Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.Deportation or forcible transfer of population is a crime against humanity.
I am not really sure how removing millions of people from what they consider their homeland could possibly make them happy.
Well, apparently it has been good enough for Palestinians.
What do you mean by "win the war"?
Do you mean kill all the terrorists?
That will make more terrorists.
Do you mean get the oil?
Do you mean be able to look the rest of the world in the eyes?
Then let the Islamic world live in their 12th century paradigm.
Stop slaughtering people.
Stop wasting the planet and dumping toxins and wreaking havok on the atmosphere to fuel the military-industrial drug and go and make America great again.
No-one respects a bully and even less a bully that can end the world with nuclear weapons and still thinks "evolution is a theory" means that the verdict of evidence is still out.
Learn some damn history.
What do you mean by "win the war"?
Finish the job and leave Iraq a stable country!!!
This half ass job of invading and leaving the place a miss will come back and bite the US in the butt
Learn some damn history.
I have, so here is some damn history for the ignorant.
Lesson 1 Western Europe post world war II
After defeating the Nazi's in Europe the US helps rebuild the region. Western Europe sees an unpresedented era of peace 60+ years and counting. There is a whole generation of Belgians now raising there grand children with out some great European army marching throught the country side. Name any period of Western European history in the previous 1000 years in which that has happened. Europe is now united in a way they have not been since Roman Hegemony of early Christiandom. The British, the on time American overlord and enemy is now US most staunch ally.
Lesson 2 Afaganistan,last part of the 20th century.
US supports a war in Afganistan against the Soviets. When the Soviets are defeated US support for Afganistan stops. US allies in the region are left to themselves. These one time US allies become US enemies leading to the single most deadly attack of any kind, on US soil. The US FAILED TO SUPPORT THE REBUILDING OF AFGANISTAN AND NOW YOUNG AMERICANS ARE DIEING IN THAT COUNTRY. DO YOU GET IT! Fifty years after a cease fire in Korea YOUNG AMERICAN LIVES are still put on the line to defend S. Korea, because there was no resolution in that conflict.
Living Iraq a mess as it is now, will only cause more strife for the US and those people in the region. I am sorry that the world is far more complicated than "lets all be friends and live together in peace". Try to place a flower in the barrel of an AK held by an Alaeda operative who has been taught to hate you?
It isn't a matter of us staying there indefinitely and funneling tons of money into rebuilding the country. If that were the answer, we would have seen more progress. The fact of the matter is that unless there is a reconciliation between the three factions of people in the nation, there will never be a stable Iraq. The infrastructure that we've spearheaded is already tremendously corrupt with people selling medicine and food meant for hospitals and those that need it to the highest bidder on the black market. Representatives for each ethnic and religious group all have ties to their respective militias and will only look out for their own group's interests. People that advocate reform in the corrupt interim government have been pretty well strong armed out of the system and the country, if not murdered outside of their own homes. Nobody is yet willing to throw aside their old grudges and the Kurds are already making their own separate country in the north.
And I agree that picking up and leaving will certainly not change that, but we have to consider how long we really need to be there and just how many lives and dollars we are willing to invest. This is one of the situations where having a lot of friends would have helped: World War 2 had a successful post-war period in part because it wasn't one power working to make things right again and if only one nation is going to be responsible for policing, rebuilding and reconciling an entire country then something's got to give. It is a really regrettable situation and will likely serve as a lesson for future conflicts on exactly how one shouldn't go about toppling a dictatorship.
Well, my opinion is unpopular to be sure, but I am a bit jaded over the whole thing as I have stated before having had a more than a few friends get wounded and having spent time over there in that region over the last 20+ years; so, if it was up to me the place would be severely depopulated; the region has been nothing but a headache for everyone for the last few thousand years. Then, I reconsider and have an attack of pity and grief for all those to weak to stand up for themselves and talk to my friends like the ones that just got back from two tours over there and who tell me all the things they have witnessed first hand and feel we are doing a pretty good job and am pretty satisfied and wish the Congress would get a big punch in the mouth and shut the hell up and stop fueling all this anger and bs with their lies and agendas of missinformation. Sigh, I keep wondering when Russia is going to apply some pressure on the situation and help us straighten this situation out as they have a much better rep in the area; well, except for Afghanistan.
I get sick and tired of politicians trying to armchair the war, if you can really call it a war - I don't, Generals should run the war. After all, that is what they train to do; give them objectives and whatever they ask for to fulfill the objectives and let them do their job; hold them accountable to the task you have given them, but then I have always been in favor of overwhelming force; I would have about 10 times the forces we and other countries have there and would have a No Bull attitude. These irresponsible care bear conficts are useless, get a lot of people injured, maimed, and killed and just destroys our credibility in the eyes of both our allies and any political opponents. This lame duck congress is still carring on for the countless mistakes make by the grubbing so called do-gooder who was the president for a while by the last initial Clinton. Dont believe me; check your history; he had us involved in more conflicts than any other president since Roosevelt <-- who was president during WW2. Most of you probably dont know much about all the places that idiot sent us in the name of this that and the other; can't really say they were bad ideas; and those places certainly need help; but sheesh, the way it was implemented was nuts from a tactial or strategic sense. Consider also that more generals of more theaters resigned under that guy than any other president in history. But then I suppose it might not be his fault; after all, we have had a number of really bad presidents, Jefferson being the worst by my estimation and he got stuck on the $20 dallor bill; so nothing really makes sense to me.
War as a political tool is stupid. War is a hateful, terrible thing that should be avoided if at all possible; trying to have a clean, sterile war only makes it more acceptable to the populous and politicians more apt to try to use it as a tool rather than a thing to be avoided. If you are at war that means your political tools failed so the politicians should be embarrassed about their failure and stop contributing to the failure of others. sigh, like I said; I know to much and am a bit jaded; tommorow I will probably be embarrassed myself about this whole post and wish I kept my typer clear as I have learned time and time again that people like their rose colored visions and the other viewpoints tend to set peeps off. I of the school that if you are going to have a war; you should do everything within your power to make sure you win, but that is unpopular in the current social setting.
hehe as for history; most peopel probably dont realize that most of our current troubles in the middle east are all due to the British, but then, I am a student of history of sorts.
|
I have, so here is some damn history for the ignorant.
Lesson 1 Western Europe post world war II
Lesson 1 The country that was invaded, as opposed to liberated, because of World War II was fully occupied for four years before being allowed to form a government. During that time, it was partitioned, resulting in it becoming two countries for forty years, and a small part was sectioned off to become a third country for a decade before it rejoined one of the countries.
Lesson 2 Germany (the country from Lesson 1) also had a significant part of its pre-war territory completely severed from it, and had several million people forcibly relocated from both the territory it lost, and other countries that no longer wanted a significant population with a German heritage.
Lesson 3 The original plans for Germany were to permanently cripple it economically, both physically and by treaty terms. It was only when these plans were changed that any turn around was possible in Germany.
Lesson 4 Germany was subjected to a comprehensive cultural revision. This included control of the media, the banning of numerous books, and the exclusion of some individuals not merely from government but from anything other than basic manual labor until they were certified.
None of this was done in Iraq.
Instead the focus was on proving it was just a liberation and a not a conquest. Without the occupation, without the dismemberment, without the disarmament, without the cultural revision, there was never any reason for the people to feel they had been conquered, and never any reason for them to change their behavior or expectations, and never any way to enforce such changes. A military victory was made impossible in pursuit of a theoretical political victory.
As such, a comparison to Europe in World War II is going to fall short unless . . .
Lesson 5 One country that was liberated was made a full partner to the allied effort.
Lesson 6 That country had significant territory restored to it after the war. This included territory that had no desire to be so restored. This lead to two wars, both of which the country lost, and both of which featured significant war crimes by the country.
Lesson 7 That country did not merely share in the occupation of the country that was conquered, but also in the free rebuilding the US provided after the war.
Lesson 8 The country determined how to present itself regarding its participation during the war and its occupation. It naturally did so in a completely nationalistic manner, blaming everything on the agressor nation (Germany) and on a very few (relatively speaking) colloborators.
The result?
Twelve years later the government fell to what was functionally a military coup.
And while France has managed to keep the government that resulted from that coup as a republic, it is the instability of the Fourth French Republic that should be taken as a model of what should have been expected in Iraq. And indeed, taking into account the base cultural differences as well as certain political developments (that is, terrorism as represented by Al Qaeda), things are comparable; the government is inherently unstable; there are separatist movements; the violence continues to escalate through terrorism and atrocity.
Hmmm . . .
Rebuilding at this point is all but irrelevant. The problem is that not enough was torn down in the first place. Instead of clearing the ground and building a proper foundation, Iraq and Afghanistan are both the equivalent of crudely blowing off your attic, then trying to add ten new floors of concrete and steel to your existing two story wooden house.
Only a fool or an ideologue could possibly expect otherwise.
Unfortunately, too of many of both are setting the policy.
If you are not sure what I meant about this whole thing is the fault of the Britons; well, they drew the maps dividing up the land of that whole region after WW2 and were good to their friends and allies and vindictive to thier enemies; the Palastinians, for example, supported the Nazis and in punishment, and therefore did not get a country while the Israelies, on the other hand, whom everyone felt the blow of the atrocities done to them, ended up with the best, most fertile land in the region.
We could blame the whole thing on the Romans :) as they were stuck in much the same situation that we are currently in, had a plan to fix it, were about to enact it; but then had a civil war and never got around to fixing it due to all the Germanic pesks; hehe did you know that the Romans had a serious plan at one time to completely exterminate all of the German tribes; they could have easily done it; they were really, really pissed that the Germans never kept their treaties.
so, the big question about this and every conflict in the Middle East; is how do you separate the rational people from the nutjobs, or in more political terms; the moderates from the extremists; they all look the same and nobody is trustworthy; hehe even the word of our government can only be trusted for four years or less due to our political system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are not sure what I meant about this whole thing is the fault of the Britons; well, they drew the maps dividing up the land of that whole region after WW2 and were good to their friends and allies and vindictive to thier enemies; the Palastinians, for example, supported the Nazis and in punishment, and therefore did not get a country while the Israelies, on the other hand, whom everyone felt the blow of the atrocities done to them, ended up with the best, most fertile land in the region.
Apparently you have never heard of Jordan. It is a Palestinian state formed from a majority of the original Palestine Mandate.
And apparently you have never heard of the Partition Of Palestine, from which a Palestinian state was created. The parts of that state that were not on the Israeli side of the armistice line were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, neither of which allowed an independent Palestinian state to be created.And apparently you have never heard of (pre-Saudi) Arabia or Iraq, both of which were created by the British to reward allies. (Such as they were.)
You apparently have also never heard that most all of the Arabs of the Middle East supported the Nazis, not just the Mufti of Jerusalem.
And you apparently have never heard that most of the land Israel received in the Partition of Palestine was the wasteland of the Negev.
And you apparently are unaware that even after a White Paper advised admitting Jewish refugees to Palestine for humanitarian reasons, the British government refused to do so.
And apparently you are also unaware that the French were heavily involved in dividing up the Middle East after World War I. That is why Syria and Lebanon exist.
Thanks for everyone participating in the debate.
I'm over it. Do not have the will to continue argueing.
Boy I was right placing a title like "We should win the War" and arguing that point sure did bring out a lot of debate.
I have enjoyed it a lot.
but to end this post I would like to mention
WAR SUCKS!!!!
of the school that if you are going to have a war; you should do everything within your power to make sure you win, but that is unpopular in the current social setting....
Here 's to the unpopular crowd. My sentiments exactly
PEACE
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
of the school that if you are going to have a war; you should do everything within your power to make sure you win, but that is unpopular in the current social setting....
Here 's to the unpopular crowd. My sentiments exactly
PEACE
There's a reason it's unpopular: it's stupid, and offers nothing helpful to the dicussion. "Everything within your power" would include things like genocide that frankly aren't acceptable solutions to any rational human being.
Of course, internet discourse drags out the irrational like rotting meat drags out flies.
There's a reason it's unpopular: it's stupid, and offers nothing helpful to the dicussion. "Everything within your power" would include things like genocide that frankly aren't acceptable solutions to any rational human being.Of course, internet discourse drags out the irrational like rotting meat drags out flies.
It was unpopular NOT TO SUPPORT the war in 2004. Does that make the opinion stupid. Very few stood against the call to arms against Iraq in 2004, now they are in it. Now that many in the US are unhappy with the progress, the popular opinion is to quite and denounce war as stupid.
You win battles with soldiers, generals and force of arms. You win the war through political solutions. The generals and soldiers continue to win the battles, the war is lost in the political arena. Your not going to win the war with poisoning of the region with a nuclear holocaust, as some people suggest "Jus' Nuke 'm all" But the US has not used "Everything within it's power to win this war". The incompetent US congress doesn't have the will to stand up to the profiteering, and cronyism, that has led to ineffective solutions to the war in Iraq.
It is irrational to think that the US enemies are going to agree and denounce war because its stupid, if the US just removes it's soldiers from Iraq. I will bet the opposite happens and the enemies if the US are embolden to attack again. They attacked the US prior to any invasion of Iraq. Remember thousands of dead human beings in New York because of irrational war mongers.
War is irrational, so is believing you can start a war, then quite before you finish and hope your enemies will not strike and retaliate.
Besides to think humans will are like to act rationalle is irrational.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
It was unpopular NOT TO SUPPORT the war in 2004. Does that make the opinion stupid. Very few stood against the call to arms against Iraq in 2004, now they are in it. Now that many in the US are unhappy with the progress, the popular opinion is to quite and denounce war as stupid.You win battles with soldiers, generals and force of arms. You win the war through political solutions. The generals and soldiers continue to win the battles, the war is lost in the political arena. Your not going to win the war with poisoning of the region with a nuclear holocaust, as some people suggest "Jus' Nuke 'm all" But the US has not used "Everything within it's power to win this war". The incompetent US congress doesn't have the will to stand up to the profiteering, and cronyism, that has led to ineffective solutions to the war in Iraq.
It is irrational to think that the US enemies are going to agree and denounce war because its stupid, if the US just removes it's soldiers from Iraq. I will bet the opposite happens and the enemies if the US are embolden to attack again. They attacked the US prior to any invasion of Iraq. Remember thousands of dead human beings in New York because of irrational war mongers.
War is irrational, so is believing you can start a war, then quite before you finish and hope your enemies will not strike and retaliate.
Besides to think humans will are like to act rationalle is irrational.
I didn't discuss whether or not the war was stupid, I dimissed the idea that crowing about "by any means necessary" was somehow a useful debating point. It's not, because no one rational is willing to do "whatever it takes", because "whatever it takes" includes measures as drastic as genocide. It's just not a useful contribution to a discussion, and frankly reveals the people advocating "whatever it takes" as not actually having a clue what to do.
The general point about "pulling out" "emboldening our enemies" really has nothing to do with the specifics of any particular war. It might make sense as a general policy, but only a fool uses a general policy as an excuse to avoid examining the merits of a specific situation. I'll note we didn't get attacked by Vietnam and Canada as obvious counterexamples. Actually, I'd say it's hard to find a case where the US got attacked for failure to pursue a war to its conclusion, though I wouldn't think it's impossible.
I'm amused you've joined the ranks of those linking Iraq and the tower bombings, by the way. No connection there. But an admirable attempt to shut out debate by standing on top of a pile of dead bodies shrieking "never again!".
|
|
Can you name one war the US has sent troops to help Israel fight?
The answer is of course, "No."
The Us has never committed troops to any war that Israel has fought, or even any of the extended anti-terrorist sweeps Israel has engaged in.
Israel though has put itself on the line to support wars the US has fought, refraining from retaliating against Iraq during the first Gulf War.
Yes, kind of...
In june 1982, after a commando has tried to kill Israel's ambassador in London, Israel's forces (Tsahal) launch bombs on PLO encampments in southern Lebanon. Beyrouth is surrounded by Tsahal around mid-august 1982.
Then, around the 15th of septembre 1982, lots of palestinian civilians (mostly) & PLO activists are slaughtered in Sabra & Chatila by mercenaries forces from south Lebanon, supported by Israel, along with Tsahal.
The bodycount varies from 700 to 3.500 civilians, mostly women & children.
In september,the UN decide to send military forces (Italian, French & US mostly) to keep peace in Lebanon.
In april 1983, a huge bombing at the US embassy kills 63 people.
And after several attacks (leaving 27 dead among UN forces -> 18 french soldiers, 8 marines), there are simultaneous bombings on the french (58 dead) and US (241 dead, 220 of them being marines) military bases.
Technically, the USA are not drawn into the war to help or fight along Israel, but because of a near-assassination of ONE man, much more than 1.000 are killed for sure (probably 6.000-10.000), more than 300 of them being US (around 250 US soldiers).
(...) let us not forget that the US got involved in Viet Nam to support the French.
That is only partially true (indeed being partially false !).
US sold ammunitions to french army, advised them on strategy.But in 1954, France was out after Dien Bien Phu.
The escalation toward war, under Kennedy, begins with a big increase of US military advisers in South Vietnam in spring-summer 1962 (700 to 12.000 in around a year).
But France has been out of the game for MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS.
The USA are helping and supporting a brand new S-Vietnam gouvernment.
Here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Diem_era.2C_1955.E2.80.931963
I think I could go on and on like this.
Sorry, history, to me, seems much more complicated than whinning about "how the USA were drawn into conflicts that are not their own because of decisions taken by the big baddie called United Nations."
Moreover, USA have a veto at the UN, and if they do not want a war being launched, they can vote against it !
This veto at the UN is FACT.
|
|
The result?
Twelve years later the government fell to what was functionally a military coup.
You must remember that Hitler had his NSDAP political party being ahead of the elections in 1932 (he lost in spring 1932 against Hindenburg for the presidency).
Hindenburg had no real political choice other than to appoint Hitler as a chancellor (prime minister) in january 1933.There was no military coup before spring 1933 (Reichtag's burning, Hitler accused the communists).
He was almost elected then appointed.
It is even worse... imagining he was APPOINTED before seizing total power and deciding the awful things he decided.
And I am not speaking of war !
Do nobody forget that, there are indeed the hideous "final solution" (5,2 to 5,8 millions people of jewish culture and religion killed), as well as 50.000 to 80.000 tsigans, 10.000 or more (some say 50.000 to 60.000) homosexuals killed, hundreds & hundreds of mentally or physically handicapped or ill persons, and hundreds of political opponents.
As well as around 200.000 women sterilized, 400.000 german men sterilized, experiments by Mengele and other insane doctors...
And while France has managed to keep the government that resulted from that coup as a republic, it is the instability of the Fourth French Republic that should be taken as a model of what should have been expected in Iraq.
Thanks for the comparison : I am french.
However, this comparison is totally out of place.
Iraq was "created" around 1920 (indeed, I can recognize that at least one thing you wrote is true : G-Britain & France created those middle-east countries from the territories they controlled).
You could say that, after Clovis & his francs (4th century), the heir of Carolus Magnus who inherited Francia (in 814), or the 1st kingdom of France (987, Hugues Capet, but it was a tiny tiny kingdom), France is ALMOST what it is today from the beginning of the 13th century on.
And we have been a democracy and a republic (with some kings and emperors in between) since 1791.
Only 4 years after the USA adopted their own constitution (and the USA were much much smaller than today : they did not comprise lots of actual states, like Texas, Alaska, California, the whole french Louisiana...).
Moreover, the first modern democracy is founded in Corsica in november 1755 by Pascal Paoli.
His work has greatly inspired the US constitution (since he was himself inspired by various philosophers and intellectuals, half of them being french : Montalembert, Diderot, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Emmanuel Kant...).
hehe good thing the debate ended so I dont have to prove the apparently purple squid as out of apparently out of touch and apparently ignoring the British influence in the world and apparently thinking that Palastine has been recognised as a country and apparently a whole lot of other misconceptions :) lol, as your apparently over it; we can all have a beer and think of something else to blather about; hehe. It was fun to consider that the Romans could have and had plans on the table which would have eliminated the need for ww1, ww2, and many other of our modern conflicts. ah well, happy gaming.
|
|
Yes, kind of...
. . .
Technically, the USA are not drawn into the war to help or fight along Israel, but because of a near-assassination of ONE man, much more than 1.000 are killed for sure (probably 6.000-10.000), more than 300 of them being US (around 250 US soldiers).
Techically, kind of, total nonsense you mean.
Those troops were there to maintain the stability of Lebanon. A country that was inherently unstable because of (surprise!) France, and the colonial policy of France in their mandate territories of Syria and Lebanon.That is only partially true (indeed being partially false !).
That is wholly true, it is simply not detailed.
I think I could go on and on like this.
With stretching causality and pretending that a lack of detail is false?
Sorry, history, to me, seems much more complicated than whinning about "how the USA were drawn into conflicts that are not their own because of decisions taken by the big baddie called United Nations."
You mean like suggesting Israel has dragged the US into wars?
The problem is, that is not true, no matter how much you want to spin things.Moreover, USA have a veto at the UN, and if they do not want a war being launched, they can vote against it !
And so be condemned like with Darfur?
Maybe you should complain about the nations blocking any action there instead of the US.Meanwhile China is blocking action against the government of Myanmar because of money. I guess that is not worth noting.
This veto at the UN is FACT.
But of what relevance?
It was unpopular NOT TO SUPPORT the war in 2004. Does that make the opinion stupid. Very few stood against the call to arms against Iraq in 2004, now they are in it. Now that many in the US are unhappy with the progress, the popular opinion is to quite and denounce war as stupid.You win battles with soldiers, generals and force of arms. You win the war through political solutions. The generals and soldiers continue to win the battles, the war is lost in the political arena. Your not going to win the war with poisoning of the region with a nuclear holocaust, as some people suggest "Jus' Nuke 'm all" But the US has not used "Everything within it's power to win this war". The incompetent US congress doesn't have the will to stand up to the profiteering, and cronyism, that has led to ineffective solutions to the war in Iraq.
It is irrational to think that the US enemies are going to agree and denounce war because its stupid, if the US just removes it's soldiers from Iraq. I will bet the opposite happens and the enemies if the US are embolden to attack again. They attacked the US prior to any invasion of Iraq. Remember thousands of dead human beings in New York because of irrational war mongers.
War is irrational, so is believing you can start a war, then quite before you finish and hope your enemies will not strike and retaliate.
Besides to think humans will are like to act rationalle is irrational.
I didn't discuss whether or not the war was stupid,Yes but you did imply that an unpopular opinion is a stupid opinion.
QUOTE="Russ Taylor"]
There's a reason it's unpopular: it's stupid, and offers nothing helpful to the dicussion. "Everything within your power" would include things like genocide that frankly aren't acceptable solutions to any rational human being.So is not supporting the war still stupid?
I dimissed the idea that crowing about "by any means necessary" was somehow a useful debating point. It's not, because no one rational is willing to do "whatever it takes", because "whatever it takes" includes measures as drastic as genocide.You make a good point and I concede "by any means neccesary" does include genocide and nuclear anhillation
It's just not a useful contribution to a discussion, and frankly reveals the people advocating "whatever it takes" as not actually having a clue what to do.Well that's an emotional, irrationale statement. Now, now, settle down Beavis, just because somebody doesn't have the same opinion as you, doesn't mean they are clueless. I wouldn't say Valgrim doesn't have a clue as what to do, from what I've seen of his posts he is clued into a lot.
To clarify, I thought the link between Alqaeda and Saddam Hussein put forth by the US president was suspect. As it turned out that link was untrue (like so much out of the currenty US presidentcy). But those who motivitated the attackers of the World Trade Center, continue to motivate others to kill Americans in Iraq. So you may not want to make the link between the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 and the current situation in Iraq, but US enemies have and continue too use that horrific event as a rallying cry. That was a valid statement 3 years ago, but at this point is outdated.
[I'm amused you've joined the ranks of those linking Iraq and the tower bombings, by the way. No connection there.
The general point about "pulling out" "emboldening our enemies" really has nothing to do with the specifics of any particular war. It might make sense as a general policy, but only a fool uses a general policy as an excuse to avoid examining the merits of a specific situation. I'll note we didn't get attacked by Vietnam and Canada as obvious counterexamples. Actually, I'd say it's hard to find a case where the US got attacked for failure to pursue a war to its conclusion, though I wouldn't think it's impossible.
America is such a young country there isn't a whole lot of history to examine. But lets start with the current war in Iraq. Every time the US pulls its forces out of an area, the enemy regroups and attacks. Boy I don't have to go far to find an example where "pulling out""emboldens the enemy".
But an admirable attempt to shut out debate by standing on top of a pile of dead bodies shrieking "never again!".
First of I am not trying to shut out any debate, I started this thread, to open up a debate with people I am fond of debating with, because most people can debate fairly rational on these message boards. THere are so many places I could not debate any of this because of wild emotions and I would be denounced for "standing on a pile of bodies shreiking "never again".
It is irrational to think that the US enemies are going to agree and denounce war because its stupid, if the US just removes it's soldiers from Iraq. I will bet the opposite happens and the enemies if the US are embolden to attack again. They attacked the US prior to any invasion of Iraq. Remember thousands of dead human beings in New York because of irrational war mongers.
those irrational war mongers who inspired the attacks in New York are inspiring others to fight is in Iraq, not to force the US out of Iraq, but to kill Americans. They bombed embassies in Saudi Arabia and other places before the the US invasion of Iraq. These people want to destroy America and have wanted to do it prior to the invasion of Iraq. That was my point.
But good try at taking my statement out of context and adding the "never again", to make my statement look like a cry for revenge, over 911. It's an OK (if lazy), rhetorical trick to making your opponent look foolish (pisst you can do better, keep trying). Ask Bill O'Reilly, he is great at that trick on the "No Spin Zone".
hehe good thing the debate ended so I dont have to prove the apparently purple squid as out of apparently out of touch and apparently ignoring the British influence in the world and apparently thinking that Palastine has been recognised as a country and apparently a whole lot of other misconceptions :) lol, as your apparently over it; we can all have a beer and think of something else to blather about; hehe. It was fun to consider that the Romans could have and had plans on the table which would have eliminated the need for ww1, ww2, and many other of our modern conflicts. ah well, happy gaming.
Apperently i wasn't over it. But I am now. Let's go get a beer and get back to what is real important, debating whether 4ed. will be better than 3ed.
Of course we all know 4th edition is going to be way better than that inadequate outdated dinosaur of a game system 3ed DND.
LOL ~boy I like to start trouble~
:) It was fun to consider that the Romans could have and had plans on the table which would have eliminated the need for ww1, ww2, and many other of our modern conflicts. ah well, happy gaming.
Wow you didn't know that LOL
|
|
You must remember that . . .
Your digression is totally irrelevant.
But I can see why you would make it.Thanks for the comparison : I am french.
You are welcome.
However, this comparison is totally out of place.
Not really.
The model being used is one of a country that has been through a war recovering, not one of a country with experience in self-government.The fact is, virtually all countries that have been conquered or liberated have had trouble forming a government immediately afterwards. If a country with a history of democratic self-government is subject to such a collapse, it is rather ridiculous to expect a country without such will spontaneously develop a stable government in a year or two.
Vietnam was all about not letting the Russians have a warm water port; everything else was just spin.
The French left Vietnam by the time the US entered that conflict. The US went in to support the anti communist government left in place by the French in South Vietnam.
That is absolutely incorrect, President Truman sent advisers to Vietnam in 1950, to assist the French.
By the time of the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1964, the US had sent over 500 million dollars worth of aid to French operations in Vietnam.
Teresa Jakobsen,
US Army, Ret.
thank you for the info
anyone want a beer.
There was peace in Europe from the time after Napoleon up until World War I. A long period of actual peace with relatively free trade and prosperity. Everyone benefitted from that.
the Franco Prussian war, its why we have a Germany. Just to name one of the many conflicts of the time. So BAB your wrong.
In short, the moral lessons of World War II are far more ambiguous than the neocon party line would lead us to believe
What is a neocon Party? Are they any fun?
You would be wrong in labeling me a conservative.
I come up with my own opinions, thank you very much.
I'm no fan of America, they stole my country over a 100yrs ago.
Yes, the Belgians came out ahead after World War II. So did India, which was able to throw off British control.
they did? Cool. What i think I know is they were always had larger nations (France/ Prussia/ Brittian), moving there armies through that little nation to do battle. I think Waterloo was in Belgium. I'm probably wrong.
There was peace in Europe from the time after Napoleon up until World War I. A long period of actual peace with relatively free trade and prosperity. Everyone benefitted from that.
the Franco Prussian war, its why we have a Germany.
Thank you, now try telling me something I don't know.
Just to name one of the many conflicts of the time.
Not a general war Kaikillah, the battles between France and Germany during that year long war had little effect on the other nations in Europe. Feel free to point out the other conflicts, but my statement still stands, Europe had a Great Peace before the Great War, starting around 1815 when Napoleon was banished.
This peace was without nuclear weapons pointed at civilian populations, and without machine guns and walls designed to keep people inside their own countries.
No Kaikillah, I am correct.
So BAB your wrong.
The franco austrian war, the franco-spanish war, austro purssian war, there three more examples of wars in western europe between the Napoleonic war and WWI and apperently three more things you don't know about. I'm not going to make the distinction between what is a genreral war and what is just a war. You can play the same distinction game with the Korean conflict, the Vietnam police action and the Iraq liberation, but in the end historians label these things conflicts war.
So BAB your still wrong.
I'm not sure where to find Germany on the map of 1816 Europe. Oh my bad there wasn't one. The French, the Prussian, the Austrians, those poor Belgians, I can't even name those silly German princapalities of the age, Russia and Brittain were effected by these wars. It changed the map of Europe.
So BAB, BAB
they did? Cool. What i think I know is they were always had larger nations (France/ Prussia/ Brittian), moving there armies through that little nation to do battle. I think Waterloo was in Belgium. I'm probably wrong.
Yes, the Belgians came out ahead after World War II. So did India, which was able to throw off British control.You are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo,_Belgium
That of course, marks the beginning of the Great Peace in Europe.
What great peace in Europe. Europe of the 1800 ws marked by some great social, political and economical upheaval. You need to stop getting your history lesson from wikipedia and go to a library.
In short, the moral lessons of World War II are far more ambiguous than the neocon party line would lead us to believeWhat is a neocon Party? Are they any fun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
You would be wrong in labeling me a conservative.I come up with my own opinions, thank you very much.
I didn't label you anything. But using World War II as an argument for continuing whatever current war is going on is a common tactic used by neocons.
Yeah I'm not a neo conservative. I actually voted for Ralph Nader, twice. Loser, he never even got close to winning the presidency.
I'm not sure if I'm so much for Winning the War as I am for the US taking responsability for the invasion of Iraq. When I mean respons-ability I mean finish the job of rebuilding that countries political infra structure. But we should win the war is a much more exciting title than we should take responsability.
Yes, the Belgians came out ahead after World War II. So did India, which was able to throw off British control. The same cannot be said for East Germans, Polish, Hungarians, Czeckoslavakians, Lithuanians, and many other peoples of Eastern Europe. Tens of millions of Christians were condemned to slavery under Communism for two generations.
I believe the term used was "liberated". The same term that gets thrown a lot lately, with pretty much the same meaning.
|
|
Those troops were there to maintain the stability of Lebanon. A country that was inherently unstable because of (surprise!) France, and the colonial policy of France in their mandate territories of Syria and Lebanon.Yes, kind of...
Technically, the USA are not drawn into the war to help or fight along Israel, but because of a near-assassination of ONE man, much more than 1.000 are killed for sure (probably 6.000-10.000), more than 300 of them being US (around 250 US soldiers).
This is Wiki US :
"Historical developmentThe 1975-1990 civil war seriously damaged Lebanon's economic infrastructure, cut national output by half, and all but ended Lebanon's position as a Southwest Asian entrepôt and banking hub.[20] The subsequent period of relative peace enabled the central government to restore control in Beirut, begin collecting taxes, and regain access to key port and government facilities. Economic recovery has been helped by a financially sound banking system and resilient small- and medium-scale manufacturers, with family remittances, banking services, manufactured and farm exports, and international aid as the main sources of foreign exchange.[30]
Until the 2006 Lebanon War, Lebanon's economy witnessed excellent growth, with bank assets reaching over 75 billion dollars.[31] By the end of the first half of 2006, the influx of tourists to Lebanon has already registered a 49.3% increase over 2005 figures.[31] Market capitalization was also at an all time high, estimated at $10.9 billion at the end of the second quarter of 2006, just weeks before the fighting started.[31]."
So, Lebanon was one of the most succesful country of middle-east from 1949 to 1975, with a strong economy, investments from the USA, Europe, Asia & other middle-east countries.
That was because of its stability, democracy, very much unlike other countries in this area (except for Israel : Israel is a real democracy, probably one of the best (a president forced to quit because of various scandals), except regarding some of the rights of the arabs (including the israeli-arabs).
That is only partially true (indeed being partially false !).That is wholly true, it is simply not detailed.
I think I could go on and on like this.With stretching causality and pretending that a lack of detail is false?
Sorry, history, to me, seems much more complicated than whinning about "how the USA were drawn into conflicts that are not their own because of decisions taken by the big baddie called United Nations."You mean like suggesting Israel has dragged the US into wars?
The problem is, that is not true, no matter how much you want to spin things..
Alright, I won't argue over this...
Too much energy !Moreover, USA have a veto at the UN, and if they do not want a war being launched, they can vote against it !And so be condemned like with Darfur?
Maybe you should complain about the nations blocking any action there instead of the US.
Meanwhile China is blocking action against the government of Myanmar because of money. I guess that is not worth noting.
Darfur is a problem, right now, just because China is mass-investing in Africa, and there is a rich soil in southern Sudan...
On this matter, France hold the same position (more or less) as UK and USA.However...the USA did not go into Irak because of money... (2nd gulf war) ?!
Even if there was a UN decision for the 1st Gulf War, even France & other european countries did act because of money (I mean : oil).
Money is always one of the biggest motivation when it has to be decided wether to intervene or not.
Everybody (USSR, USA, France, UK, Germany, China...) was happy to sell weapons to Saddam back in late 70's and the 80's (especially when he launched a war against Iran).
It's crazy, but business is business, and it may be VERY cynical !
Let me tell you a funny story : I have a friend who used to work for a big french company (high technology).
After the 1st Gulf War, and with the blocus (blockade ?) voted at the UN, there was no way Irak could really build back its roads, telecommunication and many other structural things, and no way Irak could improve its former structures.
That friend was asked by its company to go on vacation in Jordan using his passport, and make a 2nd passport to go for business from Jordan to Irak where the needs were very high, and business was to be made.
He arrived at the Jordan-Iraki's border : a bus was waiting, and dozens of businessmen were there to do exactly the same thing.
Business, money, despite the blocus.
And all languages were spoken.
Businessmen from UK, Belgium, USA, China, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and so on.
The deal was : foreigner companies would work in Irak (but could not do this openly and could not be paid), other oil-companies settled in Irak will be paid with more oil than what was allowed by the UN, and they will pay back the technological companies in cash...
Isn't it beautiful ?
And let me tell you that when there is something like this, all the governments of those countries MUST know what is happening, for sure !
You NEVER know exactly everything that is done secretly by your gouvernment....
And they will not tell you !
|
|
You must remember that . . .Your digression is totally irrelevant.
But I can see why you would make it.
I must agree on that one.
However, Hitler went to power not because of a coup.After being chosen as (equivalent of) prime minister, he did make everything to make a coup that did not look like one !
Thanks for the comparison : I am french.You are welcome.
Thank you.
And I must add that I have never considered the USA as an enemy, and even if I have read so many bad things about the french when France was opposed to the 2nd Gulf war, I do consider that France & the USA are allied countries that can work together, cooperate...I do not approve, however, the 2nd Gulf War, among other things.
And I, sincerely, hope the cost will not be too high for your country.
And I am not speaking of the deceased.
For even the coldest soldier, the trauma caused by war is a deep wound that will never totally recover, even when there is no visible physical wound.
The monetary cost will be enormous.
However, this comparison is totally out of place.
Not really.
The model being used is one of a country that has been through a war recovering.
The fact is, virtually all countries that have been conquered or liberated have had trouble forming a government immediately afterwards. If a country with a history of democratic self-government is subject to such a collapse, it is rather ridiculous to expect a country without such will spontaneously develop a stable government in a year or two.
I mean, yes, in most of european coutries, it took days or months to have stable governments, afetr their liberation.
But hey, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Nederland, Luxembourg, France, Greece were all able to have a quick return of democracy, when not political stability (I am not speaking for France, here...).Saddam Hussein's dictatorship collapsed more than 5 and a half years ago.
It's been about 2 years and a half that Irak has chosen its representatives, and it is still very unstable.
Also, what about liberation of Irak ?
I do not think that Irak was occupied !?
So you're trying to compare countries occupied by the german army under the nazis' rule, and the Saddam's dictatorship ?
Yes, he was a murderer & a criminal, corrupted, megalomaniac...
But there has been lots of dictators throughout the 20th century (and there are still dictators around the world).
It does not mean that attacking those countries will bring a better life to its inhabitants.
For most Iraki people, freedom of speech or think is nice, but not starving to death or fearing for your life is better !
Sorry !
|
|
The franco austrian war, the franco-spanish war, austro purssian war, there three more examples of wars in western europe between the Napoleonic war and WWI and apperently three more things you don't know about. I'm not going to make the distinction between what is a genreral war and what is just a war. You can play the same distinction game with the Korean conflict, the Vietnam police action and the Iraq liberation, but in the end historians label these things conflicts war.
So BAB your still wrong.
I'm not sure where to find Germany on the map of 1816 Europe. Oh my bad there wasn't one. The French, the Prussian, the Austrians, those poor Belgians, I can't even name those silly German princapalities of the age, Russia and Brittain were effected by these wars. It changed the map of Europe.
So BAB, BAB
Ah, so then:
The Congo crisis.You are wrong.
|
|
This is Wiki US :
How about checking the history of Lebanon?
Let me see . . .Crisis in 1958
PLO Substate
Civil War
Syrian Occupation
You call that stble?
Alright, I won't argue over this...
Too much energy !
To acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the topic?
That does not require much energy.Darfur is a problem, right now, just because China is mass-investing in Africa, and there is a rich soil in southern Sudan...
On this matter, France hold the same position (more or less) as UK and USA.However...the USA did not go into Irak because of money... (2nd gulf war) ?!
Given how much the US is spending in Iraq, if it was done for money, it was done poorly.
I note however you want to suddenly change the subject of the issues with the Security Council veto now that I have pointed out the venality of other nations that have it.I mean, yes, in most of european coutries, it took days or months to have stable governments, afetr their liberation.
But hey, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Nederland, Luxembourg, France, Greece were all able to have a quick return of democracy, when not political stability (I am not speaking for France, here...).
Greece was unstable for years.
Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg recovered faster, primarily because of the conditions of their occupation.Again, all of this must be taken into consideration when making a comparison.
Saddam Hussein's dictatorship collapsed more than 5 and a half years ago.
It's been about 2 years and a half that Irak has chosen its representatives, and it is still very unstable.
Because of how the government has been directed to organize.
Also, what about liberation of Irak ?
I do not think that Irak was occupied !?
So you're trying to compare countries occupied by the german army under the nazis' rule, and the Saddam's dictatorship ?
Nice try, but not even close, although there are many similarities.
No, I am referring to the disorganized state Iraq was in after Hussein was removed, and how it was treated as just some typical western country where a poor ruler was removed, rather than one with a totally different history and culture that needed rebuilding of more than just infrastructure.Yes, he was a murderer & a criminal, corrupted, megalomaniac...
But there has been lots of dictators throughout the 20th century (and there are still dictators around the world).
It does not mean that attacking those countries will bring a better life to its inhabitants.
For most Iraki people, freedom of speech or think is nice, but not starving to death or fearing for your life is better !
Sorry !
I am sure you seriously believe they did not fear for their lives under Hussein.
You have to. Otherwise you could never justify to yourself that ending such a dictatorship is a good thing.Even the Vietnamese found the Khmer Rouge to be too excessive, but some found the killing fields to be a minor local matter, not worthy of international notice or action.
|
|
It seems there are two major centers of discussion regarding the Iraq occupation, so I'll toss in my two cents on each: First, there's the question of how we got involved in this situation and whether it was the right thing to do. Second, there's the standing question of what should we do now...
There's plenty of blame to be placed when you consider the events and decisions that got the U.S. stuck in Iraq, and we can certainly argue back and forth about who's most responsible: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz top the list in my mind, of course, but one might also look at Hussein, Congress, Bin Laden, Al Sadr, politicians from days long past, the American public for being complacent, etc etc. Ultimately, though, this is a moot point. We can go back and forth on the reasons, lies, miscalculations, and justifications used to get our troops into Iraq, but it doesn't change the fact that they are there. Was it the right thing to do? Also moot. It's done. I personally have always felt the Iraq invasion was a terrible mistake on many levels even if Hussein's removal was one good outcome in and of itself, but that's neither here nor there.
The more crucial part of the discussion involves the decisions currently being made, and choices yet to come. What should America do, with its military entrenched in a perilously unstable and hostile environment that is costing the lives of our soldiers each day and placing future generations of Americans in insurmountable debt before they're even born? Any reasonable decision regarding the future course of action must consider four questions: Can stability be achieved? What is the cost? Can we pay it? Should we pay it?
1) Can stability be achieved? Yes, possibly, given enough resources to pay the cost (see #2, below). We will never be able to "fix" the racial disharmony in Iraq, but it might be possible to build some degree of lasting peace. It's a long shot, but a continued military presence and the investment of more American "treasure" could eventually lead to a more stable Iraq. However, the forces working against a stable Iraq are more deeply rooted in the landscape and it's not practically possible to remove them. So any U.S. commitment to the situation would need to be long-term, fighting an uphill battle for acceptance and success in an openly hostile environment where every bullet fired (from either side) works to counter any progress. It is a far from guaranteed thing, no matter how much blood and wealth we spend to try to buy peace. And it would take many, many years.
2) What is the cost? It's impossible to calculate with any reliability, but a starting point would be to count the average number of casualties per year and the number of billions spent per year, and project those costs over 10-20 or more years. I'll leave the actual math to those with a better understanding of numbers so large they require scientific notation to calculate. America's reputation in the world and its "moral authority" has already been damaged by past decisions, but it, too, could still be diminished further by our actions as well. I'm not sure that it can be quantified, though.
3) Can we pay it? No, I don't believe we can. Our national debt is already up to $9,055,528,739,652.22, and will be higher by the time I click "submit post" (it goes up about 1.46 billion per day). The money we've already spent on this conflict will need to be paid by future generations who haven't even been conceived yet. Our nation is already bankrupt--we just keep raising our own credit limit so that reality doesn't catch up with us. If civility is even possible, the timeframe it would take us to build a lasting peace in Iraq is measured in decades; without a change of course, our economy will collapse long before we can accomplish it, and our ability to sustain the level of commitment needed to do so will diminish exponentially during that time.
4) Should we pay it? Sure, if we had trillions of dollars laying around with which to do so and if our military could sustain that kind of occupation without crippling itself against other threats. I believe we contributed heavily to the situation in Iraq, and are obligated to help set it right, but at some point one must look at the situation and see "the writing on the wall".
We should pay the cost of this occupation, but we can't, and our children shouldn't have to. Nor should our childrens' children, and so on. We're already in a situation where they will be paying for our recklessness, and that is not fair to them. Even if we are to assume full responsibility for the Iraq situation and dedicate every resource towards fixing it, we can not pay for it. Our nation is buying on credit, and has not raised its income (taxes) in order to cover the difference. [Quite the opposite, in fact; our government has been lowering its income while raising its expenditures.]
When a man goes bankrupt, his estate must pay for his debts, but the laws do not take the future earnings of his unborn children to pay for his mistakes decades later. At some point, the bankruptcy is settled and future generations are free to make their own way in the world. Not so with our nation. This nation's debt will never expire or be resolved until the nation itself expires or resolves it. So until that happens, future generations will be stuck with a debt they didn't create. With that in mind, we're under an obligation to put an end to the expenditures that are running up the debt, and work towards finding a balance. As long as we stay in Iraq, this can not and will not happen.
Final analysis: We'll probably be in a much better position to improve the world later if we withdraw from Iraq now. Chaos will ensue, but the alternative is to let our country's future be crushed under the weight of a burden we helped create, but can't afford to bear alone.
The National Debt is that bad?!? ~shakes my head in dismay~ Damn politicians! Damn them all! This will definatly come back to haunt us and not in a good way either!
National Debt clock:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/Up to $9,055,553,818,311.67 now.
~grimace~ Damn. We will never pay it off at this rate.
Not counting the new car that I jsut got, I owe around $32,000. I know just how hard it has been to pay that off and it is causing me no end of troubles. All I can say is Damn!