Re: What 'War' Was That Idiot Talking about?

On Jul 23, 12:31=A0pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> In article <c36fcad1-2256-4dd7-b1ca-
> d3c5f052e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, bvall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 dead
> kennedy haters says...
>
>
>
> > .
> > > >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
> > > >won the war.
> > .
> > > SO we can go home then?
> > .
> > That was the approach we used after WWI. =A0By abandoning Germany and
> > returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
> > power.
>
> > After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
> > the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. =A0Thanks to
> > that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
> > powerful enemies.
>
> > So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
> > Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
>
> The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
> dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
> both were very sick of war. =A0Thus it made sense to build them up.
=2E
The Japanese were "sick of war"?

The Japanese?

My father was a Marine Sargent in the Pacific Theater during WWII, and
was penciled in to invade Japan.

Japan was gearing up to fight to the last man, woman and child.
LITERALLY.  Casualties were expected to run about a million to a
million and a half.

To convince the Japanese that surrender was their best option, we
nuked Hiro****ma, quick frying 86,000 people. (My father tells of being
woken up by his cor****al who screamed "Jesus, Vallely, the just
dropped the biggest damned bomb on Japan in world history, and killed
something like 100,000 of them."  My father said "good", and then went
back to sleep.)

The Japanese's reaction?   They basically said "we don't think you can
do it again"  So we did, this time killing 69,000.

It took an internal overthrow to convince the Japanese that they lost
the war.

THESE are the guys that you claim lost their taste for fighting?

The next question is "why would two countries with strong nationalism
be MORE open to letting another country leave their troops there than
a country with a weak national idenity?
=2E
> In contrast, the Iraqi's have already been fighting each other for
> thousands of years (and will prolly be fighting each other for another
> thousand) and have more of a tribal mentality than a national
> mentality... there's nothing to build on.
=2E
So, you're saying that Arabs are savages, unlike the civilized Nazis?

My, aren't we the proper little racist?

In any case, the debate is over.

Your side lost.

Iraq hasn't degenerated into civil war.

They have a constitution that works.

The country is pulling together.

They're prepping for their second election.