President Obama promises to make a major reduction of troop in Iraq within the next two years. But how many of us actually belive that this is going to happen. Not me! I was deployed to Iraq when the war first kicked off in 2003 and thats how long ive been hearing the same story about removing troops out of iraq. I dont believe we should be there anymore. What do you think?
Yes, you should be out and then come back as tourists
I agree, Australia is getting out too.
I don't think we should be there anymore, but at the same time we made this mess. We should try to clean up our mess.
I think he will remove troops, not because it is the right thing to do but to prove a point. Rather we should or shouldn't have went is no longer the question,that ship has sailed. We need to focus now on making sure we didn't do it for nothing. Pulling out because the current administration doesn't agree with the war is not a reason.
Let us not forget that manyu of the people against the war now were for it in the beginning. Just because it didn't end in a day or a week and it cost more than $100 is no reason to not finish what we started. The war in Iraq has to be fought in Iraq not in Washington.
It won't happen. We'll have a presence there just as we've had a presence in Japan and Germany since the end of the Second World War. We have no real reason to be there other than "keeping an eye on things" which is just a pretty phrase for interfering in the lives of others.
I've been meaning to ask a vet. How do you feel about the politicians using you guys and sending you out to do the things you do? Are they telling us the truth when they outline why we're doing the things we do, or is it just a smokescreen? How do your buddies feel about it?
Most definitly a smoke screen! We were told so many things that ended up being un-true that you dont know what to think. I still have family and friends in Iraq but they basically have the mentallity of "i'll believe it when i see it". They serve their tours and pray to stay alive. But your right,we will always have a presence their because Iraq will never be able to support itself like some of these politicians belive will happen. I just pray for the best and hope our country doesnt dig a hole that it cant get itself out of.
Damn I was afraid of that. How many of your brothers and sisters in arms see the next civil war on the horizon? The problem with hoping and praying is that we now have a king, not a president in charge. We haven't had a real president in office since before the turn of last century. Iraq will have to make it's own decisions about it's own destiny, just like every other nation in the world. We cannot afford to spend anymore blood and treasure trying to change the unchangeable.
Honestly, we need to bring our boys and girls home from everywhere. Let the world get along without us for awhile and learn to solve the problems in their own backyard. We need you here helping us reclaim our country and restoring our greatness.
You seem to be forgetting why our boys and girls are there in the first place.
right my dear, you are coming on track
You won me over with that image Mark! all thumbs-up!
I love the picture of the soldier with the gas pump. Classic! thanks for replying.
I thought Iraqi troops were supposed to be gradually replacing NATO forces therefore allowing for more soldiers to come home.
That may be the case Dame, but we'll have bases there like we do in Japan and Germany. They'll probably be used as a "tripwire" like the Second Infantry Division in Korea was since the end of the Korean war. They'll dangle our boys out there on the sharp end daring someone to do something in the hopes that our overwhelming response will frighten them into not doing something.
It may work, it may not but it's hard on the boys left hanging out there. I, for one, wouldn't want to do it.
You know, I have to say that most of my attention is spent studying the past. I forget to look up once in awhile to see what is really going on under my nose. I feel like an idiot. I never contemplated staying over there. I don't know why. I just thought we would have just pulled all our forces out. But, I think you all are absolutely right. It would explain why we are still there in the first place.
Technically the war in Korea is not over. I do agree US troops will be staying in Iraq in the future in some ways. I do feel sorry for the brave men and women who have to persevere in such a harsh region.
By the way how did religion get into this?????
I always thought these bases were for just *networking* maintain friendly relations...that sort of thing...real civvie here but do support getting our soldiers home.
Dame it's called "keeping an eye on things". It's a nice way of saying spying, but since you don't do that to your friends, you have to call it something nice.
Mark, I haven't forgotten why we're there, we never should have been there in the first place. Although I have to admit that I wasn't sure what to do about the sanctions that were killing children and the oil for food program that was allowing scumbags at the UN to skim off the top and Saddam to rebuild the Republican Guard. That bothers me because without the war, we would still be in that dilemma.
RK, don't worry about it. At least you have a leg up when understanding the situation when it's pointed out to you. Most people don't understand the situation at all. Almost 70 years after Pearl and the average American is still as naive as ever.
The unfortunate dilemma is - we just have a different dilemma now. We now have scumbags from corporate Amerika Inc skimming off the top instead of UN scumbags. Once the troops are out, we will then have another internal struggle to see who gets to skim off the top - and as long as they agree to sell the right people the oil at the right price all will be well again.
You don't agree with me, but in a free market this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
That is the root of the problem. We no longer have (if we ever did) a free market. The government Inc has a hand in everything. And lets face it - the logical best situation for a free capitalist market is a monopoly.
I think American presence in Iraq was aimed to flush out terrorists from that area. Without completing the task, I dont know why America withdraws from Iraq. It will certainly result in anarchy not only in Iraq, but also in neighbouring countries. The burden will then be placed on India.
I believe the population of India and surrounding countries that do NOT support terrorism far outnumber the terrorists. Wouldn't they be more successful in defending themselves and let the US and allies go home?
Great conversation everyone. I knew i wasnt the only one who wanted our troops out of Iraq. If something breaks out in another part of the world, what will the United States do then with the majority of our troops in Iraq or just returning. I can only hope and pray that this does not occur.
Perhaps part of the idea is "if something breaks out in" THAT "part of the world...
Did that comment have ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread?
No it related to what you did over the weekend, to someone elses Forum, all your comments were unrelated to that Forum, I can see through you,and that is the last comment from me.
I'm sure he was talking about Iran.
Why is it our problem is something breaks somewhere else in the world? Let the people there deal with it, they're the only ones who can and if we get involved, people only come to resent us.
What bothers me is that some may think that the soldiers *homes are defenceless* meanwhile, I think the people @ home would rise up quick n kick butt, jus to release frustrations lol
No they wouldn't. The only reason the terrorists chose us as a target was because of your actions in the Middle East over the past five decades. The Iranians feel the same way towards our government that Chile does, although I think Chile has more of a reason to be upset with us. If we didn't meddle, they wouldn't come over here and mess with us. If we pressed the War on Terror correctly, we'd have had bin Laden's head on a plate by now. Instead we have to placate the military-industrial-congressional complex and invade entire countries to secure resources for our homegrown cartels and syndicates.
If our ability to project power protects us instead of making us a target, why is it that Austria isn't overrun with evil people trying to despoil and destroy them? Or Switzerland? Or Andorra? Those are small countries, surely they'd make easier targets than something as large as the US. The ability to project power doesn't protect us, it makes us a target.
Really. The enemies we're faced with today share little in common with Hitler and his takeover of Germany. It was the Carthaginian peace at Versailles that allowed Hitler the ability to get a majority of the German people behind him in his push to war. The members of that peace conference were warned of the consequences of doing what they did, but they did it anyway and so doomed another generation to destruction. World War II, much like the War of 1812, was a continuation of the previous conflict. Your analogy really doesn't fit here as we've not enforced a draconian peace on anyone lately.
Second, in many cases we're not dealing with nation-states, we're dealing with unaffiliated groups or cells. The force you use against cells is much different than those you use against a nation. Again your Hitler analogy is not a good fit. Ahmenejad, bin Laden, Chavez and others would be facing internal revolt except for the fact that we've given them an external target to attack. Like politicians around the world, they love that. Just as Hitler used the Versailles treaty to send Germany on the road to war, so too do do these thugs attempt to do the same. We should also learn the lessons of Versailles.
I imagine Neville convinced himself of the unique nature of world events in his time as well. Bottom line...
Chamberlain got into politics because he was the scion of nobility and had nothing better to do. He treated Hitler as if Hitler were "one of the boys" which he assuredly was not. It didn't really matter who was in charge at the dawn of the Second World War, it would have happened. You don't serve terms like the ones at Versailles and expect no to go to war a generation later.
The events of his time were not unique, they'd happened before in history. The Punic Wars and the War of 1812 come to mind. Neither is our situation today unique. Unlike the 20th century, we're dealing with a threat that hasn't existed since the dawn of the early modern era. Terrorists are mostly freelancers now, they'll do jobs in return for funding. In that way they're much like the bands of mercenaries that would wander the European countryside in the 1600's taking the coin of anyone who would pay them to fight. Of course the Islamists take Islamic coin, after all there is a philosophical facet to all of this, but the fact remains that they are free companies bankrolled by countries in the area. So really the situation is not all that unique.
Things are rarely as unique as we thing they are. Just because the event is new to us doesn't mean that it hasn't happened before. A wise person studies how people in the past dealt with the event, analyze what they did right and what they did wrong and avoid the mistakes of the past. That's the lesson to be taken from that statement.
And where does avoiding problems and hoping they don't end up on your doorstep fit into avoiding the mistakes of the past?
Well for the first century of this country's existence we didn't have to worry about people trying to invade or take us over. Not that anyone has the ability today. Most of the scare tactics people use to scare us about intervening in other people's affairs is just that scare tactics.
To see the mistakes of intervention in the past you have to look at the British Empire, the Roman Empire and others to see the consequences of interventionism. Not that they're all bad, but in the end all empires fall. We're no different.
Of course we are. Most all of the constitutional protections against an all powerful President are gone. If you'd have asked a Roman of the 2nd Century AD if they lived in the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic, he would have said the Roman Republic. So it is today with the American Empire. We too establish outposts overseas to protect our mercantile interests, we too establish leagues and alliances to keep regional powers from rising that would interfere with our mercantile interests, finally we have taken up what other times called the "white man's burden" and are trying to "civilize" the rest of the world.
Are you sure we're not an empire? It sure looks like that from where I'm standing.
We do resemble an empire in many ways; of course we don't have an emperor. The Roman Republic / Empire got along quite well until shortly after it adopted Christianity as the state religion. Maybe we should start worshiping Mithra just to be safe. His birthday is already celebrated falsely as Christmas, reverting back to the original holiday should be easy.
Happy Mithra's birthday everyone!!
No they're not. The separation of powers is still in effect, presidents are limited to two terms, the process of impeachment is very much a viable option for presidents who violate the law or the duties of their office, etc. It's all still there. Try not to be so dramatic.
An empire for sure. The term the "white man's burden" was originally an English term. This is what wikipedia has to say about it.
"The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. It was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands. Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a characterization for imperialism that justified the policy as a noble enterprise.
The poem was originally written for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, but exchanged for "Recessional"; Kipling changed the text of "Burden" to reflect the subject of American colonization. The poem consists of seven stanzas, following a regular rhyme scheme. At face value it appears to be a rhetorical command to white men to colonize and rule people of other nations for their own benefit (both the people and the duty may be seen as representing the "burden" of the title). Because of its theme and title, it has become emblematic both of Eurocentric racism and of Western aspirations to dominate the developing world. A century after its publication, the poem still rouses strong emotions, and can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives."
Note it comes with "sober warnings".
Oh you're funny. With administrative law courts the executive can bypass the regular courts giving the President a say on the interpretation of the law, in addition he can and routinely does tell Congress the bills he expects them to pass and what he will accept getting to his desk. The courts tell Congress what laws to write by adding what they feel legislation should have said through judicial activism and have tried the decision of the President as it regards foreign policy. Finally, Congress attempts to conduct foreign policy against the wishes of a sitting President and routinely interferes with the inner workings of the courts.
Not to mention the fact that the states themselves have had their power stripped away from them over the last 200 years. The President, in his arrogance, will not allow the Governor of South Carolina to refuse his stimulus package. Last time I checked, the 9th Amendment to the Constitution gave any powers not enumerated to the government in the Constitution to the states. By forcing this on the Governor of the state against his wishes, the President, Congress and the Court have all overstepped their bounds with regard to the Federal System that the Constitution set up. The fact you can say we still have a Constitution with a straight face is mind boggling. That's not drama, that's fact.
It's called revolution within the form. In ancient Rome they still had a Senate, people still had Tribunes, but all power was concentrated in the hands of the Emperor. That's why our mythical Roman would have believed they were a citizen of the Republic, not the Empire.
Actually Ron, the establishment of Christianity as the state religion for Rome was the only thing that kept it going at the time. By becoming the state religion, the Emperor could and did siphon funds from the Church to make up the lack from tax farmers. If you look closely at Orthodox and Catholic naming conventions, diocese and parish were Imperial boundaries of land not ecclesiastic boundaries. The Church saved the Empire, not the other way around.
I don't agree. The wicked alliance of Christianity and Rome launched Europe into the Dark ages, and allowed what should have remained a silly insignificant cult to become a powerful enemy to science, reason, and human rights. The fact that the government became dependent on ill gotten booty taxed from the church was a sign of the moral decay that led to Rome's ultimate demise, much as our own government has become addicted to borrowed and stolen money to keep it afloat. Washington is very much like Rome, and the apathy of our citizens suggests that we will end up like the Romans.
Christianity is what allowed Europe to come out of the Dark Ages and preserved the knowledge of the ancient world.
Wow! Interesting revision of all published history on the matter. What Christian animated feature did you steal that line from? (just kidding, don't get your knickers in a knot)
In what way did Christianity help Europe to come out of the Dark Ages? The crusades? Witch burnings? Propping up despotic heads of state?
All of which were denied to the common people of that time. The church did nothing for the populace as a whole.
You mean the destruction of Library of Alexandria?
Familiar way. First create a problem, that get credits for fixing it
Actually Europe in the Dark ages was basically controlled by Germanic barbarians. Migration from Scythia and Khazaria into what became Germanic lands made profound changes to the face of Europe in the Dark ages. Irish monks and scribes preserved Christianity during this period. Charlemagne sent Irish missionaries throughout Europe to convert the barbarians. The biggest opposition that the missionaries encountered were in Anglia and Saxony.
Some scholars say from the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 the world has been under the sway of a Germanic Empire.
Yeah all the first colleges in Europe were built by the Church.
Not many recognize that Gutenberg, the guy that invented the printing press was a Catholic and the first Gutenberg Bible in 1455 was a copy of the Latin Vulgate.
Sorry Make Money -
Admittedly, the church did try and take over these seats of learning to prevent certain subjects from being taught but -
Wrong again old khazar.
From the link that you posted.
But that's Western Europe. Again from the link that you posted.
In 425 Constantinople was part of Christian Byzantium before the rise of Islam.
Guess you can't read either huh?
"The original Latin word "universitas", first used in a time of renewed interest in Classical Greek and Roman tradition, tried to reflect this feature of the Academy of Plato (established 385 BCE). The original Latin word referred to places of learning in Europe, where the use of Latin was prevalent."
Thanks a lot. What's really funny is when people learn a little about how government works - has always worked - and find fuel for drama, panic, and 'exciting' theories about the end of freedom, etc. Relax, it is as it has been.
Thanks MM, I know the source for the term. It was pretty much the rallying cry of European imperialism. Much like Manifest Destiny it holds a multitude of meaning.
tksensei, I'm pretty sure I know more than just a little about how our government works. Could you write a few papers about the changes our government has been through in the last couple of centuries? If you're so smart, why don't you grace us with a little of you knowledge?
Ron, you seem to have something personally against Christianity which may be clouding your judgment. For the most part the early spread of Christianity was relatively peaceful except for the fact that the Romans crucified them and threw them to the wolves. It wasn't until they became the state religion of Rome that you saw wars about Christianity, against heretics, pagans and others. When the Church allied with the landowners after the fall of Rome, that's when we began seeing the emergence of the Inquisition, witch trials and the auto da fe.
So it would seem that the true evil only started once the Church began acting more like a state than a religion. Something for the religious and nonreligious among us to keep in mind I think.
No sir, the judgement is clear. Of course the early spread of any religion is peaceful, you are forced to be peaceful when you are a tiny speck of the population. Of course when the church leaders became powerful, they denied the teachings of Christ much more significantly than Peter did. The church turned away from love and toward cruelty with the power of the state behind them.
Sure I could. I'm not going to because I just finished doing that a few dozen times and you're not going to pay me for it.
Enjoy all your 'exciting' hyperbole.
The 'rights' of the individual didn't turn up until the Enlightenment and real concern for 'the common people' a fair spell after that. Don't blame the church for not inventing a time machine.
OK, you win. See you next time. Good night all.
Ron, why do you think that Constantine chose Christianity to be the state religion? They were already large and getting larger. Most of the common people of Rome and quite a few of the patricians were already members. It was a great way for Constantine to get the wealth of the patricians via the Church. You're confusing cause and effect.
As for writing they preserved quite a bit of it. The barbarian invasions destroyed much knowledge and the Vikings more. Besides how long do you think it took to replace those books. The printing press wouldn't be invented for about a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The true culprit was the laws that tied people to the land. Just like slavery, serfs were not encouraged to learn. They might get uppity after all.
Are you sure that your bias against Christianity isn't working against you?
Sensi, nice to know you put your money where you mouth is. Are you as sure of yourself as you think?
I thought this shit was about Iraq? Not shit that happened a million years ago.
Okay Western Europe then. Or the University of Constantinople if we want to considered the characteristics we associate today with a university.
LOL - OK - anyone would think that was where all the money was in those days.
It's worth noting that many of the troops that are pulled out of Iraq are being redeployed to Afghanistan and not sent home.
I am sure America will keep bases in Iraq. They are trying to surround Iran with military bases.
Mark, why does it you surprise you that the Church was the first institution to start schools? It's interesting how many of the humanist philosophers, natural philosophers, etc. got their educations from university schools, many from Jesuit schools, which is funny in a way.
Isn't that a common theme in history, Misha lol
That's simple RK. It was a police action so that Truman could send troops there without a declaration of war. He used quite a bit of political capital in starting the draft and knew he'd never get authorization from the Old Right to send troops there. So like any good Progressive, he made an end run around the Constitution and called it a police action. One consequence of this was that vets from that conflict are not considered the same as vets from "real" wars. Politics!
War is war, it doesn't matter what you call it, police action, incident, provocation, civil war. It's all war. It's all about killing and destruction. Changing the name doesn't change the effect.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support recognizing the vets of the so-called "Forgotten War". I'm just illustrating the thought processes of the criminals who involved them in that war in the first place. I certainly don't support their logic.
As for the purpose of those technicalities that's simple too. It allows them to ignore the basic agreement between the government and the people. Congress was given the power to wage war for a reason. We need to make it hard for Presidents to wage war otherwise we get caught up in things like Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. ad ininitum. We were warned against this very thing by our first President.
Yes but you were making arguments towards that. And in love and war, technicalities are important, not theory.
In fighting a war you're correct. In starting one, well the technicalities often times keep one from whipping the people up into a frenzy that is a prerequisite for armed action against another people.
Sorry, I was talking more about how governments routinely lie and confuse the issue when pushing for war with another people. We saw this most recently in Iraq, although I can find similar acts throughout history, both US and other history. The Mexican-American War comes to mind.
I personally think that that is the only war to date that can be compared accurately to the Iraq war. Dominant take over by America.
That is NOT what Korea was about. The American people were pretty well informed. To discount that intelligence, is dismaying his last approval rating. Truman that is. I don't think the two are comparable at all. One was a declared war. The other was not. Ask the veterans about that. They know and did know full well what their nation was getting into.
The US never declared war in Korea. They went through the UN, that's why it's called a police action. The reason they were able to get a resolution through the Security Council was because the Soviet Union was protesting the inclusion of China as a member of the UN.
And you may have guessed Truman is not one of my favorite Presidents. I don't really care what his popularity was at the time he left office. The results of his policies set the state for the Cold War and everything else that followed, McCarthyism, Vietnam, etc.
On the contrary, people were not well informed about Korea. They knew we had troops there, sure, but they weren't kept up to date like they were during Vietnam. Movies were primarily the way to get news from the war and that was controlled by the government. What you notice are the lack of protests. That wasn't due to people being informed, that was due to the control of information and general paranoia infecting the US at the time. It's known as the Forgotten War for a reason.
The Cold War was an inevitability regardless of Truman or anyone else. The conditions that existed at the end of WWII saw to that.
Again I disagree. I was raised with two Korean vets. One Navy and one army. They knew it all quite well. Your reference is matter of historical opinion and not fact. Bah.
Well we'll just disagree then. You're right, I'm basing my argument on historical data and you're basing yours on personal experience. I'll suggest that while you know two vets, their views may or may not mirror what other vets or the general population at the time thought. I'll grant that most people probably though it in terms of "there's a war on, go do your duty" like we saw in the First and Second World War, but I think you ignore the experience of Vietnam, where the government was not able to control the information flow back to the homefront like they were in previous conflicts. There, in essence, was nothing to contradict the official line. Thus the lack of protest.
hmmm. I'm not ignoring Vietnam ledefensetech. Thought we were still discussing the proprietorship of KOREA. Didn't know that the rules of this engagement included mixing in the historical facts of Vietnam. Interesting. And what did Truman have to do with Vietnam? And how are Vietnam veteran viewpoint, relevant to those of a Korean veteran? How did I not see those points mentioned? Where did you mention points of reference to their different benefits? Could it be that Vietnam was not part of the equation until just now? Or am I just that far off track?
By bringing up Vietnam I wanted to contrast the amount of information available to the average American as opposed to Korea and earlier conflicts. In fact it was a major issue during Desert Storm. The military wouldn't allow reporters to be embedded with the troops. One of the recurring themes in war is information control. You say the government deliberately lied to us about Iraq, I countered with the government has lied about nearly every war we've been in.
As for the vets, their situations were similar in that both were conscripted. Neither soldier was necessarily given a choice. Some, of course, ran to the sounds of the guns, others, given a chance, would not have.
As for viewpoints, we've already discussed that your viewpoint comes from people you know and their experiences. I understand that. You and they however can only speak for yourselves. As you say, they knew the score. That doesn't mean everyone did. Given the level of communications technology and how easily such technology could be controlled or spun, I'm not so sure that most people knew the details. Vietnam was different because that was being fed raw into people's living rooms on the nightly news, in a sense you couldn't get away from it. Unlike people from the 50's, people from the 60's shared the horrors of war in a way previous generations could not.
Thank you to gspot911 for your service...and to all those who served...any time...and any where!
"War is Hell!"
You are not off track. Some people just can't seem to say "Oops, I was wrong" and move on. They feel the need to spin and backtrack and cover until they can say "Well, I was right too!" Trying to save face or something I guess.
It was my impression that the two of you were discussing whether or not the Korean conflict was a war or not. Looks to me that ledefensetech, you brought forth a more philosophical approach, "War is War." RKHenry counter that argument with historical accuracy. It was never declare a war.
Whereas, Vietnam has since been. Maybe that is where the confusion comes from. RK it appears has blown your philosophical debate on whether the Korean or "forgotten war" was technically called a war at all. Because he is right ledefensetech. It has never been declared a war. It never will, philosophically speaking or not. Hope this helps. Sorry to intrude. I have just found this thread to be interesting between you two.
Umm, so continuing your logic, if I call white black it is technically black, right?
Sorry??? Your sarcasm is over my head. I don't quite get your meaning.
Seriously, my apologies.
No by all means feel free to comment. I just got on a tangent about one of his comments about how people were behind Korea and knew what they were getting into. Based on several good books I read on information technology and the effect it has had both for and against censorship, I wanted to point out that the average American did not have all the facts about Korea. I intended to use Vietnam as an indication of how the government attempted to sanitize the news, a la the Korean War, but that they failed due to development of decentralized communications and more avenues of reporting than were available in the Korean War.
As for the Korean War being a war. Of course it was. You can call it police action, "keeping an eye on things", or whatever but all the ingredients of war are there. Actually there's only one ingredient to a war. People killing one another over a political agenda. War is war.
Must agree - good debate, lads. Been sitting with a coffee, enjoying this one
No, there was no sarcasm there, just a straight question. You stated that if war was not declared and instead was called police operation, it was not a war. I was just continuing your logic.
To give you another example, to the best of my knowledge Hitler never declared war on Russia. Was it police operation, too?
True, but then the IRA declared war upon the British, but that still ended up as a police action.
Yet another grey area
I believe Northern Ireland was a part of Great Britain (and still is). Not that sure about Korea being a part of USA. And having police operation in a foreign country is frankly coming from the vocabulary of Ministry of Truth, you know
I still think my definition stands. War is when people kill one another over a political agenda. Crime, for example is not war because people kill one another for property, loot, etc. Murder in the name of politics is war.
Sure - it is one of those relative things. I can see both arguments, and where RK is coming from.
Personally, I would probably lean towards Korea as a war - I seem to remember that we referred to it as the Korean War in history lessons at school. Just goes to show how learning history is relative - as a non-American, I knew nothing of how Vets were treated.
Good to learn something new
That the bone of contention between us. The government doesn't call it a war because then it would be open to claims that they acted illegally. One of the consequences of this stance is that Korean vets are treated differently than other vets. Which really angers me to no end. Your average American is basically a fair person. They expect those who seek leadership positions among us to be fair when they ask us to sacrifice for their goals and in return they assure us that they aren't going to waste our lives and treasure on some useless gesture. That's why so many people are incensed over Bush and his invasion of Iraq. Had they found any WMD, the average American would have been satisfied. We were asked to sacrifice for a particular reason and that reason was a lie.
It's not the first time that our government has done that however. People are basically peaceable towards one another. That's why you need to whip people up into a frenzy before you can contemplate war. Get them to fear, then give them a target. In that sense, we've never been told the truth about any of our wars.
Gosh Misha and Sufi I don't know anything about all that. All I'm saying is based on what the veterans are paid, based on what medical expenses are covered and based on whether or not a common infantry man can be buried in Arlington Cemetery, the United States of America says Korea wasn't war. That is all I know about that. They aren't even considered veterans really. Now is that philosophically correct, I leave that debate to the boys above.
Well, it's yet another lie from your government that you guys blindly believe. Open your eyes, would you?
It's not whether or not we believe it Misha. It is how it is. Do I on a philosocial level agree with ledefensetech, yes. But that's not the point in question. The historical accurateness is to me. The Korean "war" was never declared a war, so how can we still be in "war" with Korea? Get it now? See what I'm trying to say.
You know, it is semantics. But if a person makes a strong statement about historical fact, they should know the fact first. A hubber said we are still at war with Korea. Okay??????????? How can that be, if war was never declared? Semantics yes, accurate information- no. They were wrong. Can't say we are still at war with Korea, if the US government says war was never declared. I'm done with this argument. Thanks for everyones input. It has been an interesting conversation whether or not did the United States Government declare war on Korea in the 1950's. Amazing.
The United States Government, doesn't care about your comparisons. It doesn't care what the philosophical debate is. War isn't war UNTIL they declare it. It was never declared. It will never be declared. It isn't even a considered a "conflict." That is fact. I'm done.
How about them American soldiers in Iraq. When can we expect their arrival home? Anybody?
Not anytime soon, we're not out of Germany or Japan and it's been over 60 years since we ended our wars with them.
LOL RK, I missed that starting point. Of course if war was never officially declared, there was no need to officially end it, we are on the same page here.
OK, we might have different definitions of declaration of war then. I mean the official paper that offending party sends to offended party, stating it is starting a war.
I thought that too - Barbarossa was a surprise attack, and Stalin was caught with his pants down
We'll get out of Iraq becuz we're gonna blow up North Korea next. Hell Yeah!
"Berlin (By Trans-Atlantic Telephone to New York), June 22 (Sunday.) (AP)—Adolf Hitler declared war at dawn today on Soviet Russia.
Propaganda Minister Goebbels read the proclamation and then Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop went on the air to read out a formal declaration of war against the nation with which Germany linked herself in a 10-year nonaggression pact less than two years ago."
TK, trust me, there was no formal paper sent from Germany to Russia. I am done with this point, unless you find a text of such a paper and a proof that it was sent.
tksensei- what's your true purpose for posting this? To embarrass Misha? Because that won't work. To engage him in conversation? Because that won't work either. Or just to prove a bullheaded point? And that doesn't work much with anyone around here on HubPages. Posting this after the issue was gone and dead?????? After nobody else rebuttal your position?????? For what reason???? Especially after Misha politely said he was done conversing with you, proves what????? What? Why?
You know, Misha and I are at odds more than 99.9% of the time. But this showing of yours here, is really bad form. I know what Misha wrote. You just missed the message I think.
Umm, ok, where is the declaration of war? Did you actually read the text? It declared that Stalin was preparing to war, no more no less. No news for me, really - see my reply to Sufi
Agreed - it stated that Germany would prepare to resist any Russian attacks. Not the same as declaring war.
Anyway, Misha, what would you know about Russian history? Anybody would think that you lived there or something.
That is the formal declaration of war you asked for. At this point, for some reason, you are just in denial of the fact. Good luck with that.
For me, this is all new information - we never learned many of the things that you guys take for granted.
Damn straight Sufidreamer. You have a great perspective. I bet it has taken you far in life.
Heck Sufi, this is news for most Americans. What passes for history education here in the States, at least in the elementary and secondary schools leaves something to be desired.
Actually Misha, cool doesn't even describe it.
It's like finally someone gets it. Glad you came into the mix.
Thanks, RK - My knowledge of US history is limited, so it is great to learn from guys like you and LDT. Same with Misha and Russian history.
It depends what you mean by 'far in life.' Living on the side of a Greek mountain, writing for a living, and surrounded by historical piles of rocks - can't complain
Be careful feeding the trolls RK, they'll tag after you worse than lost puppies or cute kittens. Trolls live for causing flame wars and fighting with people. Ignore them and they go away.
I'll try, but I'm afraid it is build on cultural connotations that were not shared between USA and USSR
May be tomorrow, with a fresh head I might be able to get it. Let's see...
by Julianna 11 years ago
Millions of Americans are mad over bailouts, unemployment, corporate greed and the list goes on. A Iraq veteran is hurt and he defended our Country. How do you feel about the direction the States are taking? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45054697/ns … qj_6Zv7is8
by HubPages 6 years ago
how to tell someone you love them
by jayorban 13 years ago
Uh huh. And pigs are starting to fly. I see things loosening up for the affluent. That's about it. Let it trickle down to the average joe and I'll have more of a comment.
by Jennifer McLeod 11 years ago
How do you feel about interracial relationships?
by RichusFridum 10 years ago
The President of the United States and the... what?... "First Man"Your thoughts?
by Alem Belton 8 years ago
How do you feel about Gun Control?There seems to be a push toward government intervention and with all the shootings that keep getting publicized in the news, we will all eventually be affected by guns in some way. Now of course we have the 2nd Amendment (for now), but what if the government...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|