http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/iraq.main/index.html

Have we found the WMD yet?

Rest in peace you brace men and women who died for what you believed in.

I just pray their sacrifice wasn't in vain. I hope that in the end Iraq becomes a place of freedom and prosperity for the very much abused Iraqi people...or, if that doesn't prove possible, at the very least, never again becomes a haven for evil dictators or terrorists.

We may lose 1000 more before we feel we can pull out without the whole country crumbling or turning into mini-Iran.

If there were any WMDs hidden away, they are likely in Syria not Iraq and will not be found by us.

For fucks sake, if we stopped doing the right thing every time soldiers died, we'd still be british.

Soldiers dying is never good, but what can come from it can be. Thats why we fight.

When I swore into the Army, I took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic. I'm pretty sure everyone going into any branch of the service does the same thing today.

I think that the fight on terrorism is a good idea. I'm still not sure rolling into Iraq *was* a good idea, but now that we are there, we'd *better* do a DAMN fine job- especially in light of the fact we decided to do it unilaterally.

Elemak said it well: Soldiers dying is never good, but what can come from it can be

It would have been nice if at the very least would have finished up in Afghanistan first.

It saddens me everytime I see another casuality from an invansion under false pretense.

It would have been nice if at the very least would have finished up in Afghanistan first.Like when we took care of Japan before we finished off Germany huh? :rolleyes:

The media has been dying for that number to reach 1,000+ so that they could write major articles on it (and I hope that it isn't just a politically powerful number to them). It is sad that we have lost that many brave soldiers, but consider how many have died worldwide because of terrorism and oppressive dictators? Their sacrifice is not in vain; they are willingly making the world a safer place. As for WMDs, if they do exist, they're either in a hole in the ground or in one of the many other less-than-friendly Middle Eastern countries (as I and many others have said). In short, I salute our Armed Forces.

Like when we took care of Japan before we finished off Germany huh? :rolleyes:
Simply the most asinine post I have seen so far this month.

Bylimet, I have news for your, Akipt was being sarcastic. During WW2, even though it was the Japanese that attacked us, we went after Germany first and then Japan.

We were already involved in the european theater when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Akipts' message is very unclear, even if it was ment to be sarcastic. After we nuked the piss out of them, General MacArthur was appointed to supervise Japan's further adaptation to western civilaization... Capitalism. Now there is much more to this than what I know off the top of my head, but who was to oversee their conversion besides us... It was the Russians that would have been involved but I believe they took eastern europe in the post-war barganing (division of the spoils of war) and look at how eastern europe turned out compared to Japan.

We were already involved in the european theater when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Try again.

I do not forsee this ending well...

I dont ever see it ending sadly.


Ibudin

Back to what the idea of this thread should be....

No matter whether you think the Iraq war was a good idea or not...

Whether you hate Bush or love him....

The fact is these men and women who have died, have been wounded, have served or or all still serving, deserve our support and appreciation for their sacrifice. Again let's all pray that something of lasting good will come from their sacrifice.

This is for Cristo in response to my comment about america being in the european theater before we were bombed by japan. Well you sir need to review your history. We started gearing up, dispite declaring our neutrality on 05/09/1939. The Neutrality Act signed on 04/11/1939 allowed the US to send arms and other forms of aid to Great Britan and France.

13/08/1940 Roosevelt agrees to supply 50 first world war destoryers to britan. by 15/10/1940 at leaste 16million americans are signed for service.

by the beginning of 1941 we were already gearing up our naval fleets. and by may of 1941 we were using the navy to protect british supply convoys. by the end of May, Roosevelt is repealing the Neutrality act.

By september we were in the thick of naval confrontations with german u-boats and have alloted up to 100million to the Soviets for purchasing of war materials. By october we were kneck deep in German Naval skirmishes.

Look if that is not involvment in the european theater before our declaration of war on Japan with was December 8, 1941 then I dont know what is. perhapse we didn't actually declare war outright but the repeal of the neutrality act brought us full into it well before the Pearl harbor attack.

you can find any of that shit on your favorite on-line WWII websight.how about www.worldwar-2.net (http://www.worldwar-2.net)

Why don't you read your own timelines?

For instance that the first buildup passed by Congress was for building up both fleets, for use against Japan and Germany?

You might also notice that the first direct actions(trade embargos) were applied to Japan?

Maybe also note that we supplied war materials to China as well as the UK and France?


13/08/1940 Roosevelt agrees to supply 50 first world war destoryers to britan. by 15/10/1940 at leaste 16million americans are signed for service.
Actually they were "sold" to the UK in return for 99 year leases of several Brit naval bases. The 16 million were done(again) for preparation of war in both Asia and Europe.

Then you have the silly little matter of the US declaring war on Japan 3 days before declaring war on Germany and Italy.

ok im sick of arguing with you. You are correct. I only ment to point out that we (the United States of America) was "more" active in helping our allies in the Atlantic region prior to declaration of war on the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan).

Well I've done some further reading and it appears from this document that our first non-aggressive involvment in what would become WW2 following the Neutrality Act of 1935 was noted in this statement: "in keeping with the Neutrality Act, the President on October 5, proclaimed the existence of war between Italy and Ethiopia and prohibited the shipment of munitions to either belligerent. Another proclamation prohibited travel by United States citizens on vessels of either belligerent nation. Italy, well-equipped with munitions, was scarcely handicapped by our action while we bowed out as a potential source of supplies to Ethiopia. The Government used its influence, short of becoming involved in war, in an attempt to restrain the aggressor. In this it was probably hewing to the line of public opinion in the United States for less than one-tenth of us, according to the opinion polls, favored military action against aggressor nations.8 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ATO/Admin/WarProgram/WarProgram-1.html#fn8) " -- http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ATO/Admin/WarProgram/WarProgram-1.html

segment 7, last paragraph.

this is the first "action" that I see in our path to war on the Axis powers.

so am I completely wrong? I really don't want to go further into a verbal pissing contest with you Crist0, but I will conclude by stating that I am providing resources in an attempt to corroborate my claim.

I only ment to point out that we (the United States of America) was "more" active in helping our allies in the Atlantic region prior to declaration of war on the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan).

This is correct.

Your original statement was worded very poorly(when you say involved in a theater, it is understood as militarily). We were involved in the Pacific(at war with Japan) before we were involved in the European theater(at war with Italy/Germany).