Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

May you do well and have those experiences you seek.

Good luck in your deployment!

Thanks for the service, I was in the 1/6 Infantry with the 1st AD in Germany in the 70's. Your sacrifice and service is appreciated and valued!

THANK YOU for your sacrifice, my prayers are with you. May you do only good things and may the enemy see you only as an Angel of Mercy. Thank you again, and Bless You.

I could not have said it better, nursediesel.

bitch!!! god damn it ppl. obama has been cloned and the real him is in a basement somewhere an the evil obama is ruling, making shit decisions like this..

Bush had troop reductions planned for Iraq and Afghanastan...Obama disagreed with Bush's decreasing troops in Afghanastan.

GET OVER IT! It's not about racism, and it's really sad and more than a little pathetic that you exploit the horrible reality that is racism to justify the fact that you have NO arguments to defend the fact that Obama DID NOT deserve that award!

But don't worry, the Nobel Peace has always been a joke, ever since they gave it to Kissinger instead of Gandhi, so no one with working brain cells was surprised when they gave it to Obama just for "not being Bush". Quit acting like that's some kind of huge accomplishment!

Oh and BTW, the fact that Obama said he was unworthy and there were other people more qualified (which is completely true) doesnt justify him getting it.

Hmm, as I recall, Obama himself said he didn't deserve it.

So stop slapping him around as if he somehow engineered it.

And for your information, the Nobel for peace was irretrievably tarnished when they gave it to that pig Arafat. If ever a man failed to deserve that award, it was him, and Menachem Begin wasn't far behind Arafat, either. THAT year was a waste of what used to be a good award.

No he's right, the republicans just want to go against everything President Obama says and tries to do to make this country a better place, they want to "break him." And your right we want to actually finish the war correctly. With a plan that will destroy the Taliban and Al quada.

Clay, you are exactly right! He wanted to get in there and do it right and in a timely matter on all the troop employments.(His dad did what he said he would but the rest of the job was left hanging for another guy to clean up.)
The Democrat congress and media fought him tooth and nail.
Yeah, this administration has carte blanche with a democrat majority.
Let's see what they do!

Freedom dies when any governmental power grants one group rights over another, takes away rights of all, or limits the rights of any individual as deeded by the constitution and bill of rights.
When people argue that wars are fighting for our rights, it is not a war that is taking away anything nor has any war ever taken away individual rights, it is always the peoples own government that reduces the rights of the population they govern.

I agree.

Ah, so he is a warmonger.

no JanforGore he's a person who understands that Afghanistan is war we must win no matter how unbeliveble it seems

unbelievable? More like impossible. Wake up, already...

No, he's already said it will be given to charity.

Bush tried to reduce their compensation during the war but the Dems and Republicans did not let him do it.

haha Yes that nobel endowment should pay

yeah, more money for the troops. That fixes everything.

@cerci_girl: just be quiet and stop commenting already. oh, and stop watching fox news while you're at it, ok?

What happened on 9/11/2001, not much I guess.

if most people actually listened to Obama speak they wouldve realized he was all for taking the troops out of Iraq , & rerouting them to afghanistan . its all about money in this government the people up top making all the money could care less about another soldier that has died because their companies are still making money producing weapons, vehicles ect. that are sent over there . no one in our government has any regard for human life when it comes to making an extra buck, including Obama

cerci_girl,

Obviously, you know nothing about any of this, so you should just stop commenting and showing off your ignorance.

the American system of government works NOTHING like you describe, so go back to school and learn a bit before exposing your ignorance.

Obama never said ANYTHING about ending the war in Afghanistan. In fact he said multiple times that he was going to INTENSIFY the war there and remove troops from Iraq. If you really thought he was gonna end the war then you obviously were not paying any attention.

cerci_girl:

Please let me know how this is about President Obama making money? How is he making money off of this? He has no companies that profit from these or any wars.

One of my favorite lines from the recent political scene:

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Obama doesn't own any companies that will benefit from this war... but you can bet the people who fund his 2012 campaign do.

Obamas war is with us.

Vietnam vet or not, our forces are not invading Afghanistan as past armies did, we are there, at least for now, with the nominal support of the government and the people of that country.

All the guys you mentioned were there as conquering empires, which most decidedly did NOT enjoy such support!!

The Taliban was NOT supported by the people of Afghanistan, but it overthrew another government to get to power, and maintained it by sheer force of brutality.

If we do this right, and manage this conflict as less war, and more nation-building, we can "win" it for the people of Afghanistan.

That's the difference, we aren't just there for us, but we want to leave it better than we found it. (Which, frankly, IS good for us, too!)

Can it be done right and successfully? I doubt it. Just the terrain makes it impossible and we can't even fix our own infrastructure much less find the trillions to nation build a 12 centrury country.

First of all, IF we do a bit better at getting the cooperation of the population, yes, we can.

Independent groups have shown that just helping Afghans to get schools is enough - usually, they just kick the Taliban out themselves!

With the cooperation of the Afghans themselves, anything is possible - it is THEIR country, isn't it? If we can also get their own security forces up and running, and help them get some form of government that will support their traditional tribal system, while maintaining some form of democracy, then the sky's the limit.

I repeat, the Taliban is NOT supported by the majority of the country, they don't like the idea of going back to that repressive regime. We just have to help them put something in place that they see as better than the Taliban.

Typical warmonger speech. The official story says Saudi Arabis funded the 9/11 attacks, are you for invading and occupying that nation? Israeli owned businesses broke their lease at the Twin Towers just before the attacks, are you for investigating that?

oh, boy, a conspiracy nut.

Sorry, none of your accusations have much merit.

Do you really know what a war monger is? From your remark, I'd doubt it.

If you'd actually READ my post, you'd see that there is more to it than just simple knee-jerk "let's-get-out" reactionism.

People like you don't know or care to know the issues, perhaps you should either stop commenting or learn a few things about the issues first.

Finally somebody with reason. You were able to articulate well beyond the necessary points of why Afghanistan is necessary.

I'm a liberal and I would love nothing more than to see peace and America out of all wars. However, as you put it, it only takes one party to start a fight and they threw the first punch. If we don't fight back, they'll win.

Thank you!

I agree we have good reason for war. However, I believe a war policy influenced by Biden and Kerry and executed by Obama cannot be a good thing for the pounders. We need to get them out.

On the war itself. We went to war to remove the Taliban from power. We did that. Let's go home. If the Taliban reseize control, we can do it again.

That's stupid, since we'd just have to turn back around and spend all that money to send troops back in - in less than six months!

Why not get the job done right - the FIRST time?

We did do the job right the first time. The Taliban is out of power. We knocked them out with relatively few ground troops.The troops are needed for the nation building portion. As far as costs to remove a Taliban government a second time, it would be far cheaper than maintaining the trrops we currently have there. We could keep carriers close or send in troops from Germany or Iraq to deal if need be.

hmmm, where shall i start...

I understand the pain caused by the events of 9/11, but pride and arrogance hardly ever makes for good outcomes. After 9/11, I too was riled up and ready to "get them sons-a-bitches", whoever it was. They pointed to Islamic extremists; lets get em. the communists, get'em. canadians, take'em ( jk ). After a certain point, you gotta ask yourself if fighting every person that does you harm has really made you any safer.

Obama put an end to the term "War on Terror" because people of the world that acquired the 'power of reasoning' had figured out that there was no victory against terrorism. You kill one, another comes in its place. I can comprehend the idea of going after those responsible for the attacks, but not over-seeing nation-building (which means the inclusion of U.S. corporations and instilling a corrupt government that will work in our favor).

Let me make it clear that the U.S. hasn't needed to go to war since it had been established. Civil War- sure it brought an end to slavery, but that could have happened through "Civil Debate".

You bring up World War II, and how the U.S. gained business across the globe. Well I'd like to offer a different perspective on all points. The U.S. did in fact end the World War with a single bomb, ending the chaos and saving many from further destruction. Hoo-Ray for the U.S.! How fortunate the U.S. was to be on a complete different hemisphere from the actual battling. The war began in September of 1939, and though the U.S. did send aid to a few of its allies, it did not truly get involved until after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. By then, much of the European nation-states had been torn apart by the war. All super-powers had been significantly weakened. If you have ever taken the time to look at those order of events without nationalistic pride, you may wonder if it had been a skillfully played strategy. Of course I have no evidence, so I'm sure you will deem it unworthy of consideration.

The U.S. had become a super-power (considering much of everyone else had become weakened). It seemed everyone was proud of this young nation, and was willing to allie themselves with it. Well lets not forget the use of American military, paramilitary and intelligence forces to overthrow governments, suppress popular revolts and establish dictatorships around the world. A partial list would include Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Greece, Turkey, and numerous African countries.

Times around WWI and WWII had seen lots of hatred for Jews, especially in Europe. It was not just the Nazis. This disdain for Jews gave birth to Zionism, and the belief that Jews should return to their homeland of Israel. So quite a few did, while others moved to the prospering U.S. I really hope your able to see where this is going by now.

If I asked you why the terrorists attacked the U.S., and you replied something like "they hate our freedoms!" or "doesn't matter, we gotta get'em"; then im sorry that you have been led astray. Furthermore, why the World Trade Centers?

Well a brief explanation of animosity towards the U.S. government is directed towards their funding and arming of Israel, who have been terrorizing the innocent Palestinians since WWII, (before Taliban and Al-Qaeda or Osama even existed). Plus, the U.S. has used its military strength for gaining and protecting access to resources from all over. It occupies every continent with military bases, that are in fact occupied by troops, such as the one in Vietnam.

I stick to my statement that the U.S. should not have gone to war since it was established, but remember that I also mean it should not have gone meddling around for power. Then we wouldnt have these extremists calling for the end of U.S. corporatism. Remember, its the government they are fighting, not U.S. citizens, though it is time everyone woke up to the facts.

But since we are there, and the best plan was to make sure that Afghanistan would not be a breeding ground for Terrorists, then it seems the U.S. military owes it to the Afghans to fix and make up for the destruction of infrastructure and the fatalities of the innocent.

Look at it this way; say you found out that someone killed a member of your family, not immediate, but something like a cousin, uncle or aunt. Well you would want those that protect you and enforce justice to do their job, but at the same time, it wouldnt be right if the ones enforcing justice broke into every house that were people the murderer might have associated himself with, and killing innocent people along the way, destroying the property of others, which the murderer had no responsibility over.

So the U.S. should clean up the mess it made and get out. If it wants to get those responsible, then do so, but dont go leaving a path of destruction along the way.

If the U.S. military is really after "Al-Qaeda" and Osama bin Laden is still alive, what do you think would be the best way to hold them responsible and enforce some type of justice?

One last thing. I don't know why you are so fearful of the U.S. becoming one among the rest of nations, rather then this self-defeating belief of being number one. As long as the U.S. believes it should use its military strength for its own power, it will always be viewed as the weakest. We should be thankful that Obama seems to realize this and is not following in the foot steps of ol'Georgey. The U.S. should not be policing the world; which undermines the efforts of the U.N., and you might think the U.N. is worthless, but it has only gotten that way thanks to a few super-powers and their special table.

If the U.S. makes the turn to be more environmentally-conscious,( becoming more "self-sustainable", rather then dependent on the resources of others, and i am speaking of more then just oil, this includes everything) and brings its troops out of nations abroad, stops its arms-dealing, only then will the animosity wither way, and we can continue on into the next chapter of not just the United States of America, but the history of the whole of humanity. The ego must be confronted, understood and dealt with.

I may sound harsh at times, maybe even brutal; but that stems from my love for this planet as a whole, not out of fear confronting pain. I see great potential, but we all must accept humility for our actions, whether we brought it on ourselves or have been completely ignorant all this time. There is plenty to be proud of, but military strength is never a good place for that. Its time to wise up to the world around us, and start taking care of ourselves, rather then fighting every battle that comes our way.

I couldn't agree more. We are at a tough point in this war, one where public sentiment is waining due due to the amount of time it is taking and the cost, both in American dollars and lives. It is unfortunate that we had to send troops there in the first place, but leaving now would be a disaster.

@ samthesixth,

No, we didn't - GW got distracted by Iraq, and we never finished the job. Now we've got a tougher job, since the Taliban has rearmed themselves and destabilized Pakistan on top of it.

Try staying on top of things, it'll make public debate easier.

@Ajil,

If you have the attitude that the US has never needed to go to war, please go back to school before coming back to debate. You obviously have little understanding of American history.

As for WWII, the anti-war crowd, then called isolationists, wanted the US to stay out and stay home. they had little understanding of how threatened the US was by the Axis powers if they ever succeeded in building a hegemony covering over half the world and its resources. (A state of denial I think you share)

Roosevelt was convinced we were going to be drawn into the war eventually, and we were. There is even a conspiracy theory out there that says he engineered American ignorance so as to allow the Japanese to succeed at the Pearl Harbor attack to draw us in!

So no, our delay at entering the war was not a deliberate attempt to weaken former superpowers such as Britain or France. If you have actual evidence, I'd be interested in seeing it.

"If I asked you why the terrorists attacked the U.S., and you replied something like "they hate our freedoms!" or "doesn't matter, we gotta get'em"; then im sorry that you have been led astray. Furthermore, why the World Trade Centers?"

No, I understand their animosity regarding our p[olicies towards Israel, but I would take issue with your characterization of the Palestinians as "innocent". Anybody that deliberately targets women and children in terrorist attacks is anything but!!

Ajil, for me it's unusual to hear Americans that are as aware of what's going on in the world as you are, so I'm thankful for your post. However, in my experience, it is quite pointless to argue or even try to discuss anything with people such as rwahrens. Not because they're stupid or ignorant or any of the terms that they use to discredit us, but becasue we simply believe different things, and thus we can never reach common ground. Trsut me. It's like talking to a wall. A crass, verbally abusive, weakly-argumented wall.

So thanks for the articulation and clarity, it was refreshing and brave.

@Mariana_GS,

Crass? verbally abusive? Weakly argumented?

Lady, if you've got a problem with my arguments, address them, it's an open forum, I'll be glad to read them and take them apart as needed, if yours aren't any better argued than Alij's were.

But please quote where I was crass or verbally abusive.

You can't, because I wasn't.

Alij's argument was weak because his grasp of American history is weak and his interpretation of the situation was inaccurate because his grasp of the situation was weak.

I didn't get to his second post, cause this site swallowed up my post before I finished, so I had to move on to my regular life.

But his argument about the US in the second World War was vastly inaccurate. The US was kept out of the war as long as it was by political infighting here, as there was a large, vocal isolationist contingent that kept us out. Roosevelt wanted us to get involved, as he knew we would be drawn in anyway. As a matter of fact, there is a conspiracy theory that he engineered US ignorance of the Pearl Harbor attacks just to get us in. Debunked and incorrect, of course, but nevertheless its out there. So, no, the US did not stay out of the war long enough to let the other superpowers get weakened.

Hell, nobody knew if we'd even survive the war, much less come out on top! So, sorry, that theory's junk, cause the basis he argued on was just wrong.

You see, his position of being anti-war is a hard one to argue cogently, because it is an absolute position in a subject that doesn't lend itself to absolute answers.

It is HARD to argue against a war in which the other guy is after your life, your home or your family, and is actively shooting your countrymen. At some point, somebody is going to have to pick up a gun and start shooting back, just to survive.

Yes, war, overall, is bad. It is a messy business that puts ordinary people in untenable moral positions for which many are not prepared. As a result, a lot of them come back scarred, emotionally, psychologically, mentally, if not physically. Violence has that affect, whether part of an organized activity such as war or not.

Nobody is going to argue against those facts.

But when you insist on arguing against a war that we didn't start, that is being prosecuted by fanatics that just won't give up, the best you can really do is just try to keep it focussed.

In that, we failed, as we let GW get us sidetracked on Iraq, which blew things in Afghanistan completely.

The US is faced with a new kind of war, that is different even than Vietnam. But like Vietnam, the task before us is to rebuild a country that is scarred by literally decades of war. To complicate matters, its culture is unlike ours, so we don't fully understand it.

Armies are not suited for nation-building. They are great for tearing them down, but putting them back together again is a different skill set, one that is not taught in the Department of Defense War College. That is why we need to take a page out of our activities after WWII.

There, we took two enemies, one with a VERY different culture, and put them on a road in which both are today firm allies of ours. Japan had NO history of democracy, so to say the Afghans have no such history is no reason not to try.

We CAN do this, if we do it right. It will be hard, but fighting is only PART of the task, much of it is to put the Afghan people back on the road to recovery.

That is why we need more troops, not fewer. More of them, as was shown in Iraq by The Surge, can give the country stability while the civilian side has the chance to rebuild those social institutions ravaged by over three decades of war.

Too few, and the ones there will be consumed by fighting, cause they won't be enough to cover what needs to be protected, so there will be MORE fighting, not less.

So in short, when you want to debate a topic, it helps to know the subject. Your interpretation will be flawed if your grasp of the details sucks.

Is the Taliban in Power? No, we knocked them out of power. Case closed. We did what we went to do. The rest is nation building and as you stated that is not best done by DoD. The insults at the bottom of your comments are juvenile and undermine your ability to make cogent arguments. If your comments are so right on target they will defeat my arguments without you resorting to name calling over a difference of opinion.

I didn't call you any names, I merely suggested you stay on top of the subject at hand, and YOUR arguments will be better argued!

No, the job wasn't done. GW distracted us from finishing it. The "job" isn't done until we can walk away and the country involved is capable of standing on its own. Look at Japan and Germany. Both took decades to come back to some semblance of normalcy.

Both were bombed literally back to almost stone age level. So many knowledgeable people were killed, both culture and industry were hobbled for decades afterwards.

And that war lasted for less than ten years.

Afghanistan has been wracked by war for over thirty years, plus there we have an active insurgency we did not have in either Japan or Germany.

It is necessary to keep large numbers of troops there to keep order. Remember the Surge in Iraq? How it kept the peace? Same thing in Afghanistan is needed to prevent more violence, just so the civilian side can get the institutions rebuilt to begin functioning again. That doesn't take place overnight. If we have too few troops, the level of violence will be too high for that rebuilding process to take place.

I am NOT war mongering, I want for us to be able to do this thing right, and that will take time and money, plus work that troops cannot do, but we still need troops for keep the peace so the other activities can happen without interference.

I understand the surge perfectly well. It worked in Iraq for the time when we put the troops in the areas where the people are instead of buttoning them up on the bases at night. Now, as we leave those areas and go back to the bases, we are "de-surging" and problems are coming back.

I want to defeat adherents of Islamic jihadism. However, I don't trust this administration to carry out a war policy that actually allows us to win. Have you read the ROE?

Our mission in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power. They are no longer in power. Mission accomplished. The separate mission to stabilize Afghanistan and play nation building is what is failing.

You can't prove your point by repeating the same thing over and over.

Mission is NOT accomplished. The Taliban is out of power, but our procrastination caused by the distraction in Iraq has allowed them to come back to where they ARE back in power in wide swaths of countryside.

Because of that distraction and failure to follow through, our entire mission in Afghanistan is in danger of failure.

So again, stay on top of the latest news, your assertion of "mission accomplished" is not only out of date, but smacks of the same short-sightedness Bush fell prey to.

rwahrens, get real. How EXACTLY do you think it is possible to win this thing? Seriously. It's not going to happen! Especially considering there is zero population cooperation, and can you blame them? You have troops over there raping their daughters (and don't you tell me those were just a couple of isolated cases in Iraq cause that's a load of bs) and killing everyone in sight under the excuse that thery're "helping them". I understand what your arguments are for justifying the war, I do; I don't agree with them but I do get them. I just cannot see how any of these pointless wars can realistically NOT turn out to be more Vietnams! So please, tell me: how are the troops supposed to gain the population's cooperation? Beause all in all tha's the one thing that could maybe potentially help the U.S.'s "cause".

one more thing: I don't mean to sound like a (I quote) "conspiracy theory nut", but could you maybe point at the evidence that has effectively debunked theat whole Reagan engineering American ingorance theory? I'd love to hear the counter-arguments for that theory...

First of all, I really don't like the term "win".

This isn't a "war" in the traditional sense of the term. The "war" part ended when we kicked out the Taliban. Then another phase of occupation began. Obviously, the Taliban have not rolled over and played dead, and we also have an ongoing guerrilla war going to boot.

GW let this thing stagnate horribly, when we should have been busily helping the Afghan people rebuild the necessary civilian institutions needed for a normal State to exist and help itself. We let the Taliban rebuild and rearm and come back to take over large swaths of the countryside.

I have seen several documentaries lately about some independent groups in Afghanistan that have focussed on helping single villages at a time recover and build schools, etc.

Almost without fail, these villages have kicked out the local Taliban and re-established themselves as part of the modern Afghanistan we are trying to build.

The Afghan people ARE willing to let us help, but the delay caused by Bush has exacerbated several problems, not the least of which is the rampant corruption of the current government.

We are trying, and I know that Obama has made it clear that the military is only part of how he intends to deal with that country and its ills.

The problem now is to get enough troops over there to calm the violence and protect those civilian institutions that are needed to move forward.

I repeat, I am not advocating more war, but that troops at this time MUST be brought in in sufficient numbers to deal with the Taliban so the civilians can get on with their work.

A "win" is not guaranteed under even the best of circumstances, but if we don't try, we don't even have a chance to show it can be done.

Al Qaeda is also there, and must be dealt with. Since it is not tied to any one country, we will have to chase them from place to place until they ARe dealt with.

I'm afraid that's going to take a long time.

"... effectively debunked theat whole Reagan engineering American ingorance theory?"

Not Reagan, Roosevelt.

There was a theory that Roosevelt had advance knowledge of the Japanese intent to attack Pearl Harbor, and withheld it in order to get the US involved in the war. I don't know the details, but the History Channel did a documentary on it a couple of years ago.

I'd bet that if you go the the site Above Top Secret (ATS), you could find a thread that deals with it.

Wikipedia also probably has information on it as well. It is an interesting story, but doesn't fit the facts.

And if you are a true 'dyed in the wool' American History buff you would know that Roosevelt may have actually provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor! So of course he would have not only know of the exact time of the attack but had anticipated it!

thank you mariana for your compliment. You stated that it was unusual for you to have see a U.S. citizen as informed as i am; which i think its important to make it clear, not only to you, but for rwahrens and all else, that the U.S. is only half of my heritage. I was born in Iowa, but never lived there. I have grown up in Florida for about 8 years, on and off. But the place that i have lived a majority of my life, 15 years spent in Kuwait. For those that don't know, its a little oil rich country right underneath Iraq. Some may recall the First Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait back in '91.

So for me to say that the U.S. has never needed to go to war says a lot. Because without the U.S. military involvement, i might have become half Iraqi. I do value and appreciate the service the U.S. did for Kuwait. But it is not enough to be satisfied of the outcome. People must look into the root of the problems rather then patch up the symptoms.

Kuwait may not have been invaded, had the U.S. not help Saddam Hussein get into power and supply him with weaponry. Same goes for many issues the U.S. is facing now.

There wouldnt be Islamic extremists if the U.S. 1) had not been so set on being victorious against the Soviet Union during the Cold War; arming and training the Islamic militias, helping Taliban gain control of Afghanistan. 2) would stop aiding and protecting Israel. Palestinians resort to home-made suicide bombs because they dont have the luxury of being aided with the latest American made weapons; like automatic weapons, tanks, F16s, and so much more. I am not supporting the actions, but i comprehend how the situation may call for such measures. I dont know if many other U.S. citizens know that Hamas, the group that claims to be the representatives of Gaza, had gained their position through democratic elections. Yet countries belonging to the World Bank will not recognize Palestine as a country, they do not even have passports. They are blockaded in by the Israeli government, as well as having their own territory demolished and occupied by Israelis.

So when a group of armed men come into a town with a bulldozer, proceed to demolish homes and kill anyone that get in their way (men, women and even children), it does not come as a suprise that a teenager who just lost a loved one, or even their entire family, will search for explosives to strap on to themselves in the hopes to kill anyone from that armed group's town. You better think wisely before you think about calling Palestinians anything but "innocent".

The Islamic extremists have are attacking Western nations that support Israel's occupation while using the main stream media to mislead and entertain the ignorant-ambivalent majority.

You might have heard allegations that the Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad had denied the Holocaust. He was just beating around the bush by asking the people of the world to look at the events of World War II, ask yourselves what proof is there to suggest the Holocaust justifies the Israel's occupation and apartheid against the Palestinian people.

Now when i suggested that the U.S. may not have gotten involved in WWII based off strategy, i did not mean that it must have been the absolute true order of events, and that the U.S. wanted the other super-powers to be weakened. So dont get carried away arguing against a claim that i dont even back. It was meant to address the fortunate position the U.S. had through the war. The world wars came about as the sciences and technologies were advancing. Yet advances in human history have been geared at security and power; then there is security 'of' power. The era saw the birth of psychology, bringing with it a better understanding of economics and politics (capitalism, communism, etc). World domination was being sought after, whether it was the initial intent or through the belief that one could protect the rest from the others. Since then we have seen and learned that world domination... (keep reading)...

@nurse,

There is a difference between "provoking" and having advanced knowledge of an action for certain.

That theory has been debunked. He certainly may have provoked the action, but that was the choice of the Japanese to take it.

Ajil,

Now your true colors begin to show. This isn't the thread to argue about middle eastern issues, or I'd tear into your post, which is so one-sided it isn't funny.

Fact is, BOTH sides of that conflict are at fault, BOTH sides have acted badly, and BOTH sides need to step back and take stock.

Your original post DID make allegations about the US and WWII, and it was most decidedly not allegorical in nature. You DO need to go back and get some more schooling as to that period in US history.

Perhaps sometime we can argue the Israeli/Palestinian issues in a more appropriate forum.

...world domination.. could not have been achieved by military means. The will of people would never allow it.

However, seeking world domination has not gone away with these lessons. The one institution that goes unquestioned more then any other (which includes education, religion, military, government, arts, etc) would be the institution of money. Not economics, but money itself. Where it comes from, how it works, and its effects on the human condition. Money=debt. debt=slavery. Money created out of thin air has come to dominate the world systems, enslaving people to work as a means of survival. And in a system that relies on profit, there can never be an abundance of anything, especially resources. What is the alternative? A Resource based economy that merits its value and production off the sustainable efforts; as well as population control.

The animals of this planet live within their means and are able to share; except of course for humans. We have been so focused on this notion of ownership of the planet, backed with a righteous belief that we are special and this planet and its resources were made for our taking. I do not want to venture to off topic, but this needed to be brought up in order to understand further points.

A one world government should not be totally feared and avoided if it seeks to bring us together; yet we face the threat of a one world gov't established by the banks and elite of the world to keep the majority enslaved with a system of debt, while maintaining concepts of external threats we must fend off by sacrificing liberties for our security.

The U.S. has not seen a threat towards itself that it did not bring on to itself. That may bother many to see me say, but its true. The Cold War is a perfect example of how the U.S.'s military industrial complex kept the people fearful of an enemy's attack. Yet all measures taken by the military and intelligence complex has come back to haunt us to this day. Average U.S. citizens still rely on information that has been gathered and filtered by the corporations and special interest groups that seek to keep them blinded from the truth, understanding history and the effects events still have. None of the misleading could amount to much if these same corporations did not provide these people with superficial luxuries and entertainment.

I chose to go further then what this article is speaking about because of rwahrer's comment that the U.S. should maintain effort in being a super-power of the world, and that there should never be a one-world gov't, to which i disagree. However, i do agree that the U.S. owes it to Afghanistan to clean up and make an attempt to form a stable government. I just want U.S. citizens to think more about what got us in there and what the end goal is that everyone seeks.

I wouldn't doubt that theories suggesting Roosevelt had been aware of the attacks coming to Pearl Harbor and let them happen as a way to sway the public into getting involved in WWII. But at the same time, its just like the theories that Bush knew of the attacks before they occurred and still let them happen so he would gain the powers of a President in "war time". The evidence in the case of Roosevelt could be thrown around and dismissed, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that has not gone dismissed, yet main stream media and politicians wont even address any of it.

Rwahrer, you suggest i go back to school and learn something; I say to you, to whom does your education rely on for its information? Your government approved text books? Corporate-owned media with their 'political commentators'? Ivy-league historians?

I have gone through this education system, and still a college student. And though I have an education that is mostly U.S. gov't approved; i seek to go beyond and do independent research. I consider all perspectives, before relying on those that hold similar views; a benefit of being born half U.S. citizen and half Kuwaiti.

Ok, now you're just rambling, and making no coherent sense at all.

I never said there shouldn't or wouldn't be one world government - I never mentioned the subject at all! I don't know where you get this crap. PLEASE don't put words in my mouth.

You have gone repeatedly beyond the subject of this thread, besides making no sense. I don't think there is any value in further advancing this conversation.

rwahrens, you are correct. They took the bait.