Re: Iran Digging Mass Graves for US troops
"Secondly, the US simply cannot cope with fighting on three fronts (remember WW2 and Hitler taking on Russia, Western Europe and the US...)"
Iraq and Afghanistan, combined, are not even half as big as our peak in Vietnam, if I remember my numbers correctly. 550,000 troops.
Vietnam, IIRC, was not nearly as large as Korea's "police action".
Korea, in turn, was dwarfed by WWII.
WWII saw the U.S. field much more than a million troops of all stripes combined, from a nation about half as populous as we are today.
Yeah, if we had the POLITICAL will do to the job, the financial cost would be huge but relatively brief. The cost of our sons' and a smaller number of our daughters' blood would also be huge but similarly brief.
At what point does liberating an oppressed population and allowing full freedom of conscience (despite allowing a religious faction to practice THEIRS without "full" "privilege" to practice the spread of Islam at the point of a sword and "kill the infidel") just become the right thing to do, regardless of "national interests", which is merely a code word for "it will reduce commodity prices in the homeland"?
My religion teaches that no mere man or woman can slow or hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Our job is to do the right thing until that happens. If the right thing brings on Armageddon, then so be it. To do less is to cower in the face of evil. Expansion of any war is not the "fault" of the righteous, but the evil deed of those who resist what is right. If it only makes the Nazis mad if we resist them, tough cookies. They're the ones who are wrong.
What infuriates me is all the misguided moralizing which has reduced the justification for the Iraq invasion to the presence of nuclear fuel rods or loaded chemical weapons. Those were among the biggest reasons, but not the only ones. Why liberating the oppressed Shiite bastards who now want to kill us and the Sunnis was not enough justification by itself is a damning reflection on our nation's collective values. Saddam said he had WMDs, tricked a few intel goof-offs into thinking he still had them, had staff scientists lying to him about how "close" they were, was seeking nuclear materials but was not yet successful in obtaining all of them, and somehow managed to dispose of literally TONS of chemical weapons which UN inspectors had seen and counted a few years before WITHOUT providing adequate proof of their destruction. The physical evidence of their destruction remains missing.
So, as Isaiah said, woe unto those who call good evil, and evil good. I think it was Isaiah. My modern oracles agree with him, and also teach that rebellion is not proper so long as the government God suffers to exist still protects freedom of conscience, ownership and control of property, punishes crimes, and such. Did Saddam's government do that for all, or just for the dictator's family?
Gulf War I and the initial occupation of Iraq pissed me to no end because they were both half-assed efforts, just in different ways. Afghanistan pisses me because the lessons of doom if you support a corrupt government from the Vietnam experience were forgotten, perhaps in our enchantment by initial successes of specops and mobilizing local resources and wonderful tech devices. And now my son is scheduled to go there just as our gov't is mirroring the rules of engagement that tied our troops' hands to badly in Southeast Asia.
Good ideas with inadequate commitment of resources too often end BADLY. And in 'Stan, our barely-adequate number of active-duty boots on the ground is composed of a large contingent of marginal local military and a large number of dope-smoking local police.
So yeah, it looks to me more like a deliberate attempt by the powers that be to appear strong on defense while almost guaranteeing failure. It doesn't rise to the level of treason, without something more. Makes me want to look for evidence of a conspiracy. Too bad so much energy of the conspiracy theory movement is being wasted on competing and contradictory fairy tales.
Couragewolf: On government spending, let's say that I fully approve of massive government spending on those things which are THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Yup, national defense. "General welfare" in 1789 did NOT mean pouring money into the black hole of welfare "entitlements" to which no person is really entitled. If we want to tax each other and spend on a "safety net" of some sort, it must be reserved for only those whose physical or mental conditions truly prevent them from working. It's still best left to family first, private charity second, and government only if we want to and can afford it. If we took that "guns vs. butter" argument from Peanut Carter's day and fully put it into effect, just adjust your lifestyle for Sharia law, pay an extra tax as an "infidel", and kiss your freedom good-bye. But look at the bright side: everyone's tummies will be full!
Me, I'm not willing to pay that price. Would rather die first. So don't hint that there is any hypocrisy in sensible people being able to make sensible distinctions between proper and improper government spending. It's just like that rifle you own--morally neutral. It's the use, user, reasons for use and care in usage that make it "right" or "wrong".
And any otherwise innocent Iranians who die because of a war to stop them from following the North Korea path*, well the moral responsibility for that lies squarely and solely on the heads of the evil leadership who caused the catastrophe to fall on their own country.
*And yes, I despise the hypocrisy of our nation and world in not flattening North Korea about 15 years ago, or whenever it was the FIRST TIME they kicked out the Useless Numbskulls, U.N. nuclear inspectors.
Rant off.
