Hannity is a Tool (In Case You Missed It)

Man, you're orbitting a different planet. Talk about history. One of its countless lessons is that war is often not only just, but morally mandated. War is reality. Warfare has characterized Man's existence since his very beginning. Without war, the United States wouldn't exist. Without war, the US would have dissolved over slavery in 1861. Without war, Hitler would have rebuilt the German Empire at the expense of Europe's Jews and nearly all of its Eastern European peoples. Without war, the Imperial Japanese would have established an Asian empire, slaughtering even more millions of innocent Chinese, Koreans, Philippinos, Indo-Chinese and South Pacific islanders than they did trying. And here comes our libertarian idealist, boldly proclaiming that war is always wrong, and a conspiracy actuated by the rich. Yes....history lessons are needed. You need them. Get busy.

You want isolationism. You want America to retreat from global hegemony. You want America to surrender its power and go home, hunkering down behind its territorial borders, ignoring the rest of the world. Nope. We have a moral obligation to make this world a better place through the magnificent power we now command. Besides, you don't seem to understand how vital it is that we protect our oil supply. Without it, our massive, incredibly rich economy would fold overnight. BE PRACTICAL.

He already answered it.

We have oil in Alaska, Texas, and Oklahoma. We choose not to exploit it to its fullest. We also choose to irritate the Russians, the second largest oil producing state in the world, and the largest natural gas exporter. Then there's Canada, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, but we choose instead to galavant around the world making war and killing Arabs when we don't need to. What's more practical, being energy independent (as Brazil is), or maintaining a culture of waste?

War is not always wrong. Wars waged defensively are just, because you are at that point defending your rights to life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Aggressive wars are always morally wrong, and only benefit business and totalitarian influences. Let's look at American wars shall we, and determine whether or not aggressive war actually works.

War of Independence:
Victory over British. Originally designed to secure representation in parliament, was made a war or independence partially through a desire for French aid. Was fought defensively.

War of 1812:
Draw. Mostly defensive war, though the original declaration came from the United States.

Mexican War:
Victory. Fought offensively for defensive reasons.

Civil War (war of Northern Aggression):
While a Union victory in the military sense, created racial and geographic tensions that exist to this day.

Spanish-American War:
America's lone offensive campaign that yielded few, if any negative consequences....except for Castro.

WWI:
Defensive. Victory.

WWII:
Defensive. Victory

Korea:
Offensive. Draw.

Vietnam:
Offensive. Loss.

Iraq:
Offensive. Loss.

Offensive war is illegal internationally, unconstitutional, and counter to the cause of liberty. We also don't perform very well when we're the aggressors.

Freeman... Korea was a victory buddy, the mission was to Hault the spread of communism, to stop North Korea for taking over and absorbing South Korea. Gues what, we still have a South Korea, the invasion was turned back. Chalk it up for the WIN

Your analysis: Loss.

My analysis: Victory.

Rest of story: Over.:headbang:

I love it when people redefine victory in order to achieve it.
It's not petty at all, and it works great :beat: