What would have happened if white-flag Democrats had existed all along our history?

Question

The Democrats' withdrawal plans from Iraq aren't just short-sighted, but also ignorant of history:

In recent years, South Korea has strengthened itself to the point that the United States cut its forces to "only" 37,500 military personnel.

We still have 69,000 troops in Germany, 62 years after V-E Day. We still have 47,000 troops in Japan and another 12,000 in Italy.

The U.S. military has more than 165,000 troops stationed in those four nations decades after their wars ended (technically, the Korean War is in a 53-year cease-fire).

That is 20,000 more troops than we now have in Iraq.

What's more, the conflicts that preceded the stationing of troops in those four countries cost many, many more lives than the approximately 3400 that have, sadly, been lost in the Iraq conflict.

For those that think Iraq has never been a threat to us, that is a often repeated non-fact that even your cndidates are wise enough not to repeat. Here are just the more recent articles to provide you with the facts.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/576bqpce.asp

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/goodwin/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tenetnuke28apr28,1,7017349.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18357494/

Brite Tiger - why do you insist on repeating the "Civil War" lie? 80 - 90% of the attacks in Iran are carried out by foreigners.

Answer 1

We would all be in concentration camps, reeducation facilities, or in mass graves.

That interesting though....please update, why do you think S Korea was successful in fending off communism but S Vietnam was NOT?

Its amazing that Bush, according to libs, is a war criminal and complete and utter failure as commander in chief yet statistically we've lost on average only a mere fraction as we have in truly costly wars! He must be the most successful failure in history!!!!!

Answer 2

Apples and oranges. The other wars and conflicts you mention are totally out of context with the situation in Iraq. We are merely refereeing a civil war in Iraq for no reason.This is no longer mostly an insurgency, but a civil war. Civil wars are long and brutal, and do not lend themselves to outcomes that result in power sharing, much less democracy

The situation in Iraq is getting worse at a fairly rapid rate. The simplest definition of victory is stability. Thus, the simplest indicator of a war in the process of being won is that stability is increasing. Losing means that instability is increasing. We are losing. As there is little sign that anything on the ground will change for the better, this war is lost. On increasing violence and sectarian militia infiltration of the Iraqi Army

Answer 3

The difference between Iraq and Vietnam, as opposed to WWI and WWII is that we had allies in both WWI and WWII and we only fought when our country was threatened. Remember, we stayed out of WWII for years until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Wars of agression never go well. That is why we should only attack other countries when they are a threat to us.

Answer 4

There have been isolationists, pesimists, and 'surrender monkeys' throughout US history. There were many Americans who wanted nothing to do with either World War, for instance. In an open society, for virtually any opinion or cause there will be at least a few willing to espouse it.

Answer 5

so what you're saying is that America doesn't just fight wars, they maintain an occupying presence long after everyone else has gone home.
What other countries have left a military presence in other nations after hostilities have ended?

Answer 6

We wouldn't be invading countries that have nothing to do with 9/11, for one.

Answer 7

The first thing that came to mind was "I say, anyone up for a spot of tea?"

Answer 8

You wouldn't be speaking English my friend