Little you know. I'm a non-interventionist, not a pacifist.

Exactly! Thank you! Couldn't have put it better myself!

Do not compare WWII with the Iraq War in terms of those who advocate peace.

WWII was a war between nations. The terrorist attacks in America were the doings of a terrorist organisation within a nation; Iraq (and even the country of origin is arguable). So the conservatives, led by the Bush administration, felt it justified to invade/terrorize the whole nation of Iraq, resulting in far higher loss of lives than any other terrorist attack in history.

If a nation attacks you, obviously you respond and attack the other nation.

Let me put it another way; If the KKK launched attacks in Britain to try and eradicate coloured folk, would Britain invade America? It has been said that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people... Bush is pro death penalty, which involves Electric chairs, and lethal injections. Does that sound politically correct to you? The British could argue they were "liberating" America, and then wonder why there are so many more terrorist attacks against Britain by previously neutral Americans in the future...

Don't get me wrong by the way, I'm in no way defending Saddam Hussein. He was an evil, evil man.

Just try and realise that peace is the priority. Often, attacking a nation because of a select group within that nation that hates you, will cause the whole nation to hate you in the future.

Should we have defended helpless Kuwait?

__________________
Support Your Local Oil and Gas Companies and the Industry. Invest in Oil & Gas Futures.

Take your Kids Hunting and Fishing.

No .......

Those guys were "democrats."

There haven't been any "democrats" since FDR. Just socialists, disguised as democrats.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

Well, yeah; but that wasn't the question. Try again.

If America didn't want to get involved in WWII when why did it try to economically starve Japan, who was in turn forced to secure off source food and fuel sources as a result?

Because, by the time America became involved, Japan owned 99% of the Far East. It would have been a little hard to starve them off, without using acts of war (sinking supply convoys).

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

So we had to nuke them once we pushed them back to their island and all they had was food? We could've blockaded them easily.

I think I should start a thread 'Why are the GOP so gungho and ready for war?'

I know it's hard to admit it but it's that fact that we have 'Hawks' and 'Doves' which makes this country great, we can say one thing and on the other side protest it making us eternally blameless for our actions!!!!!!!

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.
You and I must fight to survive