And following your logic, here's an article describing why the US image was doomed from the get-go. The rebuilding effort was used to reward republican loyalists. I've heard stories before about this.

This is the first article I've read that does an indepth analysis of how the rebuilding effort was started. I heard interviews with some young people, just out of college, who were appointed to positions in the rebuilding effort. In interviewing them, they were surprised they were appointed to what should be considered an important position. When discussing their backgrounds, membership in the Young Republicans seemed to be the one requirement for these positions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/

I think the part that is really disgusting is that this is typical of the modus operandi of the current administration. Appointing someone who previously was responsible for horses to head FEMA as an example. Everything has been politicized by these guys.


><snip>
>>Either way you will almost certainly have a conquered population that is hostile to the conquerers. Do you think it matters who started the war?
>
>In my layman's opinion, at the end of the war either the aggressor has won or the defender. If the aggressor has won it is well possible that the aggression and aggressive attitude towards the conquered "enemy" will continue. If the defender wins then it is possible that the defeated aggressor will accept the error of their ways and be amenable to working together to overcome the past and atone for the mistakes made. In other words the winner will, imo, set the tone for the attitude each side takes towards the other.