Even with that - we didn't join the fighting.  \n\nAfter Hitler had been in power 9 YEARS, he actually had to declare war on us to get the cowards in the democratic party off their asses!!!!!!!!!!!!!
137517
Liberals have never had any foresight at all, so I think the answer is no.
296112
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.
460264
no, it's just that liberals have so much in their party to deal with, by that i mean sub-divided special interest groups, and have no focus. it is obvious when you ask them about a plan to get out of iraq. while the president says" stay the course" over and over the democrats say " we need to change course". over and over with no clear alternative to bush. multiply this by 1000 and " thar ye gowe". lack of focus.
95523
The USA is not aggressive.  We are passive resistant.  We have, since the Revolution, never started a war and only reluctantly, entered into the ones we were in.  \n\nNO we did not start the war in Iraq.  When your neighbor is beating his wife, you do not start a fight by stopping it.\n\nI sincerely hope you all forget to vote.
610281
Have you taught them about Kurdish kids BEFORE this war? Is there some Hitlerish plan to incinerate Iraqi children that we haven't heard of? Keep things in context, and remember that this has been a SHORT war with amazingly few casualties, most of which are inflicted BY IRAQIS!!!!!!\nNo comparison to Nazi genocide is possible.
507614
I watched the debates, and actually the war in Iraq never came up.  We in Michigan have bigger problems than the war in Iraq...like tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs.  We have a terrible economy right now and needed to vote against anyone who was going to encourage it to be worse.  And our voices were heard
470410
The CIC still controlls the military, so don't expect the Democrats to do much. Sounds to me like they just used the war to get elected in. Now they do not care.
440199
Draft is a dirty word the liberals like to float and try to get their way. You see, after watching the hearings, all I can say is that if the democrats push and get us pulling out without full completion, then we better be ready for the payback. they like to blame all the insurgent and infighting on our actions and by being there. \n\nThey only think of pull out, cut and run and if we do that, we will, within about a year or less, begin to have attacks on our streets, and of course, that gives the liberals ammunition to say " Bush did it", when it was their policy all along.\n\nWe cant let Congress or opinion polls run the war on terror like we did Viet Nam. Over 54000 people died cause we had on and off bombing of the north, and a bunch of fat head politicians trying to run the show from DC.\n\n\nEvery war we have ever fought, has left troops in a foreign country. Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Korea and Japan, so why not Iraq as a normal tour of duty??\n\nBut before we do anything, lets give the military and the people there a fighting chance to be democratic and have freedoms like we enjoy. We already got rid of the dictator and killer they had running the show.\n\nGive the leaders the tools, get in there, do the job, then get out.
537465
There is alot of hatred and most stems from the Gore/Bush campaign.They made a premature call of the election and tried to discredit our military votes by taking it to court to have them thrown out of the count because they were a few days late coming in from overseas.Instead of debating an issue its easier for them to name call.Ie,they called our president Hitler,called conservatives Nazi's and call our troops terrorists..,thank you howard dean,yet they wonder why President Bush doesnt want to work with them?It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
333234
Have we not had enough wars?  What did we gain so far?  Disrepect from the rest of the world from what I can gather talking with people around the world.  \nOn what ground do we wage a war with China?  We'll be shooting ourselves in the foot again, and big time!
101224
You are an idiot!  Don't you know antthing about WWII history?  The Japanese were warned several times and would not stop fighting.  The only way to end the war would have been to invade Japan causing millions of Japanese to die.  They were finatical about the war and would stop at nothing.  This was the only way to stop them.  Thank God some of you bleedy heart liberals weren't around during WWII.  We'd probably be speaking German or Japanese right now if you were.
374116
Shoulda fought harder. \n\nYou're just mad we won. HaHa.
341396
appeasment didnt work with hitler, and he was a anglo. these arabs are frigin stark ravin nuts. it's scary how people seem to make the same mistake again and again. when the poop hits the fan ; people will say ;oh no whats happening oh no...that liberal garbage is dangerous to our safety
312467
Except for WW II, the US has never had a long line of young men (and later women) eager to go to war. Washington complained frequently about how hard it was to keep his army together. Of course, it doesn't help that the US, even befoe it's inception, never paid its military very well and welched on promises made to entice people to enlist. And God forbid you were not injured badly enough to die, because the US has never willingly spent enough money on medical care for disabled vets.
157290
How about a lack of commitment on the part of the liberals. Had they been willing to provide support for winning a war  we could have prevented 2 MILLION men, women and children from being slaughtered after we left.  Mark up another couple million or so for the libs - hey good job guys, you're on a role.\n\nTHATS ONE WAY TO FEED THE STARVING CHILDREN OF THE WORLD - LET SOMEONE BUTCHER A MILLION OR SO EVERY NOW AND THEN SO THERES LESS TO FEED.  \n\nIS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY PRO CHOICE SINCE WE CHOSE TO LEAVE?
478145
Predominately, America had gotten a belly full of a war in which we had no real interest.  When one now stops to consider that all parties combined, lost on average 98,000 men per month -- not to include those who died after battle or civilian casualties.  America didn't know the statistics, but the people sure felt the effects and knew only that they didn't want to involve themselves in another of someone else's war.
613107
The antiwar, can't-we-all-just-get-along libs are in fact the descendants of the yellow spineless supporters of the king.  \n\nAnd actually Hitler was a socialist which makes him a liberal!\n\n(Please note that I am not saying all liberals are as evil and demented as Hitler... well actually...  no on second thought I'm not saying that at all, too controversial.)