Having a presence outside the U.S. is critical for strategic leverage with respect to unfriendly countires/or nations which harbor terrorists and blanket the actions and activities by terrorists against us...
The pertinent question might be should we have rescued Europe and wiped out innocent Japanese people? I don't have the answer to that. We can't change history. You are making the assumption that Hitler would have remained in power and ruled Europe. History is full of failing dictators. The people's will more often than not prevails. Nobody saved the US during the Civil war. Would you have wanted England or some other nation to invade us as to restore order?
It's the chicken and the egg argument. Are they unfriendly because we are there or are we there because they are unfriendly? I believe the chicken came first. How come these historical enemies of ours did not become a threat to humanity until a a few years ago? They have always held the same beliefs they hold today. Why didn't they attack us in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century? Let's see. What changed the last couple of decades? How about a little Gulf War. How about US military presence in holy Muslim land? How about our alliance with Iran 30 years ago and now we are on the verge of waging war? Something smells fishy.
I didn't make any assumptions, you are the one who assuming things. Just answer the question: Should the U.S. have gotten involved in Europe during World War 2? I'm not asking about Japan, who attacked us first. I'm not assuming how long Hitler would have survived. Very obvious tactic of avoiding my question by asking another that completely changes the subject.
I am not trying to avoid any question. I have no idea whether we should have been involved in Europe. I am not very familiar with the precise circumstances sourrounding World War II from the United States perspective. Now I answered the question. What does it have to do with anything? I am talking about unprovoked wars in general and more specifically the Iraq war and a possibly impending Iran war. Iraq and Iran have not attacked anybody and especially not the US. If they do, we can talk about it. Until then, we have no right or authority to attack them. If you go and kill a bad guy becasue you don't like him, do they throw you in jail or do they call you a hero? That's exactly what we did. We enacted genocide for profit. Besides, most people we killed were innocent and not the "bad guys". Islamic Extremsits are a tiny percentage of the Islam population around the world. In the meanwhile we are allowing another genocide to occur in Darfur. I'd rather fight for peace and stop genocide in Darfur than be part of another genocide in Iran.
I REALLY don't think you mean that. I don't think you want every Muslim-majority state to be as militant and war-prone/expansionist as Israel has historically been. Last time that was the case you had the Ottomans threatening to swallow Europe into the Caliphate. Think before you speak...
Christians have invaded and killed way more people than Muslims throughout history. It's not an issue of a particular religion. It's the issue of how do we stop making religion a divisive issue. We should start by setting an example here in the United States by not waging religious wars. Even if we make the argument that our war has no base on our religious affiliation, it is perceived by the Muslim world to be such. Perception is reality. THe only way to defeat that perception is to stay out of the Muslim world and let them selfgovern the same way that the United States fought to achieve its independence.
In other news concerning the non-threat that is Iran, long-time Hezbollah terrorist scumbag Imad Mugniyah - responsible for the deaths of over 300 Americans - got blown up in Damascus. Hooray.
The only thing semi-surprising about that bit of news from a couple of days ago is the fact that he was STILL in Syria. I would've thought the guy was in some random place outside the ME by now.
So what? THey capture other people, Israel captures their people. I am not saying there's no conflict of interest. I am saying there should not be war becasue of it. They haven't declared war on us, therefore we shouldn't declare it on them. Let's fight for peace, free trade and dimplomacy first. Hezbollah is a Lebanese faction. There are a lot of Christians in that organication. Just because they don't like Israel, it doesn't mean they don't like us. I know a Christian Lebanese person who hates Jews, but loves the US. Christians and Muslims alike fear Israel because they are the bully in the region while we make them out to be the victim.
I am assuming Lebanese, in general. There was actually a political alliance between Hezbollah and some Christian factions in Lebanon, extending even to the military.
What or who exactly decided to put a Jewish state squarely in the middle of a region of people that would not want it there in the first place? I guess I need to get out my history lesson and go at it to find the answer. BRB!
Both Hezbollah and the Iran people don't object to the United States. The Iran people love what the United States used to stand for, they aspire to be a free capitalistic nation just like we used to be. They object to Israel's attack on their people. Lately the US has piled upon them in an attempt to appease Israel. We should not appease anyone. We should be friends with everyone and project an image of neutrality.
Too late for that. We've squared our lot with Israel vs. the rest...Iraq/Iran/everything else to follow is merely the U.S. "walking down the aisle" of history with its significant other. It's ironic too since most Americans (when actually asked to voice an opinion one way or the other) are not in favor of U.S. one-sided support for Israeli policies (Jewish leaders are aware of it). Of course, most also don't care/aren't informed enough about the ME to pro actively let their representatives know what they think. There is only one major 'bloc' in the American electorate that is squarely behind Israel: the so-called Evangelical Christians. The rest are overwhelmingly in favor of neutrality.
