Herodotus wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about the "discrediting." The US has been
saving the world's asses for about a hundred years now and that doesn't
appear to be about to change anytime soon. When they see how much better
off Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East are ten years from now, along
with whatever else we happen to have to do to stand up for freedom,
they'll be singing a different tune. Or, the good people will anyway.
There will still be tyrants trying to drum up hate against the leader of
the free world though. Careful you don't let them fool you.

Stephen

Like in Vietnam, and Cambodia. I thought you got reamed in Somalia and
never went back.

I didn't say that US was undefeated or infallible.

Also, by our history books World War I started in 1914, not when the
US decided to join.

WWII started in September 1939, not over two years later when you
finally decided to get involved after Pearl Harbour. Prior to that,
several million Chinese had been killed since 1937 by invading
Japanese forces without the US being concerned at all.

If you're saying that in some cases the US almost waited too long to go
to war, you're right. I'm sure that lesson is part of the reason for the
current mentality to strike earlier, especially after 9/11.

The way I hear
history told from many Americans, they were the sole combatants
against the Japanese and Germans.

Was Korea a victory for UN troops? Doubt it. It finally ended in a
stalemate.

A stalemate in which South Korea was rescued from tyranny, at least. And
don't forget what we did for Japan once World War II was over. The
transformation of Japan from thousands of years of tyranny to a
democracy is one of the reasons for the current mentality in Iraq. We
learned that all human beings love freedom and will embrace it if given
the chance.

I do not discount US involvement in the first and second World Wars,
and like most people, do sincerely appreciate the US getting involved
when it did, but please, don't pretend that you "saved the world's
arses" .

Slight exaggeration, for effect. But the point is basically true.
Instead of using our military power to take over the world, we want the
opposite, to free the world. Up until the last two hundred years or so
the world's history has been full of tyranny. The most powerful nation
on earth has always tried to conquer and rule the world. The US is
obviously different. We are not alone in this, as you say, but we are
certainly "alone at the top." As the most powerful we have been thrust
into the role of leader of the free world. We can't be too trigger
happy, but we can't be too hesitant to help either. It is a difficult
position to be in.

As for Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East being better off,
you might find that history will evolve to negate Western involvement
just as the Crusades in actuality made no more impact than a mosquito
bite on an elephant's rear end. You (and the many allied troops - it
is not solely a US war) can never win in Afghanistan for many of the
same reasons you could have never won in Vietnam, but then we don't
talk about our defeats do we?

If the current government in Iraq succeeds and stabilizes, it will be a
model for the rest of the area. Free speech and debate will shove
Islamic extremism into the dung heap of history where is belongs.

Stephen