Originally Posted by The_Jazz

They did. In 1991.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Baraka, interesting points. I have always believed that war is simply politics prosecuted by other means. One does not enter into war lightly, in my opinion (the Bush administration notwithstanding), but should a country make the decision to go to war they must do so with the intention to win. If they do not, then there is no point. Please note that I did not say "win but keep their morals intact". People die in war - it is a truism. Sometimes innocent people die in war - again another truism. It is unavoidable since they do not happen in a vacuum.

Wars end and then people must deal with what had to be done to win or deal with the fact that they lost. War is a very scary proposition for governments since a defeat can topple them or end in occupation. A government not willing to compromise on moral integrity at a time of war is a government that faces being voted out at best or being removed by force.

This caught me, though:



Realizing that no Western nation is currently "suffering" because of the Iraq or Afganistan Wars - there are no shortages or battles being fought there - I think that you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. If you asked anyone with family members getting ready to invade Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was preferable, I will bet that the response would be in the high 90's for the atomic option. If dropping firebombs on Kabul, for instance, would bring Canadian troops home sooner and with a lower casualty rate, do you really think that Canadians would chose to keep troops in the field over the opportunity to bring them home?