthly, Qadhafi is nowhere in the position to threaten most or all of the world's democratic governments the same way people like Hitler or Emperor Hirohito did.

[Diclotican]

55. Selatius

Selatius

Just to point out. Hitler was never fan of nuclear weapons, as he never believed it possible to split the atom to produce an explosion. In fact, in 1943-44 when he was told about the possibility to split the atom - and that US had plans to produce an bomb, he rejected it full hand, and even treated the scientific community with death penalty if they ever tried to explain that to him again.. And he refused even to give "some" more resources to they who was working with nuclear weapons as the conventional tools of the war was more important than something that would never been usable in that war.. From the german perspective that is..

It is a irony because in the 1930s Germany was THE country, where most of the theoretical mats behind the US nuclear bomb had been produced, most of the math, and the theoretical work, was indeed made by german and european scientific groups scattered over most of the continent.. From Romania in the East, to Belgium and Denmark in the West.. Not to say UK... But many of them had to flee, as they was of jewish decent when Hitler get into office, and most of them was emigrating to the US, where they was put to work on Manhattan Program under the war..

ANother irony is that most of them, was deeply against using the nuclear weapon, when the result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was shown for the world.. And also was more or less free meat, when the cold war intensified, and many of them was victim when McCarty and CO was out for blood... Most of them was never able to work again in the field they had chosen, and some of them emigrated back to Europe - or to Israel where they was more welcome..

Diclotican

[anneboleyn]

61. Yes. Succinct, and correct. Germany rapidly remilitarized during the 1930s on a massive scale

and it was very clear by 1939 where things were headed, no matter what Goebbels said at particular conferences. The brutal invasion of Poland left little doubt. This analogy is actually preposterous, as you note. Libya is absolutely nothing like Germany or Japan during the 30s/40s.

[DefenseLawyer]

67. Was it over when the Libyans bombs Pearl Harbor? n/t

[Paradoxical]

20. This is so fucking absurd that my head is about to spontaneously combust.

If you cannot understand the clear, powerful differences between what happened during WWII and what's happening in Libya, then all hope is lost.

[LAGC]

21. The Empire of Japan ATTACKED us!

When did Libya attack our territory?

[Bucky]

37. Great question - reviewing Libya's history of terrorism is useful (link provided)

Libyan State-Sponsored Terrorism: An Historical Perspective
Terrorism Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 6
May 5, 2005

For decades, the Libyan regime of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi maintained a well documented history of extensive state sponsorship of terrorism. Tacit support, close cooperation, and moral encouragement for a number of terrorist movements and organizations throughout the years have often times served a number of shifting Libyan interests. Indeed the employment of different terrorist groups by the Libyan government was an intrinsic feature of its foreign policy for a number of years and at one point even propelled it into direct military confrontation with the United States. Throughout the years, Libyan ambitions in the Arab and Muslim worlds, as well as aspirations for influence throughout Africa, have been the main drivers of Libyan support for international terrorism.

In recent years, Tripoli has taken many steps to correct its past misdeeds, settle international claims, and disassociate itself from its terrorist past. In the process Libya has benefited greatly, as evidenced by Gadafi's recent rehabilitation in the west. Indeed American-driven sanctions against Tripoli have ended, and many western analysts advance the argument that Libyan cooperation in the war on terror can do much to combat international Islamist terrorism. The US State Department had claimed until early last year that there have been no cases of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism since 1994; however the failed plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah has yet to be fully investigated.

Interesting article. Great perspective on Libya's track record.

[originalpckelly]

99. Lockerbie? Pan Am 103?

You know, that country that celebrated the asshole who schemed to bring the plane down?

They kind of did attack us.

[dkf]

22. Japan attacked us.

Big difference.

[Hannah Bell]

23. who did khaddafi invade?

so many ridiculous analogies.

Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Britain & France declared war on Germany over the invasion of their ally.

Germany had invaded Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg & France & declared war on Britain & France by June 1940.

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931; installed puppet government in Manchuria & Mongolia. Japan invaded China in 1937 & installed puppet; Nanking Massacre = 1937. Japan invaded USSR 1938. Japan at war with "China" (Chinese communists) from 1937 on.

This analogy is on the same level as the earlier attempt to draw parallels between the intervention in Libya & the Spanish Civil War. That is, complete "fail".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Apples and oranges, man

Apples and oranges.

Germany and Japan were trying to conquer the world. Gaddafi is a dictator, but I've never seen any indication that he wants to conquer the world.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. In 1940 we did nothing. Read up on the events in China in 37.

Read about Nanking. We did nothing. This '1940' bit just shows you are not aware of the history at all, not nearly enough to play compare and contrast. And not sure what you mean by 'if' because WW2 was about parking our asses in those nations, which we did, for more than a decade, we are still parked there. We occupied both nations. Do you not know that?

[FLPanhandle]

29. We did get involved indirectly with the China-Japanese war

We cut off supplies of oil and steel to Japan. That forced the Japanese to look to the Dutch East Indies for their oil. Only taking that oil would mean the US Navy would get involved. So, they tried to take out the US Navy and then go after the oil.

If we had done nothing and kept selling them oil/steel, then it's doubtful they'd have gone after Pearl Harbor. We pushed them into the situation by getting involved in the first place.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. we didn't get involved- we sat back and watched

for several years.

Could we have stopped some of carnage if we'd entered into the conflict earlier? Perhaps.

It's easy to look back and say "this would have happened". But it's all speculation.

It WOULD be interesting to read the DU equivalent of those years.

Those who are claiming that there is no comparison duck the issue.


Does it require an 'invasion of another country'? If so, then that makes the Gulf war legitimate. It would make it legitimate for Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to go to war with Israel.

Does it require an attack on a our soil? that would serve to justify the war in Afghanistan.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

31. Ludicrous. It's not 1940, and Germany and Japan are not Libya. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

34. that's true. Neither is Libya Iraq- and this isn't 2003

If your point is that every situation is different and should be examined on it's own merits, that's fine, lets apply it consistantly.

[LWolf]

40. It's not 2003, and Libya is not Iraq. That much is true.

It's also true that I am not, and others SHOULD not, automatically support a military action because it's initiated, on the part of the U.S., by Obama or any Democrat, rather than GWB.

I don't approve of using the U.S. military for any reason but direct defense of the nation.

That's why I didn't ever back the "war on terror;" that, and all of the obvious other agendas underneath the stated agendas.

I don't approve of using military action as an instrument of international "diplomacy," I don't approve of the U.S. as an empire, as the world's bully or the world's police or the world's savior. That smacks of an arrogance I won't ever support. Obviously, I don't approve of the U.S. "parking" its military in any nation as an instrument of global dominance.

I don't approve of the use of the U.S. military as a tool for anything except for the direct defense of U.S soil.

I don't approve of pouring our nation's resources into bullying or policing the rest of the world while gutting public services at home.

I don't approve of picking and choosing "humanitarian" actions on the part of our military according to which situation we have something to gain from, while ignoring worse atrocities elsewhere. That hypocrisy is not an argument that gets any respect at all from me.

I don't approve of bombing people to "save" them, I don't approve of taking over, of instituting change that benefits a U.S. empire under the guise of "saving" them.

I don't give a flying fuck what party or leader is in charge, engaging the U.S. in actions I don't support. If I don't support it, I don't support it regardless of who is "in charge."

That's my point.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. I can assure you that

my "support" for this military action against Libya isn't "automatic"- and it isn't based on the fact that a Democratic President is "doing it".

I respect your view that war should be reserved solely for a direct attack on the nation. I have not supported the 'war on terra' and do not think you can bomb your way to peace. I didn't support Pres. Clinton's military strikes against Iraq done for reasons that I still can't understand- but I did support the actions we participated in in Kosovo- which were intended to stop a genocide.

As for picking and choosing the people that deserve our action, I agree that there are MANY places in the world where atrocities have and are occurring. To refuse to help the Libyans because they happen to have the misfortune to live in a country that has oil reserves, would not only be cruel, it would be wrong. And dismissing their plight with the argument that many people seem to like to use lately "war for oil" or "war for big business" is pretty unfair imo. Is it so impossible to believe that people in the Middle East can be oppressed and abused by their tyrannical leaders, and are worthy of our concern regardless of whether they live on land that has oil beneath it's soil?

I don't believe this action is all about oil. Any more than I believe that the Iraq war was all about oil. There were other factors involved there imo, some of which included personal vendettas and ego .

[LWolf]

44. While you make sense, I'm left to wonder:

Why Libya, and not, for instance, Darfur, Rwanda, or Ethiopia, to mention just a few?

One reason, obviously, is that we simply do not have the resources, even with the MIC having full support and top priority among our politicians, to intervene everywhere in the world, if we view ourselves as saviors.

So, given that we can't police the world, why do we choose to police some over others? What makes Libya more deserving of our attention than the rest? Where do we draw lines? That's a question that there's no one correct answer for; it comes from the heart and conscience of each of us. I don't trust politicians to answer that question out of compassion, empathy, and the desire to make the world a better place. I expect them to answer it by picking and choosing according to what will benefit their political career or agenda. I'm skeptical that way. I come by that skepticism honestly, having watched the way politics repeatedly corrupt good intentions, decade after decade over my half-century, and for centuries previous.

I, of course, would prefer to support an alliance of non-military actions to support those who need it. In the long run, unless we are trying to extend empire, bombing them isn't going to create the long-term change we might wish for; only the citizens themselves can do that.

Indeed, when has military might achieved permanent change? What empire's military has sustained it indefinitely? Our nation is only 235 years old, and is already imploding.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. I can't answer that-

I'm not even sure that there IS an "answer".

Back in the early 90's I got involved with a group of kids (which included my oldest child) working to raise money to send supplies to Rwandan refugees. The world had turned a blind eye to the suffering, dismissing it as "ancient tribal hatred" or "ethnic strife" which was somehow supposed to make it "not our problem". The UN was not actively involved, and hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered as the world basically stood back and watched. It was a clear case of genocide, but no one had been willing to intervene to stop it.

Could we have stopped it? Pres. Clinton thinks that our inaction cost many lives. He apologized to the people of Rwanda- much to his credit. No one else has acknowledged the fact that the worlds inaction during this disaster resulted in a massive slaughter of innocent people. When the issue of Kosovo hit the world stage, I felt strongly that the President was trying to not make the same mistake again.

I agree that military might is a poor ambassador of peace, and that when change is a result of military might, it usually requires military might to maintain it. But what are we to do when people plead for help and are being slaughtered? I don't know what the answers are, I can only say that if I were in Libya, and asked the world community for help, I'd want people to respond- and not simply turn away saying that they wouldn't choose sides- Refusing to act is acting.

What of Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, Tibet or Sierra Leone (I confess to being ignorant about Ethiopia) or all kinds of other atrocities and genocides? Why get involved here and not there? I can't answer that honestly. Except to say that this situation was brought to a head, assistance was asked for, and the President made the decision that we would help.

It doesn't thrill me- I don't believe it is something the vast majority of people on DU feel really good about. But then doing nothing, or offering empty words, or 'good thoughts' for them - isn't a viable alternative for many of us either.

thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me- you've made me stop and think and question my position and why I've taken the stand I have-
I know it's probably difficult to believe, but I'm probably more closely aligned with you on the issue of war and violence being a terrible instrument of peace, than you'd think.

peace~

[rufus dog]

62. You get the true gist of the question

When some state it is apples to oranges they are correct. (In response to my hypothetical)

By the same measure when some same Libya is another Iraq it is another apples and oranges comparison.

I am not saying it couldn't deteriorate into bad situation, imo it won't



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x724457

[zorahopkins]

32. Japan and German Did Not Have Oil Wells

I think I am correct when I say that unlike Libya in 2011, neither Germany nor Japan in 1940 had oil wells.

That explains a lot.

[NeedleCast]

36. While I have Mostly Supported the No Fly Zone, This Is Not Comparable

You're talking about a Libyan civil uprising and comparing it to two countries who started wars with (multiple) other countries. Libya did not send it's armed forces across the border to invade Egypt. The idea that we had to intervene in Libya for the same reasons we did in World War II is ridiculous.

[Bucky]

38. What's that rule called where, once you're reduced to using Nazi examples, you've lost?

I generally support the actions in Libya (particularly the president's iteration that this should be somebody else's team of mules to drive). But we shouldn't be blind to the fact that Libya's oil reserves makes this situation different from the score or so other countries where despots brutalize their own countrymen.

[Shiver]

39. Godwins Law

And it doesn't apply if you purposely invoke it.

[anneboleyn]

63. It's a new Latinism: reductio ad Hitlerum

From wikipedia:

"It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything that Adolf Hitler did, no one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.

Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,<1> by analogy to playing the race card.

The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger."

[mcollins]

41. Last time I checked

in 1940 the US didn't do anything to curtail Germany or Japan. Roosevelt did start sending England stuff via lendlease and stopped selling scrap metal and oil to Japan, and the Congress and the people were not too happy about it. Seems that the spector of 1918 put a damper on the willingness to get into another war, or European adventure.

[sabrina 1]

42. Saddam was Hitler! Qaddafi is Hitler!

And the U.S. since WW11 has only started wars for humanitarian reasons and we trust them implicitly. :eyes:

[TBF]

45. Are we going to "park our asses" in every country in which there is oppression?

If so we'll start with the US and Gaza. Not to mention Rwanda and Sudan ...

[KoKo]

97. Good point you make there..We seem to always be on the lookout for places to "park Asses"

where we don't belong.

Thank you for putting this out there...as crude as it seems on first look..what you say is TRUTH!

[TBF]

101. Yes, just using the language of the OP. nt

[Rex]

46. What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of military bases

in foreign countries? We have BIG BIG bases in Germany AND Japan! Where have you been!?

[KG]

48. and do what?

[pokerfan]

49. if the OP is being consistent, then...

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Japan and Germany had the potential to conquer two continents

Roosevelt didn't want to get us into the war because of any moral imperative, he wanted to get us into the war because he saw it as in our self interest to do so.

I've got mixed feelings on our involvement in Libya, but their threat to the US virtually is nonexistent. And any threat from a potentially hostile government in Afghanistan or Iraq pales in comparison to the scale of the threat that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan posed to the US in the 1940's, which is why it was bullshit when Bush used the comparison to sell his foreign policy in the Middle East.

[anneboleyn]

96. Yes, look at the map of Europe circa 1944 and it's quite sobering

[fascisthunter]

51. not even slightly comparable to a World War

[Baclava]

52. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on.

Fall down now, strange gods are coming.

[taterguy]

54. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor dumbass

[Baclava]

56. BWAhahahahahahah - - Animal House - dumbass

BWAhahahahahaha

[taterguy]

58. BWAhahahahahaha yourself you worthless POS

[DefenseLawyer]

69. Seven years of college down the drain! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

72. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

:rofl:

[DefenseLawyer]

73. Well, you can do what you want to us...

but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America!

[Canuckistanian]

71. LOL

Nice comeback.

[neverforget]

64. Some movie references are lost on some people....

[VoteProgressive]

53. Wow, yes, Libya is just like Japan. Give it a rest. nt

[robcon]

60. Libya couldn't be more different from Japan and Germany in 1940

Those countries were trying to take over their neighbors across the globe, and were being successful.

Libya is a small country with a civil war over who runs their government.

[neverforget]

66. Japan and Germany conquered and enslaved/murdered millions of people

by invading other countries. Libya is not Germany and Japan. Not even close.

[Hugabear]

89. How much was known about the Holocaust prior to our involvement in WWII?

From what I've been able to gather, we really didn't know about the full extent of the Holocaust until we began liberating the concentration camps. We knew there were concentration camps by 1942, but I don't think many people really know what was really going on.

[anneboleyn]

95. This is debated by historians, but Nazi brutality was certainly well-known

Historians debate the extent to which government officials knew about the death camps, but certainly it was public knowledge that the SS brutalized perceived "opponents" and that POWs were tortured and murdered in different circumstances. Not to mention that millions of civilians were dead.

[daleo]

68. Here's hoping Libya doesn't send waves of heavy bombers against London

And doesn't attack Pearl Harbor, doesn't launch millions of troops against Moscow, etc.

[anneboleyn]

94. Or plan in detail a full-scale land invasion of England (Operation Sea Lion)

A full-scale land invasion, with the idea of occupying London, which was only thwarted by some misguided Luftwaffe missions, some smart bluffing by the RAF, and bad weather on the English Channel.

[Safetykitten]

70. Cool! Another Time Tunnel episode.

[Alamuti Lotus]

74. Libya is not "Japan and Germany"; NATO is "Japan and Germany" in general

And yes, something should definitely be done about that terrorist alliance waging war in many corners of the globe.

[Canuckistanian]

75. It's 1066. Do you do nothing about the Normans?

Imagine the DU discussions about that!

Friggin French!

[DefenseLawyer]

77. And what about the Romans? What have the Romans ever done for us?

[KoKo]

88. True...we should have had a chance to fight them, too! OOPS...We are too New!

gack... They were gone before we begun! Damn It...now THAT would have been a REAL WAR!

[mcollins]

92. and the wine.

Let's not forget about the wine.

[Safetykitten]

78. What if the Normans had kittens armed with lasers? What then?

[anneboleyn]

87. And, it's 793, do you do nothing about those damn Vikings??

[HCE SuiGeneris]

76. "imaging", and no punctuation...

I'm unable to grasp your point.

[hayu_lol]

79. This thread has wandered a bit so let me add my little bit...

among other actions, the US did send the Flying Tigers to China(100 P-40s with crews)in 39 and 40.

WWII was a real war with many fronts. The majority of civilians here were behind the war and almost all Americans sacrificed much in all areas to support out troops. There were terrible shortages of all kinds of things and we endured those--you name the item and it was either rationed or not available at all.

Many of our parents, those not involved in direct fighting, became first aid specialists and block wardens. Every American felt the pressure of the war in one way or another. What we have had since is radio, press, and tv bits--period.

We should have stayed out of Libya. The Arab nations are coming alive...they don't want us or other powers mixing in their business.

For those of us alive in the period leading up to WWII, we do remember what it cost virtually every family.

[bullwinkle428]

80. The Neocons LOVED this argument in 2003 re: Iraq.

[KoKo]

85. We all "bin' Trolled"....but, on a slow night...let's go at it...

[Initech]

98. I dont like war. But I would fight if there was a cause I truly believed in.

The Holocaust was exactly such a cause that would get me to fight.

[ReggieVeggie]

100. another baseless argument from partisans defending a warmonger

yay team!