Cindy Sheehan quits Anti-War movement

The thing is, the Pacific war was not about national survival, at least in the immediate sense. I don't think most people felt that Japan's ultimate goal was to conquer the US (there's no way that ever could have happened, given relative population and land mass size). Nazism, on the other hand was all about world domination.

Look at it in modern terms. Dec. 7, 1941, the US is attacked by Japan. Japanese military forces attack US military forces on islands half a world away that are US territories, but not states. Immediately following that, for about 6 months, US forces are defeated by the Japanese in a series of attacks on the other side of the international date line. Do you not think the more liberal members of congress, media and the general public would soon raise the question: "What are we doing over there anyway? That's Asia, not America! That is not our vital interest! Our boys are dying for economic reasons. We should bring them all home."

Maybe a slight exaggeration, but I don't think it is too far from what reality would be.

 

Oh, here's part II:

Sept. 11, 2001. The US is attacked in NEW YORK CITY and WASHINGTON by terrorists who commandeer commercial planes. Total dead exceed the attack on Pearl Harbor. America is outraged and sends troops to the regions where the attackers came from. When the desired results don't happen quickly enough for political advantage, the more liberal members of congress, the media, and the general public begin the outcry: "What are we doing over there?........"

Hopefully you get the point.

 

You're right in the fact that we'd try to seek a peaceful resolution first, but after Pearl Harbor, all bets would be off.

 

Here's the numbers, by the way:

Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941: 2403 dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

New York, Washington and Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001: 2973 dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

I guess it comes down to whether you feel the war in Iraq is related to Sept. 11 or not. Apart from that, I don't see what a person could doubt about why we are over there.

 

Nope, still don't get it because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so that's why most people are averse that war. The real war should've been conducted in Afghanistan. That's where the terrorist where/are located. I realize we are still conducting campaigns in that theater too, but there's no where near the troop support that there is in Iraq. Had we dedicated the resources now in Iraq to Afghanistan and not outsourced the finding of Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri to local warloads who's loyalties change on a daily basis, we probably would've caught them by now.

Instead, we remove Hussein from power, destabilize an entire region, given terrorist insurgents another playground, and are now stuck policing a civil war.

As Red is so famous for saying, Amercans are not adverse to war. They're adverse to stupid wars. Our fight was with the terrorist in Afghanistan, not with Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq.

Hopefully you get the point

 

Do you think Afghanistan is a just war?

 

Absolutely. That country's government at the time (Taliban) was harboring the terrrorist directly responsible for 9/11. I believe that's where our resources and focus should've been from the beginnng.

 

American support for that war has dropped significantly since it started. From a high a 90% when it started to around 50% today. There is no reason not to support that war, even if people don't think it's going as well as it should.

But yet Americans are turning on that war, too. Further illustrating my belief that many Americans today simply don't have the stomach for wars lasting longer than a few months.

 

What basis do you have for saying this? Afghanistan's terrain is such that we need to use small, special forces type units to successfully operate, not the large divisions that we have in Iraq. I don't think the war in Iraq has had any bearing on finding Bin Laden at all. He's just sneaky and has friends in high places in Pakistan. Why do you think Pakistan won't let us into their country to find him? I suspect it's probably because they fear the fallout from the world finding out that they've been giving him safe refuge.

Our resources and focus were on Afghanistan from the beginning. Once we drove the Taliban out of power and the country was steadily stabilizing, we began to pullout and refocus our efforts on another perceived threat, Saddam Hussein. Remember that the intelligence we had at the time was agreed upon by the majority as enough to go to war with Iraq. But now people think we can just backtrack and change our minds. Hindsight is wonderful thing, isn't it? Too bad you can't do anything with it, other than unfairly vilifying a leader for making a decision.

I still maintain the assertion that Americans today don't have the stomach for war, whether it be a "just" war or not. War is war, plain and simple. There is nothing "just" about it.

 

I'm not sure I buy that. I rarely hear anything about Afghanistan anymore, so it seems to me like Iraq is diverting attention from there.