American's and War

As America has enjoyed security from its physical position well at least up till now, how would Americans react if they were connected to nations that posed a threat to it.

At the moment America and its people enjoy a certain amount of safety, would Americans be as aggresive if they were bordering countires with the same mind set as Iran or North Korea etc.

What would happen if Mexico sudenly became a Muslim state, that does not neccesarily mean Mexico would be a threat just because it becomes a Muslim state but what would be the effect on the American people.

Is the attitude of some Americans so gung ho becauase they feel that war will not be brought to their doorstep and the populace of America have not had to endure the bombing of their cities or invasion of their country.

Do Americans actually care about whats being done in their name or are they just to detached from the events in the ME.

Try this on for size, M/M. More later on your post. It’s lunchtime here.

Leaving aside the question of his doubtful legacy, Bush43 should have learned three things since his bad call on “Mission Accomplished” in May, 2003.
1) He cannot impose a military solution on Iraq suppressing both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias.
2) He has successfully created a temporary sense of unpredictability as far as U.S. behavior is concerned. And
3) If he does not take full advantage of this unintended window of opportunity to achieve a political settlement , the moment will not only be lost, but Russia might well emerge as a second major player in the Middle East. This outcome will squander the best efforts over the past 2 decades of slow but deliberate progress toward establishing the US as the only major power. This in turn puts the US under a geopolitical compulsion to reach a settlement. All of which is not lost on our adversaries, you can be sure.

On the brighter side for B43, the Iranians are also under pressure. They seriously miscalculated what B43 would do. They expected a military drawdown and instead they got the surge. This has conjured up memories of the miscalculation they made on what the 1979 hostage crisis would bring. The revolutionaries had bet on a US capitulation, but in the long run they got a US supported Iraqi invasion and a Ronald Reagan rebuff.

From Iran’s perspective,
1) Americans might ultimately forget about Iraq, but Iran never can. Uncontrolled chaos in Iraq could spill over into Iran. The separatist sentiments among the Kurds; the potential return of a Sunni government if the Shia are too fractured to govern; and so forth. A certain level of security in Iraq is essential to Iran's own national interests.
2) Iraq's Shia are so fractious that they might not be serviceable as a reliable force for use by Iran to advance its interests.
3) Iran's ability to threaten terror strikes against US interests depends to a great extent on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

OTOH, Hezbollah is far more interested in holding onto and expanding its power in Lebanon than in participating with Iran in a potentially catastrophic war against the United States and Israel.

Plus, it is not lost on Iran’s leaders how al Qaeda's leaders are being hunted (since 2001) and have been forced into hiding in the bleak wasteland of west Pakistan. Iranians have little stomach for that. Iranian leaders don’t have all the options they would like and their own internal weakness could become public quickly if circumstance should bring a reversal.

The Iranians have succeeded in creating a perception of their own resolute strength, especially in the American media.
1) They successfully used their influence in Iraq to block US ambitions there.
2) They supported Hezbollah in its war against Israel. They have signaled deftness in operating a powerful covert capability.
3) They have used their nuclear program to convince their neighbors of a capability in reality beyond what has so far been achieved.
4) They have entered into relations with the Russians thereby implying a strategic evolution that portends disaster for the US and its ME policy ambitions.

Despite boasting, Iranians remember the mistake of 1979. Rather than negotiating a settlement to the hostage crisis with a weak and indecisive Pres. Carter, who had been backed into a corner, they choose to sink his chances for re-election. They released the hostages the moment after newly elected Pres. Reagan took office.

They expected gratitude. But in a breathtaking display of ingratitude, Reagan adopted a policy designed to devastate Iran in a war with Iraq. In retrospect, the Iranians realize now they should have negotiated with the weaker president rather than destroy him and wait for the stronger one. Hey, no one is perfect! Remember that.

Iran’s Rafsanjani wants negotiations with Bush43, whose strength is now crippled rather than waiting 2 years for his successor who will have the broad public support B43 is lacking. Bush43 has signaled a willingness to talk, and on the home front, US intelligence also has publicly downgraded the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.

In the long run, and on Iran’s downside, it has more to fear from Moscow than from Washington. Iran is walking a tightrope that could break at any moment. Iran is currently holding a very good hand. But by the end of the day, its flush could go busted as easily as the American’s.

The CIA is now saying Iran's nuclear weapon program has not progressed as far as it had first thought after all. Is this a White House inspired first official act of new DNI, V-Adm. McConnell? Was this unexpected change in the DNI, replacing John Negroponte, due to his refusal to continue to play the dangerous game of mixing politics and Intel? Removed by “bumping him upstairs” to keep him quiet? In other words, is the fresh out of retirement Vice Admiral McConnell in his new job to do what Negroponte refused to do?

Privately, the Iranians may be demanding a fixed timetable for withdrawal of US fighting forces from Iraq, but they have been careful not to specify any dates certain in public. Each side is signaling a re-evaluation of the other and a degree of flexibility in acceptable outcomes.

Syria shares a lengthy border with Iraq and was represented at Saturday's meeting in Baghdad. The Syrians have little direct interest in Iraq but has a great interest in Lebanon. Prior to 1922, Beirut was under the regional jurisdiction of Damascus, both under Istanbul. The regime in Damascus wants to be freed from the threat of investigation in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and it wants to have its legitimate interests in Lebanon guaranteed.

Israel, for its part, has no interest in bringing down Syria’s al Assad. They are wary of what the follow-on Sunni regime might bring which outweighs their animus for the current minority Alawite regime. The latter they can deal with; the former is an uncertain threat. In other words, Syria does not affect fundamental US interests, and the Israelis do not want to see the current regime replaced. The Syrians, therefore, are not the decisive factor when it comes to Iraq.

This conference was about the United States and Iran but held in Iraq.

Can this conference produce any or all of the following?
1) An Iraqi government dominated by Shia, neutral to Iran, hostile to jihadists but accommodating to Sunni groups.
2) Protect Iran's “commercial interest” in southern Iraqi oil fields, with some transfers to the Sunni from fields in both the Kurdish and Shiite regions.
3) Assure US commercial interests in the Kurdish regions. Say hello ExxonMobil and Halliburton.
4) Permit the Iraqi military to have defensive capabilities only. This means strictly limited armor and air power, but a larger light infantry.
5) Operate the Iraqi army on a "confessional" basis, i.e., both Sunni and Shia regiments but under central and hopefully, secular control.
6) Permit a long term US presence of up to 35,000 troops, but without security responsibility for Iraq. There to protect ExxonMobil and Halliburton. Hey, did we not say the Iraqi War was about OIL?
7) A joint US-Iranian "council" to restrain the political conflict in Iraq.
8) Restore viable US commercial relations with Iran.
9) Limit the role for Russia, but without its exclusion.
10) A symbolic commitment to yet one more Israeli-Palestinian so-called “peace process.” Road Map #3.

This kind of emergency agreement would not last very long. The primary objective would be to provide cover for each side to quietly fold its busted and wrongly founded ambitions in the game for Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
As America has enjoyed security from its physical position well at least up till now, how would Americans react if they were connected to nations that posed a threat to it.

we did. Thje indian nations and the mexican american war.

Is the attitude of some Americans so gung ho becauase they feel that war will not be brought to their doorstep and the populace of America have not had to endure the bombing of their cities or invasion of their country.

Do Americans actually care about whats being done in their name or are they just to detached from the events in the ME.

We have had wars on our doorstep before, actually quite a few since america was really isolationist up until we had to prevent most europe from speaking german.

Anyway, Americans are a different culture than you and most of europe are used to. you view as "gung ho" when really its a result of the early years of american history. It was very difficult to survive on the frontier and the wars with indians were often brutal. I guess we have had to be a fighting culture from the begining.

posted by magicmushroom

America has enjoyed security from its geographical position at least up till now. How would Americans react if they were bordering nations that posed a threat? Would Americans be as aggressive if they were bordering countries with the mind set of Iran or North Korea etc. [Edited by Don W]

The questions are good ones and are appropriate to be asked, but I treat them as rhetorical.

What would happen if Mexico suddenly became a Muslim state? That does not mean Mexico would be a threat just because it becomes a Muslim but what would be the effect on the American people? Is the [aggressive] attitude of some Americans so gung ho because they feel that war will not be brought to their doorstep and the populace of America have not had to endure the bombing of their cities or invasion of their country.

I have pointed this out earlier, Mr M/M. In WW1, where France, GB and Germany - not to mention Russia - lost millions of young men. Not only were those lives sniffed out, but this left millions of young women without a husbands and childless. The US lost about 130,000 KIA. Our population was 2X France or GB or Germany, so proportionally speaking, our losses were insignificant - except for those who died, of course.

In War Two, again, the primary belligerents lost millions of men, women and children. There were no innocents in War 2. In both the European and Pacific Theaters the US lost a total of 425,000 KIA. With a population of 130 million, an insignificant number, again excepting those who died and who loved them.

I believe Germany lost 8 million and the USSR 20 million. Numbers incomprehensible to Americans. Yes, I’m sure Mr M/M, this relative lack of pain and suffering causes many Americans to treat war very lightly. As in us describing unintended civilian deaths as “collateral damage.” As in us counting our own dead, one by one. But ignoring the deaths on the other side. As if those are inconsequential and only our KIAs count. Sorry about that.

Do Americans actually care about what’s being done in their name or are they just to detached from the events in the Middle East.

First, as a Protestant, I’m not into doing confessions. I criticize my country only because I’m disappointed in it. We know better, and we could do so much better, but for circumstances over which we really have not a lot of immediate ability to control. As I wrote earlier, wars do not begin on the start up date. Wars take years even decades of preparation including psyching up the populace. Leaders cannot turn patriotism on and off like a light switch. On one level, yes, Americans do care what is done in their name, anywhere. And especially in the Middle East where our country has invested so much in Israel. Most Americans do not know the history of the Middle East and have no appreciation of its impact on today's politics.

Our own history as a nation is barely 225 years old. We ignore the violent way we took this 3,000,000 square miles from its inhabitants. The first recorded abuse of natives was in 1629, in Massachusetts. If you ignore the first slaves brought to Virginia in 1619. We like to say the last battle with the natives was in 1890, at Wounded Knee Creek, now South Dakota. 300 Lakota natives were killed. They were in flight to Canada. None of the reconstituted 7th Cavalry’s force of 500 were killed, but Congress awarded 18 Medals of Honor! I think that more than anything I could possibly say sets out the attitude of white Americans in the last decade of the 19th century.

In my estimation, 10% of Americans would welcome a bona fide War of Religions, Christianity versus Islam. These are the Pat Robertson types which Republicans cannot distance themselves too far from as they represent solid, dependable voters. Single issue types. At the other end of the spectrum, 5% to 10% are people who pride themselves on being urbane, internationalists and liberal.

In between you have 80% of the public who wants to be left alone, who go to work every day and who depend on the government to do the “right thing” which includes making the world safe for American commerce and capital. They would not have agreed in advance to murder Chile's President Allende or Congo's Patrice Lamumba, but after the fact, they would not demand an investigation into either. We knew Bush41 was the brains and prime mover behind the Iran-Contra project and that he had violated the law of the land, but we were content to hang out Ollie North to dry. Who, by the bye, has become a leading right wing icon and maybe a multi-millionaire, as has G. Gordon Liddy, of Watergate fame and 6 years in prison.

The public’s spontaneous rejection of OJ Simpson and Rupert Murdoch’s greed driven at any cost collaboration was a rare example of public disgust. Hey, even after listening to the tapes, half the population believe Richard Nixon was innocent. It’s equal to religion. Believing the patently false is true. And etc.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

Well Don those statistics make sense seeing the war was NOT in North America.. I fail to see your point, is that because we didn't loose millions of civilians that we where no help in the war? I know your anti-American sentiment cannot go that far....

As for America and war in general.. Some peoples have a tendency to be great warriors. Rome could make war like no other, and where second to none. Great Britain in colonial times had the military innovation the few could challenge. America for the past 150 years (about since the Civil War) have been incredibly able warriors. Those who fight and win stay on top, those you succumb to our abilities will be at our mercy as to where we put them. We did not have to help GB and France.. we did it because the outcome was better for our selves. We may not have lost as many people.. but of course we never had Nazi's marching down our Main Streets, no embarrassingly bombing us and lobbing missiles at us. GB would have fell within a year without American intervention.. the battles at Normandy saved you regardless of how many civilians we lost. Canada was there with us to Canada is not mentioned to often in WWII.

The whole anti-war movement which began in the 1960's was founded off of a lazy population who would much rather sit by themselves and waste away. Their policies have assisted in leaving America in its crippled state.. and their mentality may soon make a comeback here in the states..

I know you would rather us be isolated socialist.. but we aren't and I don't see and reasoning by your blatant anti-American attitude. And don't say your not.. because you are very much so and any one can see it. Did an American wrong you in some way? McDonalds mess up your happy meal and now you have a grudge?

There is still an aspect of American culture, that I feel are war-like. Look at our films, that glorify battle and those who lay down their lives for this country. There is a certain honor to battle I feel, for those who endure it and come out of it alive. While I dont feel war itself should be glorified, as its a terrible business, but those who fight those battles deserve to be glorified because of the burden they bear during battle. I for one, wouldnt mind dieing in battle as crazy as it sounds, for the simple reason that at least I could say I died on my own two feet. But make no mistake, I would much rather live a long life, but I'm saying if I were to die prematurely then it would be my preference to die in battle. Better than biting the dust in a car wreck or some other kind of accident. As an American, thats how I feel about war in our culture. "Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees."

General George Patton once said " Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bulls***. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."---- And to a degree, I think hes right.

Heres a link to Pattons whole speach to the 3rd Army. Its worth the read.
Pattons Speach to the 3rd Army

[edit on 3/14/2007 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by donwhite

I have pointed this out earlier, Mr M/M. In WW1, where France, GB and Germany - not to mention Russia - lost millions of young men. Not only were those lives sniffed out, but this left millions of young women without a husbands and childless. The US lost about 130,000 KIA. Our population was 2X France or GB or Germany, so proportionally speaking, our losses were insignificant - except for those who died, of course.

In War Two, again, the primary belligerents lost millions of men, women and children. There were no innocents in War 2. In both the European and Pacific Theaters the US lost a total of 425,000 KIA. With a population of 130 million, an insignificant number, again excepting those who died and who loved them.

I believe Germany lost 8 million and the USSR 20 million. Numbers incomprehensible to Americans. Yes, I’m sure Mr M/M, this relative lack of pain and suffering causes many Americans to treat war very lightly.
[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

yeah, im sure that makes the US's contributions to the war insignificant, right?

you should be ashamed of yourself. :shk:

Originally posted by ludaChris

General George Patton once said " Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bulls***. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."---- And to a degree, I think hes right.
[edit on 3/14/2007 by ludaChris]

I would have to agree with this. I am not saying seek it out, but a good death is a good death.

A little known fact...

During WW2 there was fighting on American soil.

It took place in the islands of Alaska.

The eskimos saved our butts....not kidding....look it up

Yes Eskimos with harpoons defended the entire west coast of America!

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The whole anti-war movement which began in the 1960's was founded off of a lazy population.

Lenin had a name for these types, "useful idiots". The 60's ant-war left was led by the CPUSA. The Communist Party USA got its money and marching orders from the USSR. Which is understandable during the cold war any distraction to the other side was an advantage. The UI's were red to the bone and hated what the US stood for. Using hard-core leftist professors to recruit students. Their only goal is for the world to become some communist utopia. Even though communism is a failure and cost millions their lives they still want to subvert the US.
The disguise them selves as mainstream groups to hide their real agenda. Using the peace movement as a front for anti-Americanism they were able to make winning in Vietnam impossible. Even though we were winning battle after battle they used the media to paint a bleak picture. Our troops looked no different then Nazi SS troops killing babies and burning down village after village. They made a whole generation question what America stood for. Planting themselves in the democrat party the radicalized it into what we have today. The left totally owns the DNC. Their agenda is to make the US into a European socialist country. They want the government to control your life from cradle to grave. They know their ideas won’t win the public over. Using leftist lawyers and judges to over turn laws that don’t suite their goals they are slowly taken control. They control much of the media and use this tool to hide their agenda and to make people believe the other side wants to do this or that to them. With control of the teachers union they took control of the education system from grade school to universities. Using the union to control who is hired and fired. They are rewriting the nations history. They use political correctness and multi culturalism for their excuse. They have a plan that was put in motion at least 40+ years ago. The plan is to slowly take control and blindside us. One day we will wake up as a new soviet state

posted by XphilesPhan

We have had wars on our doorstep before, actually quite a few . . Americans are a different culture than most of Europe. You view [us] as "gung ho" when really it’s a result of the early years of American history. It was very difficult to survive on the frontier and the wars with Indians were often brutal. I guess we have had to be a fighting culture from the beginning.

Blame our ancestors? Excuse misconduct because of hard times on the Oregon Trail? This sounds all too quixotic for me to take seriously, Mr X/P. I knew my paternal grandparents, but not their parents. I knew my maternal great-grand mother, but my maternal grandfather died early in my mother’s life. Effectively making her an orphan. (Before Social Security.) What I’m saying is that I don’t know much at all about my forebearers and have no way to attribute my conduct to things they did or did not do. “Remember the Alamo” may work for some people, but not for me.

posted by Rockpuck
Well Don, I fail to see your point . . is that because we didn't loose millions of civilians that we were no help in the war? [Edited by Don W]

OK, Rock, I may have been unclear what I wanted to convey by reciting the (appx.) numbers of KIAs in other countries as causing them to be more wary of yet another war. OTOH, our good fortune in not sustaining such large numbers of casualties has let us escape the horrors of war, first hand. That fact alone may make us less sympathetic to those who are intimately involved in a war. And incapable of sharing empathy especially with those who did nothing to bring war to them.

As for America and war in general. Some peoples have a tendency to be great warriors. Rome could make war like no other and were second to none. Great Britain in colonial times had the military innovation the few could challenge. America for the past 150 years (about since the Civil War) have been incredibly able warriors. Those who fight and win stay on top . .

Was war the END product of the Romans? Or just the means of bringing to fruition their sense of law, commerce, and civility to the Mediterranean Sea basin? War was not their great contribution, IMO. I’d point you to the Parthenon as a timeless achievement that inspires us today, long afer Roman armies lost to the barbarians. Roman civil law formed the basis for Napoleon’s Code and is still the fundamental law of Europe west of the Urals.

The British Red Coats were defeated by a rag-tag bunch of colonialists led by a non-Sandhurst grad, George Washington , albeit with inestimable and irreplaceable help from the French.

Are you overlooking the Huks on Mindanao? Ran us out of town in 1906. As a matter of fact, their struggle goes on today, in 2007. We gave Cuba back to the Cubans (and mosquitoes), around 1903. We chased Pancho Villa around Mexico in 1916, but he died of old age. We occupied Haiti from 1918 to 1933, but it is still the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Why is that? I’m not proud of it, but we have Manuel Noriega of Panama living in a hole in the ground in Miami. He is a political prisoner. Robert Hannsen, convicted FBI agent who worked for the KGB for 18 or his 22 year career, is likewise in a hole in the ground run the by US Gov’t.

A society can be judged by how it treats the helpless among it.

GB would have fallen within a year without American intervention. The battles at Normandy saved you regardless of how many civilians we lost. Canada was there with us to . .

So what’s the point?

The anti-war movement began in the 1960's was founded off of a lazy population who would rather sit by themselves and waste away. Their policies have assisted in leaving America in its crippled state. And their mentality may soon make a comeback here in the states.

I dunno Rock. Let’s hope so.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by fiveangelsfrank

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The whole anti-war movement which began in the 1960's was founded off of a lazy population.

Lenin had a name for these types, "useful idiots". The 60's ant-war left was led by the CPUSA. The Communist Party USA got its money and marching orders from the USSR. Which is understandable during the cold war any distraction to the other side was an advantage. The UI's were red to the bone and hated what the US stood for. Using hard-core leftist professors to recruit students. Their only goal is for the world to become some communist utopia. Even though communism is a failure and cost millions their lives they still want to subvert the US.
The disguise them selves as mainstream groups to hide their real agenda. Using the peace movement as a front for anti-Americanism they were able to make winning in Vietnam impossible. Even though we were winning battle after battle they used the media to paint a bleak picture. Our troops looked no different then Nazi SS troops killing babies and burning down village after village. They made a whole generation question what America stood for. Planting themselves in the democrat party the radicalized it into what we have today. The left totally owns the DNC. Their agenda is to make the US into a European socialist country. They want the government to control your life from cradle to grave. They know their ideas won’t win the public over. Using leftist lawyers and judges to over turn laws that don’t suite their goals they are slowly taken control. They control much of the media and use this tool to hide their agenda and to make people believe the other side wants to do this or that to them. With control of the teachers union they took control of the education system from grade school to universities. Using the union to control who is hired and fired. They are rewriting the nations history. They use political correctness and multi culturalism for their excuse. They have a plan that was put in motion at least 40+ years ago. The plan is to slowly take control and blindside us. One day we will wake up as a new soviet state

Don white.. you better stop and read this. ^

Xphiles the "War"with native North Americans was nothing more than genocide acted upon men women and children, the Native population was virtually wiped out by wholesale murder and disease.

And my point still stands untill the USA and its people sustain a major war on their country you will have no understanding of war. Just as in Iraq now 99.9% of Americans are so detached from the murder and mayhem that it might as well be happening on another planet, only those who lose loved ones will have some inkling of the suffering involved.

Posted: The 60's ant-war left was led by the CPUSA. Communist Party USA

False.

Posted: The Communist Party USA got its money and marching orders from the USSR.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The USSR never understood the USA. Gus Hall, its long time leader and frequent presidential candidate, was never able to persuade the Ruskies how to deal with Americans. In 1932, the worst year of the Great Depression, I believe the CPUSA polled about 150,000 votes nationwide. The CP did elect one Member of Congress, Vito Marcantonio, of NYC. 1948. Our Congress went berserk! Or ballistic.

Posted: The UI's [you got me, what’s a “UI?”] were red to the bone and hated what the US stood for. Using hard-core leftist professors to recruit students. Their only goal is for the world to become some communist utopia.

First Amendment. Right of free speech. Right of peaceable assembly. Right to seek redress of grievances.

Posted: They disguise them selves as mainstream groups to hide their real agenda. Using the peace movement as a front for anti-Americanism they were able to make winning in Vietnam impossible. Even though we were winning battle after battle they used the media to paint a bleak picture.

Jane Fonda. Don’t forget Jane Fonda. She must have been worth 10 divisions? Yet, we had 550,000 men in Vietnam at one time. And peace-niks at home lost the war? Hmm?

Posted: Our troops looked no different then Nazi SS troops killing babies and burning down village after village. They made a whole generation question what America stood for.

Exactly.

Posted: The left totally owns the DNC. Their agenda is to make the US into a European socialist country. They want the government to control your life from cradle to grave. Using leftist lawyers and judges to over turn laws that don’t suite their goals they are slowly taking control. They control much of the media

And I was complaining the capitalist (owners) controlled the media.

Posted: With control of the teachers union they took control of the education system from grade school to universities. Using the union to control who is hired and fired. They are rewriting the nations history.

Ah, for the good old days of the McGuffey Readers! If good enough for grandpa they’re good enough for our children!

Posted: They use multi culturalism for their excuse. They have a plan that was put in motion at least 40+ years ago. The plan is to slowly take control and blind side us. One day we will wake up as a new soviet state

Thanks for the heads-up.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Xphiles the "War"with native North Americans was nothing more than genocide acted upon men women and children, the Native population was virtually wiped out by wholesale murder and disease.

As wrong as it was this is nothing new in human history. Every county has a past that is bloody. Weather it was recent or thousands of years ago. Even Native Americans practiced slavery before the white man came. There is talk about the Anasazi being victims of cannibals. Some of the things that went on in South America would be concidered crimes against humanity. All I'm saying is no body has ancestors that didn't commit evil against other men.

And my point still stands untill the USA and its people sustain a major war on their country you will have no understanding of war. Just as in Iraq now 99.9% of Americans are so detached from the murder and mayhem that it might as well be happening on another planet, only those who lose loved ones will have some inkling of the suffering involved.

There are millions of Americans that went through wars and millions that came here to escape wars. I don't think we would be as weak as you make us out to be. Everyone underestimates Americans. One more thing, for the last 60+ years we have built a military that is ment to stop any enemy from making it to our shores or boarders. No military has taken a shot at us since WWII. If we are hit again it will be by small terror groups. Any army would be destroyed long before they could even see the US