Is the war in Iraq "winnable" for the US?

[base_nz 0]

How so....3 weeks after you had the tests you dropped the two bombs. On Hiroshima and nagasaki..

America with uranium and plutonium bombs.... hehehe.... DAMN straight you where going to try to be the first to use it......Thats just the way you are!!!!

Back on subject..... Can America win the war in iraq.....


NO!.....Not until it meets all the political objectives and i dont think you will...

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Your Mums a fat checker....... Listen Poojab ,,,I know exactly when the tests where..... I meant If you wouldn't of joined when you did once you had that weapon you would have looked for the first war you could!....WW2..... Sorry if i didnt make it clear the first time...


I just love all of your revisionist history

My father was one of those who helped to STOP the advance of the Japanese towards Australia and New Zealand, on Guadalcanal. Had the US forces not been successful there what do YOU think would be the state of the south pacific today? Do you think you would even be alive if your grandparents would have been put into slave labor camps?HE fought in other battles in the Pacific. He would have been one of those who would have to invade the home islands of Japan and would probably have been a casualty with thousands of other marines in doing so.

Your assertion that the US had nuclear weapons before we entered into the war is some strange kind of fantasy. If we would have had them early in the war when we were losing badly we most assureadly would have used them then. The use of the devices that were created in 1945 created the nice comfy world in which YOU live in today. Yes the US used them. Had we not used them there would have been thousands more dead americans( I bet you are good with that from your posts) and millions more dead Japanese.

Want to bet we will not be the last?


I suppose I will be in for a nice little personal attack from you now too

[riddler 0]

Quote

No, the purpose of war is to obtain a desired political end state. The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence. As Clauswitz said, "War is an extension of politics."

War is most often fought for money and land. Politics and religion are just excuses to make the masses feel good about the war.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[base_nz 0]

If you had a non political war....Im guessing there would be no rules for restraint???eg ..holy war?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[base_nz 0]

No need for the PA

Quote

Your assertion that the US had nuclear weapons before we entered into the war is some strange kind of fantasy.

Quote

I know you didnt have nukes before you entered the war ..... Im saying you would have joined the war if you would have finished the tech just to be the first to use them[laugh

Quote

If we would have had them early in the war when we were losing badly we most assureadly would have used them then. The use of the devices that were created in 1945 created the nice comfy world in which YOU live in today. Yes the US used them. Had we not used them there would have been thousands more dead americans( I bet you are good with that from your posts) and millions more dead Japanese.

Want to bet we will not be the last?


I suppose I will be in for a nice little personal attack from you now too

Its still WRONG to go to war!!!... All history shows that you can do the wrong things for the right reasons ......

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

There is a major difference between Germany/Japan in 1945 & Iraq 2003.

there are a ton more differences that make the comparison a joke in every respect. Just to name a few:

- Gemany/Japan were aggressors if there had ever been aggressors in the history of war. The advancement of axis powers was an existential threat to the entire civilization of the northern hemisphere. The rationale for the Iraq war was always obscure and contrived, and eventually thoroughly discredited. There's absolutely no comparison between the clarity and imminence of the threat that either posed.

- There is also absolutely no comparison between the magnitude of both events. WWII death estimates are around 60,000,000 most during the last four years. That makes about 1,500 per hour sustained over several years. So WWII would have accumulated US death for the 2003 invasion within a few minutes and including the Iraqi deaths in the spring of 2003 within a couple of hours. So ending WWII about half a day earlier/later after 6 years of fighting would have had the same impact as the "Iraq war". Thus to use the same word "war" for both is already quite odd.

- Resistance was virtually inexistent in either country (Gemany or Japan). Most Germans really only cared about not starving, finding shelter, and not having to run from bombing raids anymore. Who ran or occupied the country was secondary to most, and nobody had the energy time or resources to even think about resistance. Why was the US sector more popular than the Russian one - for most because it was easier to get food. US occupation in Iraq has not managed to end Iraqi resistance from various factions in 5 years claiming over 4000 on the coalition side alone despite far superior technology, medical care, logistic infra structure etc etc.

- Democratization was also hugely different. Democratic political parties in Germany existed from the Weimar republic and either laid low or went underground during the Nazi regime. Within weeks after surrender they popped to the surface again and started organizing themselves. Only two years later elections for state governments were held - the organization mostly driven by german parties rather than occupiers. By contrast Iraq has no pre-existing democratic parties or traditions. The establishment of the government in Iraq is largely occupier driven and does not connect to much to political history of Iraq which went between colonialism, puppet monarchies, and dictators.

- Both Japan and Germany are ethnically and culturally very homogeneous. This can hardly be said about Iraq. Although Saddam was successful at creating a sense of nationalism it came at a price.

- Japan and Germany were eventually surrounded by victors and former enemies. The was no "wiggle room" finding local allies with better deals. Iraq is surrounded by countries of which at best Kuwait is sympathetic to the US/coalition. Ironically this was the essence of the PNAC academic exercise - to create a democratic islands in the middle of undemocratic middle eastern states and let the joy of democracy radiate all over the place. Such ivory tower ideas had no place in the grim realities that led to the unconditional defeats and occupations of Germany and Japan.

- Both Japan and Germany were also technologically quite advanced at their time which eventually allowed them to rebuilt the industry and infra structure of their countries independent from occupiers despite the fact that almost everything was pulverized during WWII. Iraq was and still is a third world country before and is heavily dependent on US contractors and civil services of US army despite the small amount of destruction during the war and the large natural resources. US technological and economic involvement will persist for years, reinforcing colonial sentiments.


If there are any historical comparisons of Iraq 2003 they have more to do with British colonialism in the early 20th century in the same country. But the Iraq "war" and occupation have absolutely nothing to do with WWII.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

No, the purpose of war is to obtain a desired political end state. The best warriors sometimes accomplish this without using violence. As Clauswitz said, "War is an extension of politics."

War is most often fought for money and land. Politics and religion are just excuses to make the masses feel good about the war.

Pursuit of armed conflict for riches is called piracy, thuggery, or being a mercenary.

Pursuit of territory is political.

Since the Treaty of Westphalia (mid 1600s), war is state on state armed conflict involving uniformed military (until the last hundred years or so that frequently meant all able-bodied men upon command of the sovereign). Civil war is internal to a state.

While there have been some serious challenges to Clausewitz's principles On War. Most of those deal with changes in the late 20th and early 21st century (i.e., globalization, economic interdependency, and the Revolution in Military Affairs).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

Quote

Pursuit of armed conflict for riches is called piracy, thuggery, or being a mercenary.

That doesn't stop the most powerful countries in the world from doing it and branding it "war". What do you call it when rich corporations pay politicians to send their citizens to war for their own profit? Conscription?

Quote

Pursuit of territory is political.

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions on who gets what. Land-grabbing, which is entirely different, falls into two categories:

A) Unclaimed land is annexed. This may involve taking it from "heathens" that don't count as people anyway.

B) Claimed land is appropriated by force. This usually involves war, but there may be acquiescence in the face of superior armies.

Neither of these two fall into the realm of "politics".

But it sure it easier to convince a nation to make war when the other side are "commies" or "heathens".

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[base_nz 0]

Quote

Pursuit of armed conflict for riches is called piracy, thuggery, or being a mercenary.

What about for oil??

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Pursuit of territory is political.

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions on who gets what. Land-grabbing, which is entirely different, falls into two categories:

A) Unclaimed land is annexed. This may involve taking it from "heathens" that don't count as people anyway.

B) Claimed land is appropriated by force. This usually involves war, but there may be acquiescence in the face of superior armies.

Neither of these two fall into the realm of "politics".

I would argue that they both ball into the realm of politics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[base_nz 0]

POLITICS - plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power : the Communist Party was a major force in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries : in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.

• the academic study of government and the state : [as adj. ] a politics lecturer.

• activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive : yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.

• a particular set of political beliefs or principles : people do not buy this newspaper purely for its politics.

• (often the politics of) the assumptions or principles relating to or inherent in a sphere, theory, or thing, esp. when concerned with power and status in a society : the politics of gender.

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[riddler 0]

Quote

POLITICS - plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power : the Communist Party was a major force in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries : in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.

• the academic study of government and the state : [as adj. ] a politics lecturer.

• activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive : yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.

• a particular set of political beliefs or principles : people do not buy this newspaper purely for its politics.

• (often the politics of) the assumptions or principles relating to or inherent in a sphere, theory, or thing, esp. when concerned with power and status in a society : the politics of gender.

Hmm - still don't see anything about taking land in here. Am I missing it?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

POLITICS - plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power : the Communist Party was a major force in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries : in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.

• the academic study of government and the state : [as adj. ] a politics lecturer.

• activities within an organization that are aimed at improving someone's status or position and are typically considered to be devious or divisive : yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.

• a particular set of political beliefs or principles : people do not buy this newspaper purely for its politics.

• (often the politics of) the assumptions or principles relating to or inherent in a sphere, theory, or thing, esp. when concerned with power and status in a society : the politics of gender.

Hmm - still don't see anything about taking land in here. Am I missing it?

Yes.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

POLITICS - plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power : the Communist Party was a major force in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries : in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.

Hmm - still don't see anything about taking land in here. Am I missing it?

Yes.

Territorial sovereignty is the basis of governmental power (whether autocratic, representive democracy, or some other form of government).

Can you name a historical attempt to acquire territory through war (state on state armed conflict) that did not have a political motive?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So where is the gimmick argument.....Tell me PLEASE what YOU think we where debating....Or did you not read back that far?

If I read back too far, I see your fairy tale arguments that you later recant. It's pretty fucking hard to figure out what you really mean to say and what you no longer believe.

If you want to find a nefarious reason for the rapidness that the US used the bombs on Japan after Trinity, it is that the Soviets had entered the war and the US wanted to end it before the Russians could get much territory. However, it doesn't change the fact that the US was losing soldiers at a rapid rate retaking the islands and the country was ready to be out of war fighting.

Would the US have entered the war in 1939 if it already had the bomb? No. Don't cloud today's thinking about what nukes are with what Little Boy and Fat Boy could do. Compare the level of damage/deaths they did with what the conventional bombing of Tokyo did.

If you're convinced at projecting the war inclined tendencies of the White House and US people post 9/11 as long standing history, then why didn't we war with the USSR right after the close of WWII? We had the bomb, they didn't until 1949.

[base_nz 0]

Kelpy..... Thought we were done with that...... The whole reason for those posts was people who thought ww2 was not politically motivated and america entered the war in SELF DEFENSE......

I disagreed and then there was a bit of a slinging match...Its pretty obvious that WW2 isnt really relevant......

The bomb was only going to ever needed to be used once after that its just the threat that will be enough( we hope ) And in MY opinion America wanted to be the first to drop the bomb.... I may be wrong..... But that is just the way i see your country..... Sorry....


Back on topic then?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Kelpy..... Thought we were done with that...... The whole reason for those posts was people who thought ww2 was not politically motivated and america entered the war in SELF DEFENSE......

I disagreed and then there was a bit of a slinging match...Its pretty obvious that WW2 isnt really relevant......

The bomb was only going to ever needed to be used once after that its just the threat that will be enough( we hope ) And in MY opinion America wanted to be the first to drop the bomb.... I may be wrong..... But that is just the way i see your country..... Sorry....


Back on topic then?

I don't think there is a topic anymore.

Of course the US wanted to be first. If it wasn't, it would have been the Nazis. Over London. In war, you always want to be first instead of your enemy. Germany might still have lost due to its inadequete manufacturing capacity, but the recovery would have been much much worse.

And the BS around political motivation hasn't erased that the US entered WWII in response to an attack, both at Pearl and in the Phillipines and other Pacific island bases. Your failure to understand the silliness of saying "politically motivated" continues.

[base_nz 0]

Quote

Quote

Kelpy..... Thought we were done with that...... The whole reason for those posts was people who thought ww2 was not politically motivated and america entered the war in SELF DEFENSE......

I disagreed and then there was a bit of a slinging match...Its pretty obvious that WW2 isnt really relevant......

The bomb was only going to ever needed to be used once after that its just the threat that will be enough( we hope ) And in MY opinion America wanted to be the first to drop the bomb.... I may be wrong..... But that is just the way i see your country..... Sorry....


Back on topic then?

I don't think there is a topic anymore.

Of course the US wanted to be first. If it wasn't, it would have been the Nazis. Over London. In war, you always want to be first instead of your enemy. Germany might still have lost due to its inadequete manufacturing capacity, but the recovery would have been much much worse.

And the BS around political motivation hasn't erased that the US entered WWII in response to an attack, both at Pearl and in the Phillipines and other Pacific island bases. Your failure to understand the silliness of saying "politically motivated" continues.

And as you can read in previous posts I think you where at war BEFORE that....The order to fire upon the germans BEFORE Japan attacked you and other moves both legal and illegal to aid the war effort....The decision had already been made..?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And as you can read in previous posts I think you where at war BEFORE that....The order to fire upon the germans BEFORE Japan attacked you and other moves both legal and illegal to aid the war effort....The decision had already been made..?

I do believe it is the right of a neutral country to attack an armed combatant that is in its waters.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And as you can read in previous posts I think you where at war BEFORE that....The order to fire upon the germans BEFORE Japan attacked you and other moves both legal and illegal to aid the war effort....The decision had already been made..?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana

So, here's a little history lesson for you (please note the timeline):

May 21, 1941: German sub attacked US Merchant Ship Robin Moor
June 20, 1941: Attempted attack on USS Texas, USS Mayrant, USS Rhind, and USS Trippe by German sub
September 4, 1941: German subs attack USS Greer
September 7, 1941: US merchant ship Steel Seafarer attacked by German warplane
September 11, 1941: President Roosevelt orders Navy to attack any vessel threatening US or Allied ships.

Quote from speech:
"In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense American naval
vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis submarines
lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface of the sea,
strike their deadly blow-first.

Upon our naval and air patrol-now operating in large numbers over a vast
expanse of the Atlantic Ocean-falls the duty of maintaining the American
policy of freedom of the seas-now. That means very simply and clearly,
that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships-
not only American ships but ships of any flag-engaged in commerce in our
defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will
protect them from surface raiders."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[base_nz 0]

Exactly....

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Exactly....

Perhaps you missed the part about the German attacks on our ships/shipping BEFORE that announcement - certainly not the unilateral "shoot on sight" that you tried to pass off.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Exactly....

Perhaps you missed the part about the German attacks on our ships/shipping BEFORE that announcement - certainly not the unilateral "shoot on sight" that you tried to pass off.

No, his viewpoint is exactly whatever the last person wrote, save that America is responsible for all wars happening because of bad politics.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Territorial sovereignty is the basis of governmental power (whether autocratic, representive democracy, or some other form of government).

If that argument were true, then the countries with the largest landmass would be the most powerful. Instead, the countries with the most wealth are the most powerful (Japan is roughly the size of California, is the second wealthiest country, and gets the US to go to war in the middle east when it's oil supply in Kuwait is threatened).

The basis of governmental power in today's world is relative worth combined with the cooperation of it's citizens. I would say your argument is a good attempt at a stretch, but it's not - it's a quite poor stretch of verbiage.

Here's how Wikipedia defines politics (note the complete lack of reference to land):

Quote

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions on who gets what. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.[citation needed]

Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

Quote

Can you name a historical attempt to acquire territory through war (state on state armed conflict) that did not have a political motive?

Let's see:

1. I said war is fought for money and land. Not religion or politics.
2. You said all acquisition of land is political.
3. I said "is not"
4. You said "prove it isn't"

I call impasse. To me, the war in Iraq was fought for oil (not political, money). The US Revolutionary War was fought with England over taxes (political ideology was a good excuse, though). The Spanish-American war was fought because the US was feeling expansionist (the US government made a claim that the Spanish were denying Cuban independence, as if they cared). The War of 1812 - the US started that one because the British were blockading French exports to the US (how is that political?). You may buy the official government word on why these wars started, but historians would probably side with economics and land-grabbing as the primary reason.

Edit for grammer

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jcd11235 0]

Increasing the geographical reach of national sovereignty and increasing available resources, including space, is political. So is retaliating against a third party that attempts to prevent trade between two parties.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!