"They'll be cheering in the streets."

Well, public opinion fluctuates and can’t be trusted too much; one day the Iraqis are cheering for the American soldiers, the next they’re protesting them. Maybe after a few years, if we do rebuild Iraq, there won’t be so much anti-Americanism.

I agree, but it also depends on how we conduct ourselves now.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
We were, I believe, talking about current affairs, not events that happened over fifty years ago. You may as well have brought up the Revolution.

Only if I have to go back that far to find a war of liberation that you support. But by your own admission we can stop at WWII; my point being that we have to go back sixty years to get your approval. You’re not saying much by disapproving of the first Gulf War, since basically you disapprove of every war, until we’ve been attacked outright.


You mean that war we waged against our satrap after we helped him get into power, then sold him chemical weapons and encouraged him to use them against Iran and Iraqi rebels? The one that didn’t end in Kuwait getting a democratic government? Yeah, you’re right, you would have to go back to World War II to find a war that could justifiably be said to have been of liberation.

That’s the quote I’m referring to. Anyway, Kuwait may not be a democracy, but at least it exists. It’s not a province of Iraq either. Badmouth the circumstances if you will, but the United States did end up liberating Kuwait.

Right. The army was supposed to present itself as a liberation army to the Iraqis, but they don’t see it as such, which results in fighting. It’s a fairly simple observation.

That’s ridiculous. Again, “If this is how a liberation army acts,” she said, “I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” in reference to the article. But the army, in that article, by no means acted out of sorts. Unless, naturally, they were not fired upon, but I’ve said that three times now. We don’t know that yet. So, moving back where we started: stay your judgment on U.S. troops until you have some evidence to go on.

Vulture? You’ve got the wrong man. I’m the one who is against killing people for no reason and lying about it to drum up support.

A vulture attacks its prey when its down, as soon as it’s vulnerable. I wasn’t referring to you, though I realized you might construe that; but I let it go, since you agree with Nulani’s little swoop at the U.S. military anyway.

Xwing1056

“Only if I have to go back that far to find a war of liberation that you support. But by your own admission we can stop at WWII; my point being that we have to go back sixty years to get your approval. You’re not saying much by disapproving of the first Gulf War, since basically you disapprove of every war, until we’ve been attacked outright.”

So you’re saying that Americans oppose wars until they’ve been attacked? How about an example of this? As I can recall, in WWI, many people wanted to side with the allies because of close ties with France and Great Britain. Others wanted to side with the Central Powers because they were of German or Irish descendance. When President Wilson asked for a vote on war, there was about a 4:1 for-against war ratio in Congress. In WWII, same story, but nearly all Americans wanted to side with the Allies. Pearl Harbor sealed it.

“That’s the quote I’m referring to. Anyway, Kuwait may not be a democracy, but at least it exists. It’s not a province of Iraq either. Badmouth the circumstances if you will, but the United States did end up liberating Kuwait.”

Yes, they did. Your point is?

“That’s ridiculous. Again, “If this is how a liberation army acts,” she said, “I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” in reference to the article. But the army, in that article, by no means acted out of sorts. Unless, naturally, they were not fired upon, but I’ve said that three times now. We don’t know that yet. So, moving back where we started: stay your judgment on U.S. troops until you have some evidence to go on.”

If they were fired upon, it’s natural to fire back instead of presenting yourself as an open target. Although if the U.S. troops weren’t fired upon, they shouldn’t have been so quick to act. However, if they were being threatened, they were left with no other choice.

“A vulture attacks its prey when its down, as soon as it’s vulnerable. I wasn’t referring to you, though I realized you might construe that; but I let it go, since you agree with Nulani’s little swoop at the U.S. military anyway.”

When all else fails, think abstract…

>So you’re saying that Americans oppose wars until they’ve been attacked? How about an example of this? As I can recall, in WWI, many people wanted to side with the allies because of close ties with France and Great Britain. Others wanted to side with the Central Powers because they were of German or Irish descendance. When President Wilson asked for a vote on war, there was about a 4:1 for-against war ratio in Congress. In WWII, same story, but nearly all Americans wanted to side with the Allies. Pearl Harbor sealed it.

In both WWI and WWII, the majority of the American public was AGAINST going to war. In both instances, public opinion didn’t swing towards prowar until blatant acts of aggression were committed against America by the enemy(the declaration of unlimited submarine warfare by Germany in WWI, the bombing of Pearl Harbor in WWII).

The times when Americans were most eager to go to war(before being attacked) is usually when the enemy is way overmatched, for instance the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Iraq War that just finished.

“Only if I have to go back that far to find a war of liberation that you support. But by your own admission we can stop at WWII; my point being that we have to go back sixty years to get your approval.”

Yes, a whole sixty years, which indicates that currently, the United States does no more liberation than Norway.

“That’s the quote I’m referring to. Anyway, Kuwait may not be a democracy, but at least it exists. It’s not a province of Iraq either. Badmouth the circumstances if you will, but the United States did end up liberating Kuwait.”

The circumstances are key to the matter - the States got rid of a threat that it itself created and then strengthened. It’s a poor liberation when you liberate one from circumstances you yourself had created shortly before that, especially when the liberation results in no establishment of freedom (democracy).

“That’s ridiculous. Again, “If this is how a liberation army acts,” she said, “I think I’d prefer not to be liberated,” in reference to the article. But the army, in that article, by no means acted out of sorts.

No, this is ridiculous, as she has already said that my interpretation of her post was correct. If a “liberation” army shoots into a crowd of civilians - even in the event that it is shot at from somewhere among the crowd and <i>even in the event that it is not at fault</i> - people who see them firing into that crowd will not view that as an act of liberators, and will prefer to not be “liberated” by them. That’s not an anti-American belief, nor is it a condemnation of the military. It is simply how public opinion often works, and it is a recognition of the fact that we have gotten ourselves into an extremely messy situation in which every course might result in some harm to us.

“A vulture attacks its prey when its down, as soon as it’s vulnerable. I wasn’t referring to you, though I realized you might construe that; but I let it go, since you agree with Nulani’s little swoop at the U.S. military anyway.”

Your gratuitous, unfounded and unseemly “anti-American”-baiting aside, no one was “swooping” at the U.S. military when it was “down.” Nor do I “agree” with any such swoop; I was not blaming the military for anything. Throughout the conflict, just about everyone wished American troops well, an attitude that in no way lessened people’s most justified and correct opposition to the war and their most justified and correct refusal to view the army’s role as that of liberators, a ridiculous proposition that was invented by hypocritical neoconservatives in the first place.

>Yes, a whole sixty years, which indicates that currently, the United States does no more liberation than Norway.

Actually, nowthat Ithinkthisover, South Korea could besaidto havebeen liberatedby the US, orthe Berlin Airlift, although that was a city. And I suppose our support ofIsrael counts forsomething as well.

Spacebar broken, Merl?

South Korea could be said to have been liberated from Japan in World War II, yes. I wouldn’t necessarily say it was liberated in the Korean War, as the North Koreans were not in charge of it. That war was justifiable, but not of liberation.

Originally posted by Flintedge
Spacebar broken, Merl?
yeah, I explainedthatsomewhere earlier.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
South Korea could be said to have been liberated from Japan in World War II, yes. I wouldn’t say it was liberated in the Korean War, as the North Koreans never took it over; they were an aggressor that attacked the United States. That war was justifiable, but not of liberation.
The North Koreans had gotten to the outskirts of Seoul I thought, or at least real deep into their territory. At least, if the US had done nothing there’d onlybe one Korea right now, same forChina.

You mean if China had done nothing? Sure, but by the same token that means China “liberated” North Korea.

true, but I don’t personally consider a restoration of communism liberation.

But that’s what many of the North Koreans wanted at the time. Anyway, North Korea never really established a government in South Korea, so we weren’t “restoring” something, but rather defending something (that we liberated earlier) from being overthrown.

that sounds more like an argument of schematics than anything though.

It was because of U.S. military intervention that South Korea is a democracy today, and in much better shape than North Korea, so yes, I would consider that liberation.

Yeah, it’s true that those details aren’t too important since in the end the war was justified and that’s what matters.

Originally posted by OmegaflareX

This is basically saying you WOULD enjoy being shipped off to Iraq and shooting at people, and being shot back in turn. You’re a strange person. While the war is a decision made by the government, I know you accept it, but I don’t see how you can be pleased either.

I suppose I should have clarified. I am enlisted in the United States Army, thus the reason for that point. Would I enjoy shipping out to Iraq? Probably not as much as being Shipped to Germany or Hawaii, but a tour of duty is a tour of duty. Would I enjoy shooting people? Not at all. But they do issue M16s for a reason.

I should have chosen a different word in the place of “pleased.” What I meant was I approve of the action.

north korea actually had captured seoul and was surrounding pusan before the in’chon landing

Originally posted by Thomas Paxton
[b]I suppose I should have clarified. I am enlisted in the United States Army, thus the reason for that point. Would I enjoy shipping out to Iraq? Probably not as much as being Shipped to Germany or Hawaii, but a tour of duty is a tour of duty. Would I enjoy shooting people? Not at all. But they do issue M16s for a reason.

I should have chosen a different word in the place of “pleased.” What I meant was I approve of the action. [/b]

Admit it Paxton. You’re a violent fuck who loves killing. Must be my influence.

I hope you get shipped to Hawaii. Bring me back one of those little dancing car dashboard hula ladies if you do.