Quote Originally Posted by Caprisun View Post
Don't attack me personally just because I have the capacity to recognize this reality.
You are advocating violence. You are a violent individual. If you take that as an attack, oh well. I am merely speaking the truth.

Im glad you brought Germany into this. German is currently one of the worlds most prosperous nations. How can this be?
Better economic policies, and no Treaty of Versailles (which would've taken up until roughly the 1980s, by some estimates, to pay off).

70 years ago they were ripped to shreds by the most violent war in the worlds history. All you have to do is study the aftermath of each of the World Wars to find the answer. Each war was handled differently. The Allied forces carry much of the responsibility for the rise of Hitler and Nazi party due to the neglect of German following the first World War. We allowed Germany to fall into such an economic rut that a man like Hitler and his German nationalism could gather a following. They were vulnerable. Hitler could never rise to power in a happy, prosperous Germany. We basically told Germany to fuck themselves. We forced them to pay reparations, confiscated a lot of their machinery, and then left them to fend for themselves.
I agree so far. War does not create peace in this instance, at least not for the Germans. Peace for us, but not for them?

We left prematurely. Now look at the difference after World War II. Not only did we not leave them to fend for themselves, but we are still there today. We are also in Japan, which is another prosperous nation. This serves as an invaluable lesson for any future military endeavor, including Iraq.
So a lack of crushing reparations had nothing to do with their current prosperity? How about the shift to freer market economic policies? Notice how with the Treaty of Versailles, the German government was forced to print off money like crazy in order to pay off the insane amount of reparations required. That lead to severe hyperinflation and economic collapse.

Yet after WW2, Germany, specifically West Germany, shifted to more prosperous economic policies. You can not tell me that the mere presence of an army lead to their prosperity. Look at Iraq; they have a foreign army in their lands, coupled with poor economic policies. Wouldn't the presence of an army lead them to prosperity? They're still a dirt-poor country with a fledgling "democratic" (as if that is preferable) government confined to green zones. Not to mention that we had no reason to be there in the first place.

This is not just an anomaly. It holds true for every invasion in the history of the United States. In every instance of failure, we left before we should have. In every instance of success, we are still there today. We still have military bases along the east coast following the revolution, we have bases in the southern states as a result of the civil war, we have a presence in Japan, Germany, and Korea. That is the goal in Iraq, not imperialistic aspirations. We don't control Germany, Japan, or South Korea. They are free countries. Ten years from now, Iraq could potentially be a peaceful nation as a result of a coalition presence and continued support. This is vital if you consider the opposite end of the spectrum and analyze the failures. We invaded Cuba and promptly left, we were rewarded with Fidel Castro. We invaded Somalia and promptly left, Somalia continues to be one of the biggest shit holes on the planet. We left Vietnam, the result was more violence and the worst genocide since the Holocaust. That region still has problems. So what is the future for Iraq? Is it really a good idea to wipe our hands of this whole mess? Don't you see the pattern? Without war, the bad people of this planet could freely impose their will on the rest of us. There must be a force for good to oppose them. This rule applies to both Vietnam and Iraq regardless of your feelings about us being there is the first place.
But don't you see the problem? We didn't need to invade any of those countries. Most of them posed threats to us. If they did indeed pose a threat, it was almost ALWAYS due to the fact that we had been meddling in their country beforehand. Japan: They did not attack us out of sheer maniacal hatred; they had their reasons, such as our embargoes against them. Vietnam: We wanted to "contain Communism?" Seriously? How did that pose a threat to us at all? How is that anything other than silly imperialistic tendencies? Iraq? Mystical weapons of mass destruction and "terrorists?"

Whether or not we left prematurely is irrelevant. You stated that war creates peace, yet you listed off countless examples of how war prevented peace because of imperialism under the guise of "stopping Communism" or "stopping the terrorists." Do you see the problem here? Most of these problems were caused by us!

You are very closed-minded. War is much more sophisticated than an "ooga booga caveman mentality."
How is it any different? The technology is a little more advanced, so that makes killing less bad, more mature, and more glorious?