when arguing the current war to reference ancient history—WWII, Korea and Vietnam
Ancient history?? World War II started in '37 or '39 depending on which of the primary conflicts you happen to be referencing. That's 70 years maximum. What terms would you use to describe the Ming Dynasty i wonder?
protect the Soviet menace in Eastern Europe
Don't you mean protect "against". A typo im sure but it completely reverses the gist of your argument.
We are stuck in Korea because the US
We're not "stuck" anywhere. For better or worse, we are where we "choose" to be.
The same applies to Iraq because we let the crazies out of the bag
We didn't let the crazies out their bag, we stupidly let ourselves becomes crazed and then jumped right in the bag with them.
Now everyone's surprised that "crazies + crazed = crazier". Who would have thought?
To honor our troops bring them home for they gallantly did all they could for a people glaringly unappreciative
Why should they be appreciative?? They didn't ask for our help. We didn't go there for their benefit. We were chasing fictitous WMD remember..... we bullshitted our way into invading their country... and you expect thanks and a fond farewell??
If it was acceptable to lose over 1,000 American troops just in training for Operation Overlord, but it's a waste of human life to lose over 3,000 in Iraq, then your logic should be questioned
His logic should be questioned.... but not over these points. Your point's hardly logically valid either since your comparing apples with oranges. It was "acceptable" or at least "accepted" to lose 1000 in '44 and it is definitely not acceptable to lose 3,000 now for this sham.
IRAQ: The US, the worlds only remaining superpower, with a military budget totalling almost 50% of the worlds military spending according to these figures
WWW LinkINVADES another sovereign state in a fictional War on Terror and loses 3,000+ lives (to date) in the process.... never mind they were actually Saudis who trashed the towers.
WWII: The US being attacked and defending itself in a war that was global in nature, universally supported and what's more totally neccessary...... (from our point of view).
Although you were specifically referring to a single operation we lost a hell of lot more than 1,000 in WWII and I for one have never heard a peep from anyone to suggest that every life wasn't worth it.
Its a highly reasonable conclusion, (if you want to use "count the dead" argument), to say a 1,000 there was better spent than 3,000 here. Thats not the problem with his argument. The problems actually yours because you suggest that every wars the same. "If you say this is fine, then you cant say thats not". That's idiotic.
If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.
No they dont. First of all Darfur is a region of Sudan not a country.
WWW LinkThe fighting there is FOR Darfur not AGAINST it. Secondly no one is "screaming for war", they are speaking out against and are looking to defuse one.
Thirdly, the vast majority agree that Darfur is a legitimate crises vs some half baked ream of propaganda that only the US and it's lacky states Australia and GB were prepared to swallow re: Iraq. So again it's apples and oranges.
I also have the brain power to see through the myopic "well it was ok then, but this is different" bullcrap.
Im not sure you do because real brain power, to use your turn of phrase, essentially boils down to being able to run horses for courses. Your argument instead is essentially to run the same beast round every track, the same way.
Thats not smart. Thats dumb. That's not brain power but rather a lack of brain power.