Incompetent administration, criminal war? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

DelightMachine -> Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 7:24:57 AM)

A lot of people on these message boards think that because you can hit the mark with a criticism against a govenment fighting a war, that means either we never should have fought the war or we're losing, or we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.

Well, you could do the same with any war. Here's how one writer imagines World War II could have been criticized in just the same way:

"May 21, 1945—After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed 'island hopping.'
 
"Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a 'bunch of dead-enders,' was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history."

The whole thing is worth reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzRjMGE2MGViZGE3NDcyMmZhYzY3MWJjOTc1OTc3YmQ= 

My point: You have to put EVERYTHING in the mix when looking back and judging whether it was worth fighting a war. All the results, all the things that you no longer have to worry about because you fought the war, the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful.



JohnWarren -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 8:07:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

A lot of people on these message boards think that because you can hit the mark with a criticism against a govenment fighting a war, that means either we never should have fought the war or we're losing, or we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.

Well, you could do the same with any war. Here's how one writer imagines World War II could have been criticized in just the same way:

"May 21, 1945—After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed 'island hopping.'
 
"Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a 'bunch of dead-enders,' was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history."

The whole thing is worth reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzRjMGE2MGViZGE3NDcyMmZhYzY3MWJjOTc1OTc3YmQ= 

My point: You have to put EVERYTHING in the mix when looking back and judging whether it was worth fighting a war. All the results, all the things that you no longer have to worry about because you fought the war, the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful.


I could give similar quotes from Vietnam.  OOOPS we lost that one didn't we. Korea, a bloody tie settling nothing, or WWI,  we got to win that one but fertilized the seeds of Facism around the world.

The best way to look at war is to expect bad things to come from them.  Both during and after the fighting.  That's why diplomacy is so damned important.  War is like a mutation.  99% of them are unqualified failures that lead to the death of the orgasm.

War is sometimes necessary, but leaders should think long and hard not only about "can we win" but about "what will be the cost."  While they are thinking about that I'd recommend their having the corpse of a burned little girl in one corner, a wheelbarrow of  "renten-marks," the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread in 1925 Germany in the other.

It should not be because a minority president wants to "make his bones."



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:03:37 AM)

To me it's nearly a useless game. Well, if we didn't enter this war or that war it would of been better or worse. Who knows what effect not entering Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or WWII would have had. I know it would of had a effect, but doubtful the world would be laid out the same. It would have changed our political leaning in the world some good some bad. We wouldn't have learned our weaknesses, etc... So, ultimately you go to war when it appears it is required. 



ArtCatDom -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:16:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

A lot of people on these message boards think that because you can hit the mark with a criticism against a govenment fighting a war, that means either we never should have fought the war or we're losing, or we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.

Well, you could do the same with any war. Here's how one writer imagines World War II could have been criticized in just the same way:

"May 21, 1945—After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed 'island hopping.'
 
"Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a 'bunch of dead-enders,' was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history."

The whole thing is worth reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzRjMGE2MGViZGE3NDcyMmZhYzY3MWJjOTc1OTc3YmQ= 

My point: You have to put EVERYTHING in the mix when looking back and judging whether it was worth fighting a war. All the results, all the things that you no longer have to worry about because you fought the war, the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful.


I don't feel the comparison is at all apt.

Iraq did not attack us.

Iraq was not engaging in drastic expansionism.

Iraq had not aligned with other enemies with similar levels of aggression and expansion.

Iraq did not have fully functional, let alone drastically expanding military.

And so on.

To compare a war rooted in a very real and direct threat to one based on vague suppositions, jumps to conclusions and selective attention is a weak arguement. You're right, you have to take the full context into consideration. In full context, the comparison doesn't hold.

*meow*



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:24:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

To me it's nearly a useless game. Well, if we didn't enter this war or that war it would of been better or worse. Who knows what effect not entering Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or WWII would have had. I know it would of had a effect, but doubtful the world would be laid out the same. It would have changed our political leaning in the world some good some bad. We wouldn't have learned our weaknesses, etc... So, ultimately you go to war when it appears it is required. 


But how else do you judge whether or not it's "required" unless you consider the potential good and bad? Of course these are all estimates, and you can be wildly off base in trying to predict anything, especially with war. But I don't know any other way to judge whether you should go to war or not. We can't just wait for others to attack us, because now or soon from now they can bomb entire cities as a first attack. It's the same in judging past wars -- look at all the pros and cons, and try not to leave any out.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:44:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

To me it's nearly a useless game. Well, if we didn't enter this war or that war it would of been better or worse. Who knows what effect not entering Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or WWII would have had. I know it would of had a effect, but doubtful the world would be laid out the same. It would have changed our political leaning in the world some good some bad. We wouldn't have learned our weaknesses, etc... So, ultimately you go to war when it appears it is required. 


But how else do you judge whether or not it's "required" unless you consider the potential good and bad? Of course these are all estimates, and you can be wildly off base in trying to predict anything, especially with war. But I don't know any other way to judge whether you should go to war or not. We can't just wait for others to attack us, because now or soon from now they can bomb entire cities as a first attack. It's the same in judging past wars -- look at all the pros and cons, and try not to leave any out.

Hmmm, I'm just talking about looking back at history and using that as basis on whether to wage current wars. It should just be based on need and ability versus opponents strength. I don't see how history really plays a role. If you say x country hates us, and x country will have nukes in 3 years and has vowed to use them. That means you have two years for diplomacy and espionage or whatever else you can do to indirectly stop them. If that doesn't work you go in. I don't see how history is relevant in that regard. You do it if it appears you need to. You don't if they are stronger than you are and your allies, or you don't deem it necessary, or you able to achieve a diplomatic victory.

War shouldn't really be a choice, it should be something you need to do. As in we need to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons for the sake of everyone in the world barring other crazy dictators. It shouldn't be based on reporters opinions either, or even the popular opinion. It's the direct need to stop another force that is the only requirement.

No I think it's foolish to wait for someone to strike us, but history doesn't tell us that. That's more a function of intelligence gathering.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:50:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
My point: You have to put EVERYTHING in the mix when looking back and judging whether it was worth fighting a war. All the results, all the things that you no longer have to worry about because you fought the war, the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful.


I don't feel the comparison is at all apt.

Keep in mind what my point was, which I quote just above. My point wasn't that the Iraq War was just like World War II. My point was very limited: You judge a war not by looking at little pieces but by looking at the whole effect -- the potential effects when you decide to go to war, and the recorded effects when you look back in history and hope to find lessons. That's all.

Aside from that, you're factually wrong on some counts:
quote:

Iraq did not attack us.

Actually, Iraq tried to kill President George H.W. Bush, had ties to some of the terrorists involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, shot at our military planes as they flew over Iraq enforcing no-fly zones. To me, all that shows that the Iraq government was potentially dangerous to us, were evil and gave us, by that alone, enough reason to go to war against them. Those are acts of war.

But I would have gone to war because they were more than ready to work with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and they weren't going to back off from that unless we threw them out of power. In a world where terrorist organizations might get their hands on WMDs, the best place to fight back is overthrowing the few governments that are willing to help them.

Would you have judged it wrong for us to declare war on Japan on Dec. 6, 1945, before they attacked us? What about Nazi Germany, before they declared war on us?

quote:

Iraq was not engaging in drastic expansionism.

That doesn't necessarily mean you don't go to war against them. If Hitler were only killing all the Jews he could find in Germany, would that have been an insufficient reason to go to war?

As you know, he tried expansionism, and if the United States weren't around to kick him out of Kuwait, he'd be there and probably beyond there, occupying Saudi Arabia's oil fields near the Gulf. He would have had lots of oil revenue for further expansion. 

quote:

Iraq had not aligned with other enemies with similar levels of aggression and expansion.

It had aligned with Al Qaeda or was ready to do so, according to the small number of Saddam-regime documents that have been translated and made public. He was more than prepared to work with terrorists, and he was quite willing to give them WMDs. If we all had your doubts, we'd have to wait until we had a city in smoke or with piles of bodies before we acted.

quote:

To compare a war rooted in a very real and direct threat to one based on vague suppositions, jumps to conclusions and selective attention is a weak arguement. You're right, you have to take the full context into consideration. In full context, the comparison doesn't hold.

See the first paragraph of this post for my reply. Again, you miss the point. I indulged you in getting off the topic, but in this thread, I'd rather try to stay on topic in future posts.

EDITED TO ADD: On second thought, I think I see where you may be coming from. When I said "criticism of the war" I was talking about criticism of the WAY the war was fought and the results, not "criticism of the reasons for going to war," which is now what I think you believed I meant.

No, I meant to say that critics who say we're in a quagmire and are failing in this war could have made some of the same criticisms in that vein about World War II. Actually, by May of '45, everyone could see we'd made so much progress that we were winning, so the author's overall point is a bit of a stretch, but he makes some very good points.



cloudboy -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 9:52:44 AM)


Let me know if you are able to punch anything through.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 10:33:08 AM)

I'd say it's a good sign that the end of the line is coming when war apologists adopt the "well even though it's a bad war it's not necessarily a bad war" argument.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:11:51 AM)

Cute statement. You'd prefer I said everything was going great? Or that I said, "In successful wars everything goes swimmingly"? Sorry, I'm not in that box.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:14:20 AM)

For yet another example of personal insult without constructive argument, see Post 8 in this thread.



kidbrooke18 -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:14:58 AM)

The Bush Dynasty are morally bancrupt and fically corrupt. So are their close business associates. George W. has a personality disorder. He and other Administration officials along with that joker,Tony Blair and that Digger fool John Howard,may one day face the international war crimes tribunal,unless they get immunity.



ArtCatDom -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:19:49 AM)

Very good reply! We don't agree on some of these points, but I believe that has been hashed over before.

I do agree with your idea about the slanted presentation of the war however. The media pounds a rapid drumbeat of gloom and doom, both leaving out most truly relevent negative news and neglecting most positive developments. Unfortunately, from reading a wide variety of media, it doesn't seem like any of them are fair and balanced at all. The few reputable alternative sources seem to either turn it into a vast complicit right wing conspiracy or try to make it sound like Iraq will be the land of milk & honey if we wait just a little longer.

I believe it is imporant for us to remain there and to focus on all developments, good and bad. If we ignore the good that has been done, we diminish the accomplishments of our soldiers, the militaries of our allies and the Iraqi people themselves. If we ignore the bad, we fail in our duty as citizens to hold our government accountable, we diminish the suffering of the military and Iraqi people and we will fail to be pragmatic enough to acknowledge and correct what is wrong as best as we can.

Just my thoughts.

*meow*



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:34:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Hmmm, I'm just talking about looking back at history and using that as basis on whether to wage current wars.

Well, I also don't think that's useful and that's not the point I was making. The only point I was making was that if you want to judge either a past war or a present one, look at as many of the ramifications as possible, don't just look at a few and, if things aren't going well in particular areas, don't judge the whole war on that basis. You wouldn't judge World War II only on the errors we made in it.

quote:

 It should just be based on need and ability versus opponents strength. [SNIP] ... War shouldn't really be a choice, it should be something you need to do.

Except where you were misreading what I said, you make excellent points, as you constantly do.

But I was talking about how, once you are in a war, some people start bemoaning the costs and suggesting that the costs are so high that either we shouldn't have gotten into the war in the first place or that we should follow some path short of victory -- cutting and running, for example, or possibly negotiating a settlement. When things aren't going well, it's certainly justifiable to re-examine whether the beliefs and calculations we made before we started were wrong and whether the outcome of the war so far shows that we made a mistake.

I think just about any war we got into as "necessary" is something we could have cut short with a defeat or compromise (except maybe the American Revolution). We might have declared a truce at some point and let the Confederacy, Imperial Japan or Germany survive, for instance. The world would have been a much worse place, but we could have done it.

But if you decide to do it, you don't do it because, for instance, tens of thousands died at Iwo Jima. You do it if you now think there would be a better result. And the only way to judge that is by looking at the broad picture. I don't think many opponents of the war are doing that. That was my point.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 11:48:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
I do agree with your idea about the slanted presentation of the war however. The media pounds a rapid drumbeat of gloom and doom, both leaving out most truly relevent negative news and neglecting most positive developments. Unfortunately, from reading a wide variety of media, it doesn't seem like any of them are fair and balanced at all. The few reputable alternative sources seem to either turn it into a vast complicit right wing conspiracy or try to make it sound like Iraq will be the land of milk & honey if we wait just a little longer.

I'm in total agreement. Back when there were more than one newspaper in most cities and each one was biased one way or another, a lot of people would buy more than one and try to figure out the truth from there. Now that we've got a variety of news outlets again, and so many of them so biased, I think serious people are beginning to do the same. I think maybe finding several sources for news who each take different viewpoints is the only real way to get closer to the truth, and this was probably always the case. At least it's easier with the Internet.

NPR's Morning Edition this past week ran a series of reports from Iraq that showed what a mess the local police force is in terms of corruption, lack of armored vehicles and the general state of disarray. I was glad to know about the problems, because even though I want success there, I want to know how well or badly it's going. I also heard that the Brookings Institution recently put out another one of its periodic reports measuring how things are going in terms of setting up the government, the economy, etc. Overall, it seemed to show some progress.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 12:03:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
War is sometimes necessary, but leaders should think long and hard not only about "can we win" but about "what will be the cost."  While they are thinking about that I'd recommend their having the corpse of a burned little girl in one corner, a wheelbarrow of  "renten-marks," the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread in 1925 Germany in the other.

Would Warren display a little girl burnt from the Allied fire bombing of Cologne, which some have said was excessive, or one taken prematurely out of the ovens in the Holocaust? You can make highly emotional points either way, and at some points they can both be worth making, but in the end, as I said, we've got to consider the big picture. It's probably best to do it as calmly as possible, and putting dead little girls in the room may not be the best way to go about that.

quote:

It should not be because a minority president wants to "make his bones."

More of Warren's slander.

For Warren's slander of me:
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=300537

This is where I called him on it:
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=300609

This was his inadequate response:
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=300735

This is my final response:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_300185/mpage_4/key_/tm.htm#301484
Edited to get that final link right.



SirKenin -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 12:49:27 PM)

I just laugh these armchair politicians off, quite frankly.  None of them are qualified to comment, because not one of them has made anything even close to office.  Until they have walked a mile in the government's shoes, they have no rights to judge.  The American people spoke, Bush and team are in, deal with it as far as I am concerned.

I can talk, by the way.  I voted Liberal, but the Conservatives won.  I am not bashing them.  I deal with it.



DelightMachine -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 1:29:54 PM)

Oh, I disagree, Sir K. Nothing wrong with the debate continuing. Ultimately, it can help educate people for the next vote. I also think it's a good idea to take a look at how things are going and see what kind of adjustments need to be made in policy. I don't think we should get out of Iraq, for instance, but if we see things are going really terribly there, it's a legit question to ask.



Chaingang -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 1:33:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
The American people spoke, Bush and team are in, deal with it as far as I am concerned.


As a computer professional I would think you would acknowledge that each time Bush won there was at least the potential of widespread computer fraud.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

There are real issues with the voting process in the states, and particularly in the case of Bush Jr. whose first term was not won but rather obtained by being appointed prez by the SCOTUS.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/13/2006 1:35:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Hmmm, I'm just talking about looking back at history and using that as basis on whether to wage current wars.

Well, I also don't think that's useful and that's not the point I was making. The only point I was making was that if you want to judge either a past war or a present one, look at as many of the ramifications as possible, don't just look at a few and, if things aren't going well in particular areas, don't judge the whole war on that basis. You wouldn't judge World War II only on the errors we made in it.

quote:

 It should just be based on need and ability versus opponents strength. [SNIP] ... War shouldn't really be a choice, it should be something you need to do.

Except where you were misreading what I said, you make excellent points, as you constantly do.

But I was talking about how, once you are in a war, some people start bemoaning the costs and suggesting that the costs are so high that either we shouldn't have gotten into the war in the first place or that we should follow some path short of victory -- cutting and running, for example, or possibly negotiating a settlement. When things aren't going well, it's certainly justifiable to re-examine whether the beliefs and calculations we made before we started were wrong and whether the outcome of the war so far shows that we made a mistake.

I think just about any war we got into as "necessary" is something we could have cut short with a defeat or compromise (except maybe the American Revolution). We might have declared a truce at some point and let the Confederacy, Imperial Japan or Germany survive, for instance. The world would have been a much worse place, but we could have done it.

But if you decide to do it, you don't do it because, for instance, tens of thousands died at Iwo Jima. You do it if you now think there would be a better result. And the only way to judge that is by looking at the broad picture. I don't think many opponents of the war are doing that. That was my point.


Well, my honest view of the situation we are in it, and we can't leave for alot of reasons. The problem with the US war strategy is we prolong the war and worry to much about public perception. A little less finesse and alot more brute force would get the job done. It's strange how we beat the germans using the most brutal methods possible, and haven't heard a peep from them since, We nuked Japan and they've been a perfect country. But everywhere we don't fight a brutal efficient war like Iraq and vietnam. We get into protracted battles, and the casualties mount and progress stalls. My view is if you're going to war go to freakin war, don't pussy foot around. We did it properly at the opening of the war, but then became to focused on winning the hearts and minds of the populace. Sorry, but you win the obedience of the populace by moving fast hitting hard and scaring the crap out them. That's the way real wars work. Like the type where you might actually lose something if you aren't successful. To me you should fight every war like you are fighting for your own land. Then this whole thing would have been over with.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875