Awesome!

The comparison is that it took time in Japan and a lot of money but look at Japan now. The results that you would like to see in Iraq weren't for real in 1945 Japan either with mass starvation, a country in ruins. So maybe you should try again. Germany too right?

We never won Korea, Vietnam, Cuba but the perception of us from the communists changed as they realized we would shed blood too and this was an example for the rest of the world as well. Were not going to sit at home anymore and tell ourselves that world affairs don't matter. Hopefully we don't if the world wars have taught us anything.

The Iraqi people have voted, they have established a government and have received support setting that government up. Reminds of some colonies a long time ago...

Awesome!

I don't agree but respect your opinion. By not being involved in the great power game we were brought into these wars. If you want something done right, better to do it yourself and that is what we are doing in Iraq. What is so d@mn wrong about democracy in a region that needs democracy or do we need the results of world war 3 to learn that lesson?

aegyptos

Since no credible threat on the scale of a world war 3 exists I'll have to treat your question as rhetorical. Thanks for the conversation.

Awesome!

It wouldn't take much to create a world war if Iran has nuclear weapons which is why we should be in the region. If we wait until there is a credible threat it may be too late.

In my opinion...

bub

Your argument is not very honnest: Germany too had signed treaties to limit the size of its army (100,000 men, no aviation, no tanks and a limited navy). You blame France and UK because they let Germany increase the size of its army. The reason you blame them seems to be "with such an army, it was clear that Hitler wanted to start a war yet Europeans were too blind to see that"

On the other side, as you said, Japan had also signed treaties to limit the size of its navy. However, the limitation was much less drastic, as Japan was an ally at the time of the treaty, and there was no doubt about the hostile intentions of Japan.

First, the size of its navy (even if limited to 60% of the US navy, it was very modern and proved to be extremely efficient)

Then, Japan was at total war with China since 1937, which shows that Japan had clear expansionist views in Asia

Events preceding World War II in Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was also very clear that Japan was going to attack the USA sooner or later, yet, just like France and UK with Germany, the USA did not react until it was too late.

I'd go even further: France and UK had declared war on Germany since September 1939 (when Hitler invaded Poland), that's to say 8 months before being attacked. The USA did not declare war on Japan before being attacked, in spite of a serie of incidents (war in China, clashes with Russia, capture of the Hainan island) which were comparable to the incidents in Europe (the Anschluss, the Sudetenland...)

__________________
===|:-)

American

In your opinion.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

Iriemon

Good lord. Both countries declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland in 1939. Which is a hell of a lot more standing up that any other major power did.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Mach

This is what we are debating above. You believe our liberties were NOT at stake. I am arguing they demonstrably were. Let's watch:

So, you are denying that Japan attacked the U.S., killed our people in an overt military attack? Are you denying that this attack was a threat to our liberty? Really we don't have to proceed past this basic question, you're just wrong.

If we do proceed for fun, then what we have is this.
China is losing it's land/people to Japan who is taking over their lands in conquest.
Japan wants help in taking Chinas liberties.
The U.S., U.S.S.R, Great Britain, embargo Japan for it's attacks on Chinas liberties.
Japan bombs the U.S.

1. Japan is killing people and taking what is not recongize as "theirs".
2. The U.S. has the liberty to trade, or not trade with anyone, and chooses not to trade with Japan.

Therefore the U.S. was in the wrong? Therefore Japan was in the right?
Come on. It seems obvious, why the fight?

What are you writing about.
Invading Iraq is the "for sport" comment.

Who suggested it was?

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Awesome!

No, you completely miss-interpret what I am getting at. I agree that our liberty was at stake in WW2, however we could of been more pro-active before it led to 400,000 US troops dying. Get it?

Now we are doing in Iraq what we should of done in the 1930's with Germany and Japan to be pro-active, and at a fraction of the US lives and you think it's just for sport?

aegyptos

They declared war and then what did they do while Germany took the Poles apart? Nothing....even though Germany had on 17 understrength 2nd rate divisions on the Western Front. France fielded some two million men alone and with the British had something near 90 divisions available to invade Germany with. They did nothing but make a feeble demonstration in front of the Germans then retreat back to their fortifications. The Germans were scared to death that the Allies would break through in the west and over run Germany while the Wehrmacht was tied down in Poland. I stand by my posts.

Don't any of you guys read history?