I think polls like this are about as useless as the next poll.

If these people are anything like my Mother, Sister, and her friends then they have no idea about politics whatsoever. A couple of my Sister's friends actually tried to argue F 9/11 with me and voted against Bush because of that movie.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Does this type of poll come as a shocker to anyone? This is coming from the same society that gets enraged when sports coverage eats into regularly scheduled programming or when the deliver boy is late. I mean who doesn't want the troops to come home? Seems like a no brainier to me

 

In my humble opinion and limited experience there is almost inevitably a difference between what one wants, and what must be done.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

I was going to post but he pretty much said it for me. Nothing worthwhile has ever come without hardship.

 

It's true.

Reminds me of the Political Cartoon gpatmac posted a few months ago:



When that thread was posted by gpatmac, I-Club's liberals attacked it based on the fact they think today's war is unjust. That isn't the purpose of the cartoon at all. It's pointing out the differences of then and now. The conspiracies, the bickering, the complaining, the sandy ****, and the lack of patience that did not exist in that era.

Everything that was done in that era forged patient men and women. It started at the home. There was no talking at the table and god help you if you didn’t ask to be excused from the table when you finished your meal, etc. I was even raised in this manner seeing how I lived with my Grandparents for 10yrs. Nothing was automated. You did everything by hand which made the work ethic a lot more tedious and rewarding. Every aspect of life all the way down to farming was tougher.

WWII was one of the most propagandized wars this world has ever witnessed. There's entire books on the subject. Things were done to rally support that never needed to happen. For example, some goods were rationed in the US and allied countries just to get everyone involved in the cause. They didn't even need to ration them. If that were to happen with today’s society then it would have been frowned upon as a “giant conspiracy.” It would have never flew! The support would have gone straight out the window because of the bad "war machine." Everyone here knows it! Yet at the same time every Liberal here (and in the world) says that WWII was for a good cause? WTF?! Are you kidding me?! Yes, it was for a good cause but there’s no way you would have supported it back then with your current thinking.

They can say this because they took no part in the struggle and because it's already in the history books. But can you image taking today’s society back 65yrs ago? There's not a snowballs chance in hell. Everyone here would be speaking German.

 

I associate those people who have little value for the intangible factors that make life worth living with nothing. They live their lives in a vacuum of absence where all they have to live for is themselves which in my eyes makes them inherently nothing. He who will not give his life for another has but no life to live (Shakespeare had his ish together). I was raised in a family that sounds similar to your upbringing. I asked to be excused after diner and that was only after I ate everything. My dad made me help with labor around the house, etc.... I am sure there are many out there that would accuse me of bring brought up in an uncultured background and I would counter that by telling them that every summer after 3rd grade I traveled. From June to August I have never spent a summer at home and still have not. I don't categorize people based on their liberal, conservative, independent standpoints at all. I call it as I see it. They are lazy and unwilling to sacrifice for something greater than themselves. It just happens to me more overwhelming in one group than another.

 

USA = land of instant gratification and short attention spans.

 

Thank you.

 

I think you're wrong, if we took today's society back to 1940 we'd definatly go kick Hittler's ***. Liberals tend to respond to genocide and threats of world domination from a dictator who, without interference, actually has the power to see his plans to fruition.
Don't try to make the connection between Hittler and Saddam. The genocide was similar, but Saddam never had a snowballs chance in hell at world domination. The ****'s came damn close, even with the whole rest of the world against them (instead of how the US alone shut down Saddam relatively quickly).

 

This is complete bull****. So if it wasn't for that one factor today's liberals would have completely accepted the fact WWII was more propagandized than OIF and OEF? Bwhahaahaha. You're full of hot air, MVWRX. There's no way!

You say this because it takes no effort in doing so now that the book has been closed for 60yrs. Besides, if you didn’t agree with our intentions during WWII then you’d be a monster. I find this very hard to believe.

If you truly feel this way then why not substitute world domination with the past possibility of world terror? Remember, even Clinton and Scott Ritter thought this was factual with Saddam even though our most recent attempts found nothing. There’s no denying Saddam committed mass genocide and had access to these weapons in the same time frame year ago.
But push that all aside and over 300,000+ deaths through genocide just doesn’t do anything for you, huh? How selfish and one-sided can you get?

 

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with you, Salty. But your approach to discourse is a little heavy-handed.

I don't see our war with Iraq on the same threat level as WWII. Genocide or not. The Germans had controlled most of Europe and the Japanese had overrun most of Asia. We weren't exactly diving into the war until Pearl Harbor.

Our national policy has never been based upon altruism. Its harsh but true. Its based upon survival. It has been said we don't have "friends" we have "interests".

 

Look, I know you're wrong. The one difference between WWII and now is a HUGE one. Could Saddam ever have taken over the world? Never, not for a god damned second. And you call that a small difference!?!?! That's HUGE. Like you said, without WWII we'd be speaking German. Without the most recent war in Iraq, we would NOT be taken over by Iraq. That's rediculous.
Don't belittle the difference between WWII and Iraq. Regardless of the propaganda aspect, Hitler and **** Germany were enemies on a whole different level than Saddam and Iraq.
And your connection between world domination and world terror is tenuous at best.
I will reiterate: if Saddam had been as much of a world threat as Hitler, no liberal would say a damn thing about taking him out. Liberals may be pacifists for the most part, but they still have the human attribute of self-preservation. And don't point out 'selfishness'. Only the middle east and the US will benefit from the current war. The whole damned world benefited from WWII.

Salty, you make good points on almost all issues, but this blind assertation that the liberals of today would have complained about WWII, or that Saddam is in any way comparable to Hitler, is rediculous. It's purely unsubstantiated anti-liberal opinion that can only possibly incite anger in liberals and arrogance/self-rightousness in conservatives.

 

Never said he was. His reasoning is groundless. How can you support one and not the other? His reasoning is based on the assumption that Hitler could have conquered the world. Well Laddie Freakin' Da!

I realize I said "we'd be speaking German" but there's really no way to tell. Instead, it's not enough to justify the war on factual correlation between the two [mass-genocide] that we have to rely on assumption? Wow!

 

Alright, I'm bored enough for one more post. If you justify war solely on the fact that a dictator has commited genocide, then we have a lot more wars to start. The 'assusmption' I made is one you also make on a fairly regular basis. Not only that, but it is an assumptiont that most people in the world regard as being as close to a fact as possible. Are you just trying to bait me with this? Because your argument is sounding a little forced.

 

WWII changed the face of our entire nation. Rationing, War bonds, black-outs and the induction of a large portion of our male poplulatio. Today, a war hasn't even slowed down our daily lives with the obvious exception of the warriors themselves. They are forced to face the ultimate sacrifice for a war that many americans feel is not necessary.

 

You're completely out of your mind if you think WWII was fought because of the genocide “one Dictator committed." We had an interest in that war and her name was Europe among other parts of the globe. Again, your point is groundless.

But I’ll play your game. So let's go ahead and consider being a Ruthless Dictator and genocide as our only criteria. Guess what? The United States has the best track record in the history of man. Hell, we managed to get two in the last two decades (Slobodan Miloševic).