The election occurred before people woke up. The elections was the past, and I am speaking of the present.
when you win a national election get back to me. until then, the people spoke quite eloquently on this issue last november.
They are outposts as American staging grounds due to the proximity to Russia and China. I'd hardly call it "occupation."
Because they spoke last November doesn't mean that was all they had to say. Obviously they have continued speaking. You may not like what they have to say, and continue to focus on last November. You can believe that things haven't changed if you want to, but your party sure knows things have changed.
btw, while not a state, Hawaii was under direct control of the US as a territory since 1893. Hawaii was absolutely US soil. If technically it wasn't 100% US soil, it certainly WAS in the hearts and minds of Americans since the attack was a direct cause/effect that led us to enter the war. So to claim it Hawaii wasn't an attack on US soil is...misleading...at best.
<b>Major Japan and Germany declared war on us. If Germany conquered mainland Europe, do you think they were going to stop there?</b> They may have come after us. Was that a declared plan by them? Isn't that what you are asserting? <b>When the war was finally over, the amount of damage and destruction was ridiculous. At that point, circumstances changed in that new minds were in leadership positions who decided the best way to prevent a repeat was a massive rebuilding effort. When exactly that plan was put together, I'm not really sure.</b> Damage and destruction should have been anticipated and certainly was observed and reported along the way. What kind of boobs were running that war?
What's the rolleyes for? The literature comprehensively refers to our troops in Germany and Japan as an 'occupation' until YEARS later. The comparison to Iraq is an interesting one since there is talk of US bases in Iraq for years to come (although I personally do not think that is the best course).
Hawaii became a state around 1960. I'm not even sure it was an official US territory before that. Certainly the military base was US property.
The rolleyes are because you implied we are still "occupying" Germany and Japan today since we still have bases there. Just because we have a base there doesn't mean we are "occupying" the country. We only have the bases for strategic millitary purposes...not because we have any interest in governing local affairs. So your argument that the exit strategy in Germany/Japan was ill conceived because we still have bases there is misleading.
1959 to be exact. But Hawaii WAS an official terriroty of America in 1893. The sitting queen of Hawaii at the time conceeded sovereign control to the US in 1893.
No. I didn't say anything about 'occupation' until you brought it up. Hrumph said there was a big difference between WWII and Iraq. I answered that we still had troops in Germany and Japan - implying that we never made an EXIT. 'Exit' being the point of contention, not occupation. Further, since you brought it up, the bases are an extention of our occupation - yet another similarity to what's being apparently considered in Iraq. To claim the bases are not an extension of the occupations or that we made an 'exit' from Germany or Japan is nonsensical. Our presence has been continuous for 60 years. Nothing ill conceived or misleading about those points.
I think Krosfyah does make a good point. We may not have had a 100% exit, but we most certainly stopped our occupation of both Germany and Japan. We currently have troops stationed there, and whether decades ago that was an extension of our occupation, that isn't the case today. So if you wish we can replace exit strategy in the anti-war crowds arguments with an end to our occupation, and large scale withdraw of our troops, since that is what is the general meaning.
To summarize: this article is complete bunk. -Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and deputy to Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration -General William Odom (ret.), former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan -John Deutch, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency 1995-1996 and was deputy defense secretary 1994-1995 -Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter -Melvin Laird, secretary of defense for President Richard Nixon -Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and a retired Army colonel -Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star general, who led the U.S. Central Command (1991-94), and commanded U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war -Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (ret.) -Edward Peck, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorist task force who served in World War II and Korea and then for 32 years as a diplomat ....are all terrorist sympathizers who want us to fail and our soldiers to die. Furthermore, none of them know what they are talking about. They are tree hugging leftist wackos who would gladly sacrifice victory in Iraq for a chance to make president Bush look bad. Any criticism of the operations in Iraq plays into the hands of the terrorists. In closing, not only is it treasonous to criticize present operations in Iraq, it is also meaningless to investigate the reasons given for going to war and the process that produced those reasons. This undermines our effort; America must move on, not look back.
Fair enough. If you think that general withdraw is what is meant by exit stategy I can see the point. However, I have to say that if the majority of our troops leave but we have permanently staffed bases in Iraq - I think you're kidding yourself if you think the anti-war crowd would equate that with either an 'exit' or an end to the occupation. I could be wrong though.
Well, it depends. If the new government willingly allows us to maintain a presence there, then I don't think many people would complain. But if the general sentiment of the citizens is that we shouldn't be there, then American anti-war folks will complain too. Right now, the anti-American sentiment in Iraq seems to run pretty high. But then again, we are still running tanks down the streets of Bagdad. While we still have bases in Germany/Japan, we long ago stopped running tanks down city streets.
Came across these snippets: "POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War. For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.... Some 80,000 U.S. military personnel are permanently based in Germany and Britain also continues to base troops and military equipment in the western German zone they formerly occupied. It is not uncommon to see British tanks on the streets of the area near Münster in Westphalia. "
Here's the source of that snippet: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769 Other fine articles on that website mention that bombs, not airplanes, knocked down the twin towers, and that the riots in France are a result of CNN Psy-Ops.
And? I didn't say it was from a peer reviewed journal. But then again since we're talking about 'perception' it doesn't have to be from a peer reviewed journal. Arguing the authority instead of the argument is seemingly a much castigated bigtexx/basso tactic, no? It makes two claims - some Germans still feel occupied and British tanks still rumble down German streets. I don't think either of those two claims are unreasonable. Do you? OR alternately, since conspiracy theories abound on antiwar.com and lots of .org sites where articles posted in the bbs originate, we can just dispense with those as well. I wouldn't object to that tradeoff.
It seems like a silly dancing on the head of pins type thing to compare Bush's Iraq war with Germany and WW II. Hayes who likes to draw overly fine distinctions, apparently sees no significant difference here. Funny.
