Today the Iraq War surpasses WWII for US military involvement...

[Aenlic]

During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bad.

We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.

Side Note:

Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.

[Vladimir]

The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.

However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.

[Xiahou]

The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.

However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
I agree- it's not a good metric. Those days don't include the occupation. But, I also agree with your answer.

[Aenlic]

A valid point about the occupations afterwards. But that was after the war ended. This one hasn't ended yet. We haven't occupied Iraq; we're still in the process of trying to occupy Iraq. :wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually I feel America occupied Iraq, then ****** off the locals, restarting the war.

[Strike For The South]

Bad.

We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.

Side Note:

Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.

I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.

Strike, you pinpoint the issue very neatly. Iran has always had more clout in the region than you do.

For a time, US administrations supported the brutal Shah in Iran to keep some influence with the acknowledged regional power, and then changed to the even more brutal Saddam Hussein when the Iranians went all independent on you. Encouraged the latter to start a brutal war against the Iranians - and then when he got the inevitable delusions of grandeur and invaded a country whose autocrat you still liked, he got crossed off the Christmas card list.

The delusions then spread and the US thought it could directly influence the region to its own standards and marginalise Iran.

You won't make a stable peace in the region without accepting Iran's regional role and working with them.

Or re-instating Saddam...:juggle2:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't really get the comparison. Didn't we lose like 200,000 men in WWII? And 600,000 in the civil war?

Also, the revolutionary war was 7 years long.

[BDC]

A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.

*conspiratorial grin with France*

[Banquo's Ghost]

A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.

*conspiratorial grin with France*

What about an 800 year long insurrection?

:beam:

[Vladimir]

What about an 800 year long insurrection?

:beam:

What about setting up the monarchy that oppressed three disparate cultures that Hussein overthrew? Reference your previous post and British involvement in the creation of Iraq.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk.

Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Divers/vieuxsmiley.gif

[Uesugi Kenshin]

How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.

[Husar]

How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
Are you implying they ever had a chance???:inquisitive:

We germans prefer it fast, having a war last for a century just shows you're too weak to win it.:juggle2:

[Pannonian]

How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.

Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?

[Ironside]

You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.

Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?

Well, you can trace Swedish-Danish rivalry from about 900 A.D and it lasted a good bit into the 1800, although that brotherhood thingy ruined that fine rivalry. :no:

And the Swedish-Russian rivalry is from about 860 to the end of the cold war and the relations still isn't warm, but that falls outside that roughly equal power thingy.


Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk.

Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Divers/vieuxsmiley.gif


And in my days, we restarted conflicts to make them last another 20 years of constant warfare (not some silly rests here and there you old gits :whip: ) and causing devastation not seen in Europe until about 300 years later. And we couldn't have peace either, it was way too expensive. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Divers/vieuxsmiley.gif

But I agree on these upstarts though old friend, no lack spine and conviction in the youth nowadays. :charge:

[Aenlic]

I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!

As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.

If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either. :wink:

Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?

[yesdachi]

I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!

As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.

If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either. :wink:

Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.

Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.

I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.

It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.

[Papewaio]

During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?

I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'independent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'

Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.

[Adrian II]

(..) we are now in the stability operations phase.Eh? :coffeenews:

[Aenlic]

I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.

Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.

I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.

It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.

You know, I was just going to let the "ignorance" comment pass. Then I saw the last paragraph.

You must not be in the military. In fact, I'm guessing that you've never been in the military. If you have, then you're a complete dolt.


It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me)

:inquisitive:

Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers. Tell that to the nearly 30,000 permanently maimed US soldiers and their families. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost similarly. Not that big a deal? What a completely idiotic statement. I'm a disabled vet, sport. And as of now, your opinion doesn't mean spit. March your pointless ass down to the nearest recruiter. Until then, you don't have anything of interest to add.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.

Like the ones you can't handle?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hey,


"I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.

Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.

I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.

It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."



You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,




"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."



you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you :no:. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.


And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.

[Aenlic]

I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'indepedent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'

Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.

Bush standing on an aircraft carrier deck with his flight suit crotch strap still buckled in front of a big sign saying "mission accomplished" does not mean that the war ended. The war is still in progress. We're still fighting ex-Ba'athists, probably many of them ex-Iraqi army vets, in the streets. We're also now fighting extremists of various sects as well as members of the old Iraqi military. A "new" government, ineffective as it is, is not the same thing as ending the war either. We're still effectively at war. The fact that more soldiers have died or been wounded on an average monthly basis than before Bush declared the war over is an indication. We're more at war now than we were when we first invaded.

In Japan and Germany, both signed capitulations. The occupations afterwards were peaceful (excepting a few cases). There is no peace in Iraq. It's still war. It's been war every day since we invaded. Doesn't there have to be some kind of peace before one can claim the war is over? There hasn't been any in Iraq yet.

Do we say of the Russian war in Afghanistan that the war was only the initial invasion and the rest was just an "occupation"? No. We call the entire period that the Russians fought in Afghhanistan, from the initial invasion and takeover of the country to their final pullout - a war.

For that matter, we're still at war in Afghanistan too. In fact, several villages are under the control of the Taliban - almost 5 years later.

There wasn't any period of peace to justify saying the war was over. In Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, we're still in the process of invading and occupying. That means we're still at war, status of whatever puppet "government" we've installed not withstanding. :wink:

[CrossLOPER]

No longer valid post.

[Papewaio]

Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers.

And that makes it a very very low intensity war compared with WWII.

Omaha beach on the first day of the Normandy landings amounted for over 3000 losses and a thousand American dead. A total of 407,300 military deaths occurred to the US in WWII... which given the population level of 132,000,000 means that Iraq would have to have generated 926,653 deaths to be on par with WWII in intensity.

So WWII was 300 times more deadly then the Iraq war and occupation... the money that is creating such a huge deficit and fighting an opponent far below the tech and numbers curve are responsible for this.

I think this debt will be rectified far before the men and women who survived ,because of the money spent on them, will become grandparents.

[drone]

We're not at war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't seem to recall Congress ever declaring war on either of those two countries. ~;)

Without a war, how can we have a victory?

[AntiochusIII]

You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,




"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."



you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you :no:. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.


And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.

As for me, I keep myself away from Iraq War Low-Intensity Conflict threads just as much as I keep myself away from Iraq.

[CrossLOPER]

Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.

As for me, I keep myself away from Iraq War Low-Intensity Conflict threads just as much as I keep myself away from Iraq.
I believe he was concurring with Aenlic.

[Adrian II]

We're not at war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't seem to recall Congress ever declaring war on either of those two countries. ~;)

Without a war, how can we have a victory?Oh come on, you know the Republican drill.

When it's about a national issue like the right to bear arms, you cling to every word of the Constitution. You stand up for your rights!

When it's about local stuff such as declaring wars, you forget all about it. Who cares about their rights anyway.

[drone]

Oh come on, you know the Republican drill.

When it's about a national issue like the right to bear arms, you cling to every word of the Constitution. You stand up for your rights!

When it's about local stuff such as declaring wars, you forget all about it. Who cares about their rights anyway.
To whom is the pronoun "you" directed at here?

[AntiochusIII]

I believe he was concurring with Aenlic.Ah, that makes sense.

Now that my little interlude is over, I bid thee adieu.

[Adrian II]

To whom is the pronoun "you" directed at here?At anyone who understand irony? :idea2:

[drone]

If these actions had been authorized properly, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having these discussions. It's currently not a war, it's an exercise of the executive branch, and a poorly managed one at that, and it does a great disservice to the men and women of the armed forces who are stuck in it.

[Aenlic]

I agree. And so apparently do many of the men and women still in uniform and those who spent most of the careers in the military, as well.

There's an article on cnn.com about a rather strained encounter between incoming U.S. Senator from Virginia Webb and Bush. For those who don't know, Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan and was a Republican until the war in Iraq convinced him to switch parties and run against the war.

Here's the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/webb.bush.ap/index.html

And here's another interesting little tidbit where Colin Powell states that the war in Iraq meets the standards of a civil war:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/index.html

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.

As for me, I keep myself away from Iraq War Low-Intensity Conflict threads just as much as I keep myself away from Iraq.


Err, I never said that about Aenlic. I was quaoting yesdachi :no:

[Aenlic]

No worries here, KingWarman888. I got it.

I feel rather bad about laying into Yesdachi, though. Even though he was being a mule-like quadraped, I did go a bit off the deep end. It just offends me mightily when people appear to dismiss the troops dying and the civilians dying and the wounded on both sides and talk instead about the financial costs. To me, the monetary costs don't compare to the loss of even one life, especially when that loss is for no good reason.

I think we should ship the perpetrators (or perpetraitors in this case) off to Iraq: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, Khalilzad, Armitage and the rest of the neocon crew who thought this little war up. Plop them in the middle of Sadr city or Tikrit in a standard un-armored Humvee with no body armor and say, "Here ya go, enjoy yourselves!"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq.

Comparing it to Nam was silly but this takes the cake.:help:

[Redleg]

No worries here, KingWarman888. I got it.

I feel rather bad about laying into Yesdachi, though. Even though he was being a mule-like quadraped, I did go a bit off the deep end. It just offends me mightily when people appear to dismiss the troops dying and the civilians dying and the wounded on both sides and talk instead about the financial costs. To me, the monetary costs don't compare to the loss of even one life, especially when that loss is for no good reason.

I think we should ship the perpetrators (or perpetraitors in this case) off to Iraq: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, Khalilzad, Armitage and the rest of the neocon crew who thought this little war up. Plop them in the middle of Sadr city or Tikrit in a standard un-armored Humvee with no body armor and say, "Here ya go, enjoy yourselves!"

Actually I think every member of Congress needs to included in this list since they muddled the waters by removing themselves from their Constitutional Responsibility and Authority by passing the Authorization for the use of Force against Iraq bill.

The War Powers Act of 1973 needs to be repelled and Congress quit abdicating its authority to the other two branches of government.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain:

You yourself have acknowledged the essential parallel with Vietnam -- we're gonna cut and run and the poor bastards left behind will get the chop. Bin Laden is proven correct: if you kill enough of us and make it grinding and seemingly endless, we'll quit. Collectively, we are not willing to bleed to get our way -- so we'll lose out to others who are.

I probably need to brush up on my Gibbon so that I can point my kids in the right direction. Hint, up and comers a generation hence need to sharpen their Gou-Yu skills to get along with the new world leadership.

Do I sound a little bitter and pissed off? You got it right in one.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You yourself have acknowledged the essential parallel with Vietnam -- we're gonna cut and run and the poor bastards left behind will get the chop. Bin Laden is proven correct: if you kill enough of us and make it grinding and seemingly endless, we'll quit. Collectively, we are not willing to bleed to get our way -- so we'll lose out to others who are.


It has political parallels but not military ones. But the only thing it has in common with WW2 is the length and the fact that people are dying.

[Reverend Joe]

Gawain:

You yourself have acknowledged the essential parallel with Vietnam -- we're gonna cut and run and the poor bastards left behind will get the chop. Bin Laden is proven correct: if you kill enough of us and make it grinding and seemingly endless, we'll quit. Collectively, we are not willing to bleed to get our way -- so we'll lose out to others who are.
Sooo... you want to stay and lose later, rather than lose now?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sooo... you want to stay and lose later, rather than lose now?
Today 03:19


How about we stay and win ? Although i still think a 3 state solution would be best.

[AntiochusIII]

How about we stay and win ? Although i still think a 3 state solution would be best.Ancient question: who's gonna get the oil? What about Turkey? How are you gonna stop them from crossing the border for war once America left? What about other ethnic minorities who just aren't big enough to be in the media but big enough nonetheless to be genocided? Why can't they get their own state too if that's the logic used?

[yesdachi]

I feel rather bad about laying into Yesdachi, though.
Don’t feel bad about laying into me, I may not have been in the military but I have plenty thick skin :wink: and I may have been a bit insensitive with my $$$ comment, however my “big deal” comment was directed at the time there, not the death toll, which is not a pleasant thing and I would certainly not want to have to speak to all 3,000 families of the killed soldiers. But I really wouldn’t want to have to talk to the 400,000+ families of the killed soldiers from WWII. Seeing those two numbers together reinforces my statement that they are different kinds of wars, way different and from that perspective they shouldn’t even be compared.


Sorry Warman but money is important and IMO the 400+/- billion dollars the Iraq war has cost us so far is insanely frustrating to me, more frustrating to me than loosing 3,000 soldiers over the course of 1,248 days at war. Cold? A little. Truthfull? A lot.


I don’t typically feel compelled to share much personal information but I will say I have lost several relatives during their military service, my grandfather is a disabled vet and my mother was born in a military hospital, my connection to and respect for the military doesn’t really need to be questioned. I don’t personally want to be in the military, but I am not afraid to defend my country if there were a true threat and I don’t hesitate in my support for the troops.

[Aenlic]

Understood and accepted as is.

I think perhaps that too much is being made of the comparison of days between Iraq and WWII. It wasn't intended to be a comparison as if Iraq and WWII are somehow identical. That's rather too simplistic. It was a way of showing the basic problem.

We've been in Iraq for longer than we were at war in WWII and have very little to show for it. In fact, Baker's Iraq Study Group is about to recommend that we withdraw our troops, though without setting a concrete timetable (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/iraq.study.group.reut/index.html).

So what have we accomplished in our 3 and a half years there?

Worst of all, we've managed to get hundreds of thousands killed and wounded. We've practically handed the region to Iran via the pro-Iran Shi'a majority. We may not even be able to control the oil (which I firmly believe was the real reason we went in the first place). We've lost whatever worldwide goodwill we had after 9/11 by invading Iraq. We've put the country into a debt spiral from which we might not be able to extract ourselves. We've even increased the threat of terrorism and the instability in the area. The list goes on from there.

It's pretty clear that we can't win militarily. We don't have any real political legs there now, either. That ball is in Iran's court. If we can't solve the situation (which we created by invading in the first place), either militarily or politically, then why are we there?

The threat of Saddam's WMD turned out to be an empty one. The idea that we were saving the Iraqi people from the great evil-doer Saddam turns out to be empty as well. We've actually made most Iraqi lives worse. Many still don't have power, water or sanitation, 3+ years later. And they're outrageously more likely to die just walking out of their own homes now, than they were under Saddam. We've made them less safe than under Saddam! That's mind-boggling.

We certainly haven't created a stable democracy. You don't tell people to "be a democracy or else" as if that is somehow anything but just plain stupid. People have to want democracy, and even then it isn't a sure thing. We're still working at it here after 230+ years!

So, what have we done in those days which have now surpassed the days we were in WWII? What have we accomplished with those days? In the same period of time, with a military 60 years behind where we are now, we utterly defeated two of the biggest militaries in the world. We won a world war in that time frame. And in a now longer period, look what we've accomplished (or not) in Iraq. That was the point behind the comparison.

[Prince of the Poodles]

What is the point of this thread other than to push an agenda?

There is absolutely no parallel between Iraq and WW2. The American military could end the insurgency very quickly using the standards acceptable in the second world war. However, today americans are all about bloodless wars, in regards to both our own soldiers and the enemies, and especially civilians.

Germany and Japan were soundly beaten on the battlefield, much as the Iraqi military was. However, insurgencies did not start, especially in Japan, because the country was simply and completely destroyed. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo make Falluja look like nothing. Also, the hardcore japanese and germans knew that killing a few US soldiers would not have any effect on US morale at home. Hell, we took hundreds of thousands of casualties.

The whole US mindset was different. We were far more willing to decimate entire populations, and far more willing to lose our own troops. That mindset is not acceptable today.. for better or worse.

I believe that if we leveled every urban area in that country, shot first and asked questions later, and made it clear we were the boss, there would be far fewer issues with insurgency. Is that method ethical? No. But it works.

PS. I would like to say to the original poster that being a disabled vet does not mean his opinion has any more value than anyone else's. Pulling that card was a cheap ploy to get himself out of answering questions about his own bias posed by Yesdaci. Labeling him as uncaring about the troops says more about the original poster than Yesdaci.

[Prince of the Poodles]

ugh...

PPS.


So, what have we done in those days which have now surpassed the days we were in WWII? What have we accomplished with those days? In the same period of time, with a military 60 years behind where we are now, we utterly defeated two of the biggest militaries in the world. We won a world war in that time frame. And in a now longer period, look what we've accomplished (or not) in Iraq. That was the point behind the comparison.

We had allies willing to expend far more blood(USSR).

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.

Dont presume what I did and did not do. I did my 12 month service in the Greek army. But that has no bearing on Iraq at all.

The way to stop insurgents is there. All you need is to study. But you have to apply it and you need enough men for it. Something like 1:40 troop:citizen ratio. Right now it is 1:160.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Don’t feel bad about laying into me, I may not have been in the military but I have plenty thick skin :wink: and I may have been a bit insensitive with my $$$ comment, however my “big deal” comment was directed at the time there, not the death toll, which is not a pleasant thing and I would certainly not want to have to speak to all 3,000 families of the killed soldiers. But I really wouldn’t want to have to talk to the 400,000+ families of the killed soldiers from WWII. Seeing those two numbers together reinforces my statement that they are different kinds of wars, way different and from that perspective they shouldn’t even be compared.


Sorry Warman but money is important and IMO the 400+/- billion dollars the Iraq war has cost us so far is insanely frustrating to me, more frustrating to me than loosing 3,000 soldiers over the course of 1,248 days at war. Cold? A little. Truthfull? A lot.


I don’t typically feel compelled to share much personal information but I will say I have lost several relatives during their military service, my grandfather is a disabled vet and my mother was born in a military hospital, my connection to and respect for the military doesn’t really need to be questioned. I don’t personally want to be in the military, but I am not afraid to defend my country if there were a true threat and I don’t hesitate in my support for the troops.


Money is more Important? Erm, no it's not. Again, go talk to the Famialies of the troops and Iraqis. I don't know why you say that, and your reason is right in some aspects, but to me, you do got a point, but your comments about Money is more important is why I'm not going to say "I feel sorry about laying into Yesdachi"
Maye you should go to Iraq, and that would change your Point of View (POV)?you really burn me up with your comment. How can you say that? Yes,come on, go talk witth the families, Tell them that. Go, go on, see what happens.

Cataphracts, I was just responding to your comment.

I think Their plan is working. That what insurgents want. THey want to kill as many troops and Iraqis as they can, so we can put out. Doesn't anyone here understand that,my god? I got people here like Yesdachi who thinks Money is more Important, and He full of What comes out of my Butt, and then we got people who think it's a worthless war.

Whatever. I said what I wanted to, and I'm not going to work myself up over People like Yesdachi, who burns me up with his Idoitc Statements.

[Aenlic]

PS. I would like to say to the original poster that being a disabled vet does not mean his opinion has any more value than anyone else's. Pulling that card was a cheap ploy to get himself out of answering questions about his own bias posed by Yesdaci. Labeling him as uncaring about the troops says more about the original poster than Yesdaci.

Selective reading will get you into trouble every time. Had you taken the time to read Yesdachi's post to which I responded, then you would have seen the insults, including the use of the word ignorant. Considering the tone he chose to take, I responded in kind. Thus, pulling the disabled vet card was no more cheap than his own instigating insult.

You also apparently failed to read any of my extensive posts in this thread in which I explained all of Yesdachi's questions. But I can see where you might miss that. Reading comprehension has become such a lost art. And yes, that was a cheap shot.

If you have anything substantive to add, other than empty ad hominem arguments to which I will respond in kind, then feel free to post your thoughts. Simply saying the thread has no point other than pushing an agenda is rather vapid. This is the backroom. Of course the thread has an agenda. If you want trivial, pointless, neutered and unbiased, then I suggest that you go back to watching the Teletubbies. If you don't like the thread, no one is holding your limited intellect to the fire and forcing you to read it, much less respond to it with an empty post attacking the posters instead of the arguments. As such, you reap what you've sown. :yes:

[yesdachi]

Money is more Important? Erm, no it's not. Again, go talk to the Famialies of the troops and Iraqis. I don't know why you say that, and your reason is right in some aspects, but to me, you do got a point, but your comments about Money is more important is why I'm not going to say "I feel sorry about laying into Yesdachi"
Maye you should go to Iraq, and that would change your Point of View (POV)?you really burn me up with your comment. How can you say that? Yes,come on, go talk witth the families, Tell them that. Go, go on, see what happens.

Cataphracts, I was just responding to your comment.

I think Their plan is working. That what insurgents want. THey want to kill as many troops and Iraqis as they can, so we can put out. Doesn't anyone here understand that,my god? I got people here like Yesdachi who thinks Money is more Important, and He full of What comes out of my Butt, and then we got people who think it's a worthless war.

Whatever. I said what I wanted to, and I'm not going to work myself up over People like Yesdachi, who burns me up with his Idoitc Statements.
The lives of our soldiers are important, but so is money, especially 400+/- Billion dollars! We have recklessly thrown away too much money and lives on this war, we are too deep in now to turn back, but I can be more frustrated about the money we have spent then the casualties we have sustained. A staggering national debt effects everyone for generations whereas 3,000 deaths out of our 300 million population is sad, disappointing and frustrating but hardly significant compared to the 400,000 that didn’t come back from WWII. The government puts a monetary value on a life, insurance companies do too and so do I. If you don’t, maybe you are too preoccupied with what cums out of your butt than with what social security benefits or medical benefits you will have when you retire, what taxes your grandkids will be paying or the state of the countries economy tomorrow.

Do you really think a trip to Iraq or to the family of Major Gregory Fester of Grand Rapids, who died because of a $2 IED made in Iran, is going to change my mind that money is not important (if anything a visit like that will only feed my festering desire to turn the entire Middle East to glass)? You can call me your bowels leftovers or say I make idiotic statements but at least acknowledge that there is an amount of money that is greater than a life. I am thinking of a monetary number that I think is worth more than you life right now, wanna guess what it is?
No, it is not $1 indicated with my middle finger, its $1.54 million as suggested by economics professor Orley Ashenfelter. That number can change depending on education, training both civilian and military but without knowing much more about you that’s it bud, $1.54 million, there’s a big difference between that and 400 billion, no?



...including the use of the word ignorant.
You’re a military vet, senior member of the org and you seem to be an active participant in life and politics, yet you didn’t know, even though it has been very public, what W considers victory. My ignorance comment was justified (the brainwashed by a leftist talk show host comment may have been a little instigating ~:wave: ).

[Rameusb5]

Gawain:

You yourself have acknowledged the essential parallel with Vietnam -- we're gonna cut and run and the poor bastards left behind will get the chop. Bin Laden is proven correct: if you kill enough of us and make it grinding and seemingly endless, we'll quit. Collectively, we are not willing to bleed to get our way -- so we'll lose out to others who are.

Except Bin Laden has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.


Besides, how crazy do we have to be to stay in a fight simply because we don't want some random 3rd party person to be right about something.

"Bob says you're a coward..."

"Really? I'm going to go off and fight a biker gang just to prove him wrong!"

Osama Bin Laden is a lot of things, most of them bad (IMHO). But that doesn't mean he can't be right about something. And the statement you made above (That Americans can't handle protracted warfare) is pretty much spot on (and has been since the '60's).

Personally, I would like to know EXACTLY (and succinctly) what America's objectives in Iraq are at the moment. Because to be perfectly frank, that area of the Middle East has so much racial and ethnic turmoil that I doubt any form of solution will turn it into the budding democracy that we want it to be.

Think about Yugoslavia for a second. They had a tyrannical dictator under the Soviet regime, and while it was rough to live there, there wasn't a lot a ethnic tension. Suddenly, he dies, and the whole country goes up in a genocidal bonfire. Iraq is a similar situation. We've toppled the tyrant, but unless we become tyrants ourselves (or put our own on the throne (Shaw), it's going to be just awful.

[Tribesman]

hey hey , still an active account ......So...


Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.

Nope Seamus , they lost by attempting it in such a ballderdash haphazard unplanned devoid of thought slapdash manner , they didn't lose by attempting it , they lost by being damn fools .:shame:

As for the topic itself in relation to comparrison of casualties , how many millions of people did the US deploy to defeat the Axis powers and what percentage became casualties , how many has the US deployed against the "axis of evil":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and what percentage became casualties ?
Yeah no comparison at all unless you want to compare:yes:
But then again you might have to compare the numbers of the opposition as well , but thats a bit of a bugger for the pro war crowd isn't it .
:oops:


Comparing it to Nam was silly but this takes the cake.
Comparing it to Nam may well be spot on .
Divinus Armas "roach motel" idea is exactly like Dien Bien Phu , and is exactly as effective .
Though of course you might want to forget about joining on to a lost cause to try and prevent the inevitable despite the fact that your military and intelligence agencies already had all the reports that it was a lost cause , and focus instead that you have jumped onto a lost cause despite the fact that your military and intelligence agencies had all the reports that showed it was a lost cause .
But since......
Although i still think a 3 state solution would be best...........
happens to be exactly the solution that they have been trying to avoid for decades .
I wonder why oh why Gawain that they have been trying to avoid the creation of 3 opposing states in that particular country?
It ain't exactly rocket science , can you figure it out at all ?

Hey I fully support Iamadinnerjacket and his fundamentalist fruitcakes and I am so happy that the free world has chosen (despite opposition) to enter into a situation that they cannot win , but cannot afford to lose .:help:

Damn , you could almost say I am absolutely ecstatic about the ballsup and its far reaching consequences .

Then again .....
How about we stay and win ?
OK Gawain , how exactly ?
I think Borat gave a possible answer didn't he , something about lizards :skull:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Except Bin Laden has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Besides, how crazy do we have to be to stay in a fight simply because we don't want some random 3rd party person to be right about something.

"Bob says you're a coward..."

"Really? I'm going to go off and fight a biker gang just to prove him wrong!"

:laugh4: Like the one about jumping off the bridge.


Osama Bin Laden is a lot of things, most of them bad (IMHO). But that doesn't mean he can't be right about something. And the statement you made above (That Americans can't handle protracted warfare) is pretty much spot on (and has been since the '60's).

Personally, I would like to know EXACTLY (and succinctly) what America's objectives in Iraq are at the moment. Because to be perfectly frank, that area of the Middle East has so much racial and ethnic turmoil that I doubt any form of solution will turn it into the budding democracy that we want it to be.

Think about Yugoslavia for a second. They had a tyrannical dictator under the Soviet regime, and while it was rough to live there, there wasn't a lot a ethnic tension. Suddenly, he dies, and the whole country goes up in a genocidal bonfire. Iraq is a similar situation. We've toppled the tyrant, but unless we become tyrants ourselves (or put our own on the throne (Shaw), it's going to be just awful.

We've enacted a model that works more than a century ago, in the Phillipines.

Step One = Subjugate (occupy with enough force to smash/deter guerilla opposition. Note the ratio of troops is 10-1. We'd have needed 500-600k in Iraq within a week of the fall of Bhagdad, now we'd need 750K just for Al Sadr's militia alone :dizzy2: ). In the Phillipines this took 14 years and more than 5,000 U.S. casualties.

Step Two = Educate (Istitutions and traditions that enable democratic society do not simply leap into existence.) They take years of planning and transition. In the Phillipines, commonwealth status was not achieved until 1935 and full independence until 1946 (this latter would have happened more quickly absent the Japanese conquest and occupation of the Islands).

Step Three = Liberate (Result of Steps 1 & 2 above).

[Tribesman]

We've enacted a model that works more than a century ago, in the Phillipines.

Sorry Seamus , it didn't work .
Black Jack and the follow ons are one of the worst examples that are regularly trotted out .
It led to fluctuations of levels of violence , but not a victory and not a solution , the US was still fighting them when the Japanese invaded , decades after they had declared "mission accomplished" , it continued after "liberation" and the resentment and hostility even continues today after independance , and the US is still fighting the phillipino rebels at the moment , in an "advisory" capacity .
Come to think of it , what was that conflict when the US had advisors involved ?
Was it the one where Gawain was in the general vicinity working cameras ?

[Duke Malcolm]

I believe that British and US occupation of Germany is ongoing, and thus far surpasses the 1248 days of war and thence occupation of Iraq...

[Vladimir]

:laugh4: Like the one about jumping off the bridge.



We've enacted a model that works more than a century ago, in the Phillipines.

Step One = Subjugate (occupy with enough force to smash/deter guerilla opposition. Note the ratio of troops is 10-1. We'd have needed 500-600k in Iraq within a week of the fall of Bhagdad, now we'd need 750K just for Al Sadr's militia alone :dizzy2: ). In the Phillipines this took 14 years and more than 5,000 U.S. casualties.

Step Two = Educate (Istitutions and traditions that enable democratic society do not simply leap into existence.) They take years of planning and transition. In the Phillipines, commonwealth status was not achieved until 1935 and full independence until 1946 (this latter would have happened more quickly absent the Japanese conquest and occupation of the Islands).

Step Three = Liberate (Result of Steps 1 & 2 above).

Thank you for mentioning the Phillipines. Sadly, however, Iraq will not be that easy. Geography, culture, 24/7 news, the use of torture, etc are much different.

[Watchman]

Not to mention that the place is in practice in a civil war, regardless of what the official designation of the situation now happens to be. And attracts half the would-be Jihadists from the world over to top off the local gunmen.

Edit: Oh yeah, and troublesome neighbours quite willing to foment more trouble if it suits them.

[Aenlic]

The Philippine-US War dfrom 1899-1913 is a particularly bad example of U.S. behavior towards what it considers inferior cultures. We encouraged the people of the Philippines, under Aguinaldo, to fight against the Spanish, making promises of their independence. The Filippino guerillas took most of the Philippines away from the Spanish, except Manilla, which they surrounded. The U.S. army defeated the Spanish in Manilla and occupied the city. We then told Aguinaldo and the Filippinos to go screw themselves, even after Aguinaldo was made president and convened a congress to draft a constitution. We wanted the Phillipines. We used Aguinaldo and his guerillas to get it, and then kicked them to the curb after we got what we wanted.

If the proper tactic to control an insurgency is the one we used in the Phillipines, then it would include scorched earth terror campaigns, water torture, burning entire villages to the ground, and concentration camps for the locals. Sound familiar? That's how we beat the Filippinos and later the Moros. Not exactly something of which to be overly proud.

The official U.S. attitude toward the Phillipines is summed up in McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation (benevolent assimilation meaning essentially, "we're going to take over for your own good, you nasty savages!")

Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation - President McKinley, 1898 (http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/benevolentassimilation.htm)

The second part being scarily reminiscent of other imperial attitudes in history:


"Finally, it should be the earnest and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people, and by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of a free people, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of the benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule. In the fulfillment of this high mission, supporting the temperate administration of affairs for the greatest good of the governed, there must be sedulously maintained the strong arm of authority, to repress disturbance and to overcome all obstacles to the bestowal of the blessings of good and stable government upon the people of the Philippine Islands under the flag of the United States.

It was for their own good, after all. Just like the Trail of Tears was for the good of the Cherokee people when we wanted their lands and the rest of our wonderfully benevolent 19th century American aggression.

No thanks.

[Duke Malcolm]

Haven't you read Kipling's "White Man's Burden"?

[Aenlic]

Kipling was a typical racist and imperialist.

I'll respond with the words of Mark Twain:

"The White Man's Burden has been sung, who will sing the Brown Man's?"

[Watchman]

Haven't you read Kipling's "White Man's Burden"?Back in junior high the history teachers liked to show it to us to underline certain arrogancy issues with the whole Imperialism attitude, why ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Philippine-US War dfrom 1899-1913 is a particularly bad example of U.S. behavior towards what it considers inferior cultures. We encouraged the people of the Philippines, under Aguinaldo, to fight against the Spanish, making promises of their independence. The Filippino guerillas took most of the Philippines away from the Spanish, except Manilla, which they surrounded. The U.S. army defeated the Spanish in Manilla and occupied the city. We then told Aguinaldo and the Filippinos to go screw themselves, even after Aguinaldo was made president and convened a congress to draft a constitution. We wanted the Phillipines. We used Aguinaldo and his guerillas to get it, and then kicked them to the curb after we got what we wanted.

If the proper tactic to control an insurgency is the one we used in the Phillipines, then it would include scorched earth terror campaigns, water torture, burning entire villages to the ground, and concentration camps for the locals. Sound familiar? That's how we beat the Filippinos and later the Moros. Not exactly something of which to be overly proud.

The official U.S. attitude toward the Phillipines is summed up in McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation (benevolent assimilation meaning essentially, "we're going to take over for your own good, you nasty savages!")

Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation - President McKinley, 1898 (http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/benevolentassimilation.htm)

The second part being scarily reminiscent of other imperial attitudes in history:

It was for their own good, after all. Just like the Trail of Tears was for the good of the Cherokee people when we wanted their lands and the rest of our wonderfully benevolent 19th century American aggression.

No thanks.

You win. I am wrong. The actions of the USA in the Phillipines, in Central American and the Carribean between 1898 and 1932 were motivated almost exclusively by greed and a desire for power and prominence among America's leadership class. We are no better in our motivations/actions than most and worse then some and our imperialist efforts have begotten little aside from mistrust and a lasting bitterness in the New World which will not abate until the dissolution of the United States or -- at the very least -- a redress in the balance of power in this hemisphere which minimizes the ongoing economic exploitation enacted by the disproportionate consumption of resources and services by the USA.

We compounded this with our financial underwriting of the Allied cause during the First World War, which we then had to enter directly -- killing thousands of US servicemen -- in order to prevent the default of numerous economic powerhouse institutions in the USA. We began with no political stake in the outcome of the conflict, and managed to squander what little long-term gains might have been realized by aiding the effort to stop Russian self-determination and hamstringing the effort to empower an international body with the authority to create lasting change.

The Second World War was, ultimately, an extension of the first, enabled by the poorly handled resolution of the first edition. We not only underwrote the Allies again, creating the same situation of economic commitment, but actually precipitated the scenario wherein the only power against whom we could claim a racial sense of superioty was cornered into attacking us. The resulting surprise attack -- which was only a surprise if you ignored every aspect/example of Japanese military history -- allowed us to claim the "victim" status as well as derogate those nasty "slant-eyes." We then nuked them for good measure in order to demonstrate our power to the Soviets and establish ourselves as the dominant power of the world.

Since then, its been an ongoing escapade of "ugly american"-ism coupled with the assumption by the US of "colonial" conflicts throughout the globe that other countries had been wise enough to get beyond. Save for our support of the Taliban, we have entered those conflicts on the most closely aligned with the colonialist/imperialist faction.

We should opt out of anything save for a supporting role in international affairs, work with the UN to engender an integrated means for minimizing violence, downsize the military and re-center it upon direct defensive concerns, and stop trying to tell the rest of the world that we have a better answer.

....and then we should all brush up on our Mandarin.

[Watchman]

Yes, I'm sure there are no emo bands or goth teens more tragically misunderstood than you poor folks over the Atlantic.
:dozey:
Pull the other one, willya ? It's got bells on and all.

[Rameusb5]

Yes, I'm sure there are no emo bands or goth teens more tragically misunderstood than you poor folks over the Atlantic.
:dozey:
Pull the other one, willya ? It's got bells on and all.

I find it annoying that you think all americans are like that. In actuality, MOST of us are reasonable people. Unfortunately, most of us do not vote.

[Watchman]

I was talking more to Seamus here, you know. The "misunderstood martyr" act irks me.

But you're correct that were one to apply the basic rule of thumb of democracies - that the voters get more or less exactly the leaders they deserve - to the US the implications wouldn't be too flattering.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

The lives of our soldiers are important, but so is money, especially 400+/- Billion dollars! We have recklessly thrown away too much money and lives on this war, we are too deep in now to turn back, but I can be more frustrated about the money we have spent then the casualties we have sustained. A staggering national debt effects everyone for generations whereas 3,000 deaths out of our 300 million population is sad, disappointing and frustrating but hardly significant compared to the 400,000 that didn’t come back from WWII. The government puts a monetary value on a life, insurance companies do too and so do I. If you don’t, maybe you are too preoccupied with what cums out of your butt than with what social security benefits or medical benefits you will have when you retire, what taxes your grandkids will be paying or the state of the countries economy tomorrow.

Do you really think a trip to Iraq or to the family of Major Gregory Fester of Grand Rapids, who died because of a $2 IED made in Iran, is going to change my mind that money is not important (if anything a visit like that will only feed my festering desire to turn the entire Middle East to glass)? You can call me your bowels leftovers or say I make idiotic statements but at least acknowledge that there is an amount of money that is greater than a life. I am thinking of a monetary number that I think is worth more than you life right now, wanna guess what it is?
No, it is not $1 indicated with my middle finger, its $1.54 million as suggested by economics professor Orley Ashenfelter. That number can change depending on education, training both civilian and military but without knowing much more about you that’s it bud, $1.54 million, there’s a big difference between that and 400 billion, no?



You’re a military vet, senior member of the org and you seem to be an active participant in life and politics, yet you didn’t know, even though it has been very public, what W considers victory. My ignorance comment was justified (the brainwashed by a leftist talk show host comment may have been a little instigating ~:wave: ).


Again, Only ONE good point you made, and the rest is Bull. :sweatdrop:

and I don't think your Life cost anything Yesdachi, if you like to toss me around kid

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was talking more to Seamus here, you know. The "misunderstood martyr" act irks me.

Okay, there was some of that in the tone, I admit, particularly the last paragraph. However, most of the diatribe has elements of fact behind it. My country is no paragon of Sainthood in international affairs -- which can be said of most. For my part, I am irked by the tendency of some to view all of the USA's political actions though a narrow and critical moral lens. I'll gladly stipulate that we'd all be better off if prinicipled morality underlay the political actions of all nations, but that's not realistic. Taking the stance that any moral failings or inappropriateness invalidates the entirety of a policy or series of actions is -- however well intentioned -- impractical.


But you're correct that were one to apply the basic rule of thumb of democracies - that the voters get more or less exactly the leaders they deserve - to the US the implications wouldn't be too flattering.

True enough. Since GW took over the executive by acclamation -- and had the class to deny himself the monarchy -- all of our leaders have been what our voters have deserved. Democracies bring effective and moral leaders to the forefront only rarely.

Right now, I am rather bitter at the current leadership. A signal opportunity has been wasted. We here in the USA (as an agregate, we are not a monolith of course) are completely out of step with the rest of the Western world. What does the West stand for? For what will it fight? And how?

[Aenlic]

True enough. Since GW took over the executive by acclamation -- and had the class to deny himself the monarchy -- all of our leaders have been what our voters have deserved. Democracies bring effective and moral leaders to the forefront only rarely.

Well, actually...

GW did take office by acclamation. It was the acclamation of 5 out of 9 members of the United States Supreme Court; and it was little else other than acclamation. And he's certainly been acting like he was placed on the U.S. throne, as if with the divine right of kings, since then. :wink:

(One good sarcastic post deserves another) :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, actually...

GW did take office by acclamation. It was the acclamation of 5 out of 9 members of the United States Supreme Court; and it was little else other than acclamation. And he's certainly been acting like he was placed on the U.S. throne, as if with the divine right of kings, since then. :wink:

(One good sarcastic post deserves another) :2thumbsup:

Indeed.

I really have always been impressed with Washington, even though he set up an almost unreachable mark for all 42 successors.

[Prince of the Poodles]

If you have anything substantive to add, other than empty ad hominem arguments to which I will respond in kind, then feel free to post your thoughts. Simply saying the thread has no point other than pushing an agenda is rather vapid.

As vapid as your topic?

Its interesting that you quote only my statement to you, not the rest of my post, which added several things you seemed to forget.

Your claim that America won the second world war with no reference to Russia or the UK is particularly showing of what your opinion adds to the thread. :shrug:

[Aenlic]

As vapid as your topic?

Its interesting that you quote only my statement to you, not the rest of my post, which added several things you seemed to forget.

Your claim that America won the second world war with no reference to Russia or the UK is particularly showing of what your opinion adds to the thread. :shrug:

Still having problems with reading comprehension, I see.

At no point did I claim that the US won WWII alone. Is the weather nice on your planet? It's been the usual here on Earth. :laugh4:

[Aenlic]

Now that the gnat has been swatted...


Indeed.

I really have always been impressed with Washington, even though he set up an almost unreachable mark for all 42 successors.

Well, except that I screwed up my intended sarcasm when I reworded it before posting; and left off the important bit. :wink:

It should have read:

GW did take office by acclamation, GW... Bush, that is. The acclamation of 5 out of 9 members of the United States Supreme Court; and it was little else other than acclamation. And he's certainly been acting like he was placed on the U.S. throne, as if with the divine right of kings, since then.

I completely screwed up my sarcasm! The bit in bold which I left out is the meat of the post! Hate it when that happens.

[Redleg]

Well, actually...

GW did take office by acclamation. It was the acclamation of 5 out of 9 members of the United States Supreme Court; and it was little else other than acclamation. And he's certainly been acting like he was placed on the U.S. throne, as if with the divine right of kings, since then. :wink:

(One good sarcastic post deserves another) :2thumbsup:

Lets least attempt to paint correct review of history. All the media reports I have ever read stated that Bush still won the recount with the methods that were being asked for by the Gore Campaign. Not until a total recount was done after the electorial votes were certified - something that was not asked for by the Gore Campaign and seemly not required by Florida election laws. (Why I don't know)


The United States Supreme Court voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted. The 7–2 ruling was more important as the votes had already been counted several times with uniform standards. However, the 5–4 decision became extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's irregular instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". Gore publicly disagreed with the court's decision, but conceded the election "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy". He had previously made a concession phone call to Bush the night of the election, then retracted it after learning just how close the election was. Following the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision) but that Gore would have won had a full state-wide recount been conducted. [1]


"Butterfly ballot"The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot", which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law. Some commentators still consider such irregularities and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter of law the issue was settled when the United States Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation. Nonetheless, embarrassment about the Florida vote uncertainties led to widespread calls for electoral reform in the United States and ultimately to the passage of the Help America Vote Act, which authorized the United States federal government to provide funds to the states to replace their mechanical voting equipment with electronic voting equipment. However, this has led to new controversies including the lack of paper-based methods of verification and the complexity of testing required to certify correct operation of computer-based systems.


Not so much of an acclamation of the Supreme Court that some would like to believe. Now acting like he was placed on the throne is a different matter, a tendency several Presidents have demonstrated at times.

[Aenlic]

Lets least attempt to paint correct review of history. All the media reports I have ever read stated that Bush still won the recount with the methods that were being asked for by the Gore Campaign. Not until a total recount was done after the electorial votes were certified - something that was not asked for by the Gore Campaign and seemly not required by Florida election laws. (Why I don't know)



Not so much of an acclamation of the Supreme Court that some would like to believe. Now acting like he was placed on the throne is a different matter, a tendency several Presidents have demonstrated at times.

Yes, Redleg, and apparently you missed in all of that the multiple times I used the word sarcasm and the multiple smilies at the end of my statements. These are intended to indicate a less than serious attitude, which when combined with the repeated use of the word sarcasm would tend to lead most people to the conclusion that I wasn't making a serious argument of fact. But thanks, anyway.

These :wink: :2thumbsup: are the smilies I used in those posts, by the way. Just to clear up any confusion. One is a wink. Not something generally confused with serious. And the other came at the end of:

(One good sarcastic post deserves another) :2thumbsup:

Considering this and another thread where the term sarcasm was applied inappropriately, I'm reminded of a recent Family Guy episode where Peter finally learns the meaning of sarcasm.

[Duke Malcolm]

Kipling was a typical racist and imperialist.

Evidently you have not, because it is exactly what you specified in the post before mine...

And there is nothing wrong with Imperialism.
Kipling was racist, yes, but most people seem to have been in his time.

[Redleg]

@Post #77

:no:

Edit: to strike the quote

[Banquo's Ghost]

And there is nothing wrong with Imperialism.

In the absence of any smilies or other clues, I shall take that quote as being serious.

You might not see much wrong with imperialism when you're the imperialist, but I don't recall the British ever signing up with enthusiasm for the "benefits" of being subjugated by a foreign power.

(Unless you count Blair's recent capitulation to President Bush's every whim, in which case how do you like being a colony? :wink:)

[Abokasee]

The easist way to descride the modern world is:
****** up
Unfair
Pointless
Sad
Worrying
And the forever immoratals: GET ON WITH IT!!!

You may asked why Did you just say that?
Because they say (goverement powers) there gonna do this stuff and they don't example
I heard on the radio that bristol is gonna spend left over cash on public transport... they've been saying for the 4 ****ing years, all those so called terrorist in prisons were just people with guns (like most middle easterns) who bounty have just taken to the US and then they give em a hard when they have planned virtually nothing against the west, they hate the US but if the worldest richest country came to your country to get some Oil you too would be annoyed.
Also you can't fight terrorism by going to other countrys that only incourages it their so they'll do terrorist attacks...

Hello? Oh god I just said all that... :embarassed: :shame:

[Tribesman]

In the absence of any smilies or other clues, I shall take that quote as being serious.

You might not see much wrong with imperialism when you're the imperialist, but I don't recall the British ever signing up with enthusiasm for the "benefits" of being subjugated by a foreign power.

Maybe he is a Campbell:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

In the absence of any smilies or other clues, I shall take that quote as being serious.

You might not see much wrong with imperialism when you're the imperialist, but I don't recall the British ever signing up with enthusiasm for the "benefits" of being subjugated by a foreign power.

Surely you have seen the Imperialist Club I-III threads.
But that's by the by. Aenlic suggested Imperialism is enough to discount something someone says. It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.

[Tribesman]

It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.
Yep , a common widely held idea at the time , like divine right , serfdom , slavery ,womens having no brains etc etc........
Of course it is wrong to believe that widely held views from the past are of a certain testicular variety .:juggle2:

[Aenlic]

Surely you have seen the Imperialist Club I-III threads.
But that's by the by. Aenlic suggested Imperialism is enough to discount something someone says. It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.

What is with this trend lately of putting words in other people's mouths?

I said:


Kipling was a racist and an imperialist

How do you get from there to the following?


Aenlic suggested imperialism is enough to discount something someone says

I suggested no such thing. You mentioned White Man's Burden, which is both racist and imperialist, as was Kipling. I made no representation one way or the other regarding anything beyond that.

I will, however, suggest that a basic inability to get the above distinction might very well be enough to make someone a candidate for discounting what they have to say. Are you standing for that post, Malcolm? :wink:

Also, just because something was a commonly held idea doesn't make it right. I suppose you think slavery, human sacrifice and other things are just fine because they were also once held to be acceptable practices? :inquisitive:

I'll second what Banquo's Ghost said, how does it feel, being the staunch imperialist that you are, to presently be a vassal state in the great American Hegemony espoused by the neocons who pretty much run the Bush administration? (PNAC Statement of Principles (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) - pay particular attention to the names at the bottom and see if you can count how many of them are now in or have recently (:wink) been in power in the Bush administration)

And I'll echo Tribesman's thought and ask if you're a Campbell. I have Cameron blood, myself. Perhaps that the problem. :grin:

[Duke Malcolm]

I suggested no such thing. You mentioned White Man's Burden, which is both racist and imperialist, as was Kipling. I made no representation one way or the other regarding anything beyond that.
Dear God! I mentioned the poem because it is speaks about the US taking the Philippines. In fact it suggests the same thing you do. I was merely suggesting that what you said is nothing new.


And I'll echo Tribesman's thought and ask if you're a Campbell. I have Cameron blood, myself. Perhaps that the problem. :grin:
No, my name is a part of the Clan MacDonald.

[Aenlic]

Dear God! I mentioned the poem because it is speaks about the US taking the Philippines. In fact it suggests the same thing you do. I was merely suggesting that what you said is nothing new.


No, my name is a part of the Clan MacDonald.

Malcolm! You need to lighten up! I am just jerking your chain. :wink:

[Duke Malcolm]

Malcolm! You need to lighten up! I am just jerking your chain. :wink:

This foruming business is hard work...

[Aenlic]

This is true. But it's fun and can be either mind-numbing or intellectually stimulating depending on which you prefer at any given moment. I find it relaxing right before bed and yet also stimulating in the morning to get my mental juices flowing. :grin:

[Papewaio]

No, it is not $1 indicated with my middle finger, its $1.54 million as suggested by economics professor Orley Ashenfelter. That number can change depending on education, training both civilian and military but without knowing much more about you that’s it bud, $1.54 million, there’s a big difference between that and 400 billion, no?

You can't say the 400 billion spent competes with the 3000 dead, they are costs in the same column. The money has to be compared to the numbers that survive because of it... so if the money spent has saved 260,000 lives then you are economically ahead of the game. Same with the 3000 dead, if their deaths have meant that overall greater then 3000 others survive then if they had not died then again economically ahead of the game. Problem is that the 3000 dead are likely to be younger, more fertile and possibly greater long term economic activity then the average population.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Ok, I like to add something else here

What don't People Understand? Don't anyone who disargee with the War, on and off this Thread/board actually sit down and Think? People, do you know Why the US is sick of the Iraq War?

"because we tossing money away, we losing troops, and we not helping Iraq at all,only making it worse"

Mainly the 2nd one. If you was fighting a Guerilla War against the US, who invade your homeland, what would you do to make sure they fall back sooner or later? Kill their troops, and make them stay as long as possible. Why? They Send more troops, and waste more money on the war = Americans and rest of the world getting sick of it. We can't go into Iraq with these Stupid people Like GW and them, who didn't have a plan. IF we had a PLAN, we would be WINNING. Seems like they don't know how to Run a Army. Plus, people like Yesdachi who think money is more important doesn't help Ethier. I would like Yesdachi and Bush and them to go to Iraq, and see how it is..

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can all decry Yesdachi's insensitivity all you want, but I don't think it's disrespectful at all to moan about flushing 400 billion $ down the toilet. :shame:

That's the amount of money 260 000 Americans generate in the course of their entiry productive live. Or, at forty years of productive live, what 10 000 000 Americans produce in one year. What 3 500 000 Americans produce annually.

To put it differently, the productive effort of 3 500 000 working Americans is wasted every day on Iraq. Nice thought to keep in mind when your alarm goes off tomorrow morning and you're off to work...

[Prince of the Poodles]

Still having problems with reading comprehension, I see.

At no point did I claim that the US won WWII alone. Is the weather nice on your planet? It's been the usual here on Earth.

Hmm.


So, what have we done in those days which have now surpassed the days we were in WWII? What have we accomplished with those days? In the same period of time, with a military 60 years behind where we are now, we utterly defeated two of the biggest militaries in the world. We won a world war in that time frame. And in a now longer period, look what we've accomplished (or not) in Iraq. That was the point behind the comparison.

We did not win a world war. We were in a coalition that won a world war, and in fact our contribution of lives in ratio to our population was the lowest of all the major allied nations. Or are you trying to act as if you changed your use of "we" from refering to americans only to refering to the USA, UK, and USSR just for that post?

That little excerpt is just an example of what you have been trying to do throughout this thread; which is to distort and exagerate facts to fit an agenda of making the situation in Iraq seem worse than it truly is. (Which is completely unneccessary, the truth of the situation is bad enough.)

By the way, despite your statement:


Simply saying the thread has no point other than pushing an agenda is rather vapid. This is the backroom. Of course the thread has an agenda.

I find that the best posters on this forum do not create threads with obvious agendas, instead focusing on topics that generate real discussion, not an exchange of talking points.

[Aenlic]

According to Bush there's a coalition in Iraq. It includes the Brits and the Polish and the Italians and used to include the Japanese. And last time I checked, "we" was a plural pronoun. You're assuming that we means only the U.S. and thus the reading comprehension question.


I find that the best posters on this forum do not create threads with obvious agendas, instead focusing on topics that generate real discussion, not an exchange of talking points.

Indeed. And no one is forcing you to post in this thread or even read it. And you might also note that I made an initial post which took no stance one way or the other and then asked for opinions. I didn't jump back in until after 16 other posts in the thread.

Perhaps you think that


During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?

is biased in some way? That says more about your bias than about anyone else's bias, doesn't it?

No one can stop you from making a complete fool of yourself, Poodles; but feel free to continue posting in the thread attacking the thread itself without actually posting anything of interest on the topic. :smile: