Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I believe that there was an official date marking the end of "active" hostilities or something like that. Forget what it was called.

Or we could go with the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis last year.

I'm fairly certain there was internal instability in Greece and Italy well into the 50s and beyond depending on how you define instability. The type of on going instability may have been different, but that's probably because the Europeans were not enlighted enough to invent homocide bombing.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Germany? England? France? Holland?

Are you suggesting that, just as we saw tremendous growth in Europe beginning in 1948, we will see similar growth in Iraq from three years after the war ended (so, starting next March), with a few minor pockets of continued disruption?

No, I think it will be more like Southern Europe, that's why I have been using Greece and Italy as my examples.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Mission Accomplished.

(I know you were being sarcastic. I just love saying that, and picturing Bush playing dress-up warrior.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He also started the military buildup that continued under Reagan.

At first he tried to reduce the military budget. Then when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan he finally saw the light.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Was it reasonable belief? Hope? I sure hope he isnt' running faith-based foreign policy.

As to why SH was playing those games, it has been widely explained that SH wanted his neighbors to think he had them so they wouldn't take advantage of a weakened Iraq, he wanted his people to believe he had them to keep them in line, and he wanted everyone to see him as standing up to the big, bad US of A. I'm sure this was explained to the President prior to the war, he just didn't want to believe it.

Before the invasion I gave some friends the option of 100-1 odds that we would find WMDs in Iraq. No one took my bet. I thought it laughable that anyone thought that there might not be WMDs. If I were Bush, I don't care what the intelligence guys told me, there is no way you would have convinced me that Iraq had no WMDs. And if our intelligence was sure there were no WMDs why did our military take such precautions assuming that they did? No one entered that theater with out a full chemical suit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, but is that a crime?

You are catching on.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm fairly certain there was internal instability in Greece and Italy well into the 50s and beyond depending on how you define instability. The type of on going instability may have been different, but that's probably because the Europeans were not enlighted enough to invent homocide bombing.

Fair enough. Your original statement was Europe and Japan -- I doubt there was any instability in Japan, but I think that the Greek communists and royalists were busy shooting each other until 47 or 48.

Although I think that the scale was vastly different from what is going on in Iraq.

[Spanky]

What about South Korea after the Korean war? That place was a mess. There was a massive communist insurgency for years.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What about South Korea after the Korean war? That place was a mess. There was a massive communist insurgency for years.

Not to mention Viet Nam.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, I think it will be more like Southern Europe, that's why I have been using Greece and Italy as my examples.

Well, initially you used "post-war Europe and Japan." But hey, let's not make you stick with your argument.

I'm sure hundreds of people were being killed each week by Mussolini loyalists in Italy as late as 1957. Right?

And, of course, there is no difference between a war that we had to enter and a war that we chose to enter (and could have taken some time to plan for). None at all.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
At first he tried to reduce the military budget. Then when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan he finally saw the light.

Hence Ty's use of the word "started."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are catching on.

Well, I'm definitely catching something. I blame the unions.


eta: I'm sorry -- the Unions. When discussing the all-powerful, one must capitalize.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
What about South Korea after the Korean war? That place was a mess. There was a massive communist insurgency for years.

Yeah, and we definitely had the same urgent need to go into Iraq, what with all the North Koreans pouring across an ally's border.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, initially you used "post-war Europe and Japan." But hey, let's not make you stick with your argument.

I'm sure hundreds of people were being killed each week by Mussolini loyalists in Italy as late as 1957. Right?

And, of course, there is no difference between a war that we had to enter and a war that we chose to enter (and could have taken some time to plan for). None at all.

1. the fact that the instability in Europe and Japan is not fully analgous to the situation in Iraq does not change the fact that we made a commitment to the countries of Western Europe and Japan to assist in rebuilding them after the war and that commitment did not end 2 years after the war was over. Forgetting about the fact that we still have 100,000 troops in Europe today, we kept troops in Europe through the end of the cold war as part of our commitment to ensure a lasting peace in Europe. The costs may be different than our current costs but we are starting with a different base point.

2. Remind me, why did we have to enter the war in Europe? Regardless of whether Germany declared war against us, we could have focused on Japan and let Hitler have Europe. It would have been a while before he could reach us with any affect and we would have had the bomb by then. Didn't Roosevelt run a campaign in 40 where he was going to keep us out of the war.

In Boston on October 30 FDR said; “I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

OMG, he lied!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, I'm definitely catching something. I blame the unions.


eta: I'm sorry -- the Unions. When discussing the all-powerful, one must capitalize.

Certainly Unions are directly responsible for the destruction of the public school system in the US.