rickair7777

No you're not a dimwit...the dimwits already "know" the answer. You're pondering the question and seeking to understand the issue better. Like I said there are usually not absolute right and wrong answers to this issue.

jungle

One other thing to ponder is that the definition of "legal" can vary quite a bit over time.

"Legal" can sometimes be a very flexible concept, subject to change and defined at will by those empowered to do so.

One might also consider lawful vs stupid. 60,000 casualties in a single day might give one cause to question.

One of the two great slaughterhouse battles of World War I, the Somme still rings in the minds of the British as an example of the senseless slaughters of the war. Planned in 1916, the goal of the battle was to be a massive Anglo-French effort to create a rupture in the German lines that could be exploited with a decisive blow. The German attack on Verdun, however, forced the Allied commanders to change their plans, and the battle became a primarily British offensive, though the French still contributed significantly. The British prepared for the offensive with a massive several day artillery barrage on the German lines, which they hoped would damage the German defenses enough to allow British forces to break through. On the opening day of the battle, they learned that it in fact failed to do so when the British suffered 60,000 casualties in one day; the greatest single day loss of life in the history of the British Army. Attacks continued all along the Somme area until 13 November, 1916 when the offensive finally petered out. The battle, though ultimately indecisive as there was no breakthrough, was strategically important to the allies, as it forced the Germans to withdraw 40 miles and later set the stage for the final Allied victory in 1918. The Allies paid for it dearly, however; the Allies lost a total of 623,906 casualties, including 100 tanks and 782 aircraft. The Germans lost nearly 600,000 men.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-bloodi...orld-war-i.php

UnderOveur

For a representative gov't, democracy, and equality under the law for a nation that had not had any of these things in generations, to say nothing of ridding that nation and the world of a narcissistic psychopath who tortured and murdered his own people for fun.

For this...




Iraqis worldwide celebrate landmark vote

More than 280,000 expatriates registered in 14 countries

Friday, January 28, 2005 Posted: 8:53 PM EST (0153 GMT)

(CNN) -- "I feel as if I've just been born"; "It was the best thing I have actually ever done in my life"; "This is just like a dream."

Those were the words of Iraqi expatriates Friday as they went to polling sites around the world to take part in the first free Iraqi elections in more than a half-century.

Around the world in 14 countries, tens of thousands of expatriates -- many of them exiles who fled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship -- were jubilant as they had a say in their homeland's government for the first time.

The voting began with Shimon Haddad, who, as manager of the biggest voting center in Australia, cast his ballot about 15 minutes before the polls opened at 7 a.m. (3 p.m. ET Thursday) in Sydney.

He described himself as "very excited, very happy."

"Happy because I vote -- the first time in our life we were allowed to vote for a democratic government," he said.

"This is democracy in the making. This is freedom in the making," said Ghanim al-Shibli, Iraq's ambassador to Australia.

"The Iraqi people are experiencing and tasting freedom. This is something tremendous -- just give you goose pimples."

Iraqi exiles Falah Hassan, a shoe factory worker, and Muayed Maaksoud, an agricultural engineer, drove four hours to the capital.

"I am lost for words," Hassan said. "I am 49 years old, but I feel as if I've just been born."

Maaksoud said he felt like "a new human."

Outside a polling site in London, 19-year-old Zaineb Field said, "I must say it was the best thing I have actually ever done in my life. ... People were clapping, so emotional, you feel like you want to cry."

"I'd like to thank every American in uniform," said Nick Najjar in Southgate, Michigan.

"I'd like to thank the government of the United States entirely, Democratic or Republic[an] for what they did to Iraq to liberate Iraq from Saddam's dictatorship. Thank you very much."

"It's the greatest day in my life, the greatest feeling ever in my life," said Montador Almosawi, also in Southgate.

brianb

You just ain't getting it I'm afraid. I'm all for getting rid of despot cowards and murder's but, where is the opposing viewpoints in your post? You haven't answered my question as to who is next? IF, and I mean IF, our mission was to remove murderous dictators and straw men, why haven't we tackled any of the nuclear equipped country's? We both know the answer to that. My point is, stop the two stepping when it comes to war. Declare it, fight it and win it per the Constitution, not per some nebulous theory put forth by some gutless desk jockey. Our military deserves better. Period.

jungle

War is not the worst thing, nation building is perhaps far worse for it requires war and then years of painful and expensive human and monetary costs. Then it ends in failure almost every time.

Rid the world of an evil despot and almost surely another will take his place. We might better serve the world by fighting less and letting others sort their own problems, unless they actually become our problem.

UnderOveur

There are some who would argue that on 9/11 it became our problem, and others who would say it was our problem long before that.

Regardless, no one can say what has been done is a "failure". Not credibly, anyway. Democracy and representative gov't is a very messy and long process. It will be decades, perhaps, until such a conclusion can be drawn with any sort of credibility.

jungle

All of that very much depends on how you measure success.

There is no real debate that many of the actions of the last one hundred years have been little more than bloodletting without any real return.

The goals of war and nation building are of late almost never clearly stated, and it is even rarer that the unstated/loosely stated goals are achieved.

What constitutes success, what are the goals and what are the gains?

Without clearly stated goals, how can we even begin to measure success? What is it worth in terms of life and treasure?

Josephus

See Michael G New

UnderOveur

Au contraire, I "get it" all too well. You just don't like the answer.

As for our military, they bought into it with 100% enthusiasm and dedication. Still do, in point of fact. Furthermore, what they have achieved (and are achieving) is nothing less than utterly remarkable. Of course, this is their historical norm, so it isn't too surprising.

But, of course, that side of the story has intentionally been ignored and under-reported in the service of a particular political ideology.

And everyone in America knows it, too. Admitting it, however, has proven to be another matter altogether. Regardless, post-9/11 America was united in what the proper response was. It took years of focused, intentional effort to shatter that unity.

But you are right about one thing....our military deserved far better than that.

jungle

We are highly adept at killing bad guys and not too skillful in building societies.