Is it possible to win a major war in the era of mass communication?

[Hababi]

Think about it. We've had two major wars (I won't count Gulf Storm and other minor operations), and, if the Democrats have their way, we will have suffered defeat in both of them.

The Democrats of course are just listening to the loud angry base, many of whom are going off a knee jerk hatred of everything George Bush. But the majority of the American public has lost faith in the operation, in large part due to the blanket media coverage. Even though, relative to other operations, few American soldiers have died, the death toll is magnified by the attention paid to it.

Imagine if during WW2 they would've reported about all the deaths suffered through the island hopping operation, where thousands of soldiers would die to take a rock in the middle of the ocean. Had the media existed then as it does today, the American public might've lost faith and we might've had a different result.

So, I wonder, can a major war (that being entailing multiple years and thousands of casualties) be won in the age of mass communication and modern media?

[lunchforthesky]

I say yes, America is just incredibly bad at fighting wars.

[Der Übermensch]

Yes, but I think that the age of mass communication has made it so a major war [or at least a WW2 style war (which is what I assume we mean here)] can never happen again.
War is now done by proxy.

[spitfirejunky]

The objective of this war is to stabilize Iraq, and we've failed in every aspect.

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the deathtoll.

[Hababi]

Yes, but I think that the age of mass communication has made it so a major war [or at least a WW2 style war (which is what I assume we mean here)] can never happen again.
War is now done by proxy.

I don't see how the media has changed this. We don't have major wars against European powers because they're democracies, but genocides still go on unpunished (IE Darfur).

The objective of this war is to stabilize Iraq, and we've failed in every aspect.

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the deathtoll.

The surge has significantly lowered casualty rates in Baghdad.

[Knifeboy]

So if America is declared defeated in Iraq... Did the Iraqis win?
...
There is no such thing as winning a war anymore

[Hababi]

So if America is declared defeated in Iraq... Did the Iraqis win?


No, the terrorists and insurgents will have won.

[Der Übermensch]

I don't see how the media has changed this. We don't have major wars against European powers because they're democracies, but genocides still go on unpunished (IE Darfur).
Darfur, no matter how horrid, isn't WW3.

A major part of warfare is dehuminization of the enemy. The enemies of the US would be major world powers. The internet has done a LOT to break down those borders. Instead of nations being isolated, we are exposed to each other like never before. Really, the only major nation there is still a theoretical chance of us going to war with is China, because they still greatly restrict internet access. If that last barrier falls, I think it is safe to say we will never see WW3. Instead we will just beat the crap out of smaller, insignifigant countries

[GreyHam]

Think about it. We've had two major wars (I won't count Gulf Storm and other minor operations), and, if the Democrats have their way, we will have suffered defeat in both of them.

The Democrats of course are just listening to the loud angry base, many of whom are going off a knee jerk hatred of everything George Bush. But the majority of the American public has lost faith in the operation, in large part due to the blanket media coverage. Even though, relative to other operations, few American soldiers have died, the death toll is magnified by the attention paid to it.

Imagine if during WW2 they would've reported about all the deaths suffered through the island hopping operation, where thousands of soldiers would die to take a rock in the middle of the ocean. Had the media existed then as it does today, the American public might've lost faith and we might've had a different result.

So, I wonder, can a major war (that being entailing multiple years and thousands of casualties) be won in the age of mass communication and modern media?

in world war 2, people were united against the nazi government and the very real threat that, if left unchallenged, germany would have taken over the whole word

as opposed to a war that millions protested against, was fought under misinformation, and realistically, the iraqis arents going to be conquering europe any time soon

[griftadan]

I say yes, America is just incredibly bad at fighting wars.

no, america is bad at rebuilding countries that don't want help.

anyways, i say yes as it's fairly easy to destroy communication infrastructure.

[Akira]

Yeah. The Democrats like you lose wars because it makes the stupid, Bush-hating masses happy.

You never stop amazing me Zero.

Yes the death toll is rather low. But considering the mission was supposedly accomplished years ago, far too many have. This war is nothing like WWII. We are not fighting a country. It's not a matter of pushing the insurgents until they surrender. Rebuilding has to take place while the war is still going on.
The notion that accurate war reporting is bad is ludicrous. The public has a right to now what is going on over there. And the reporting is still pretty low-key. There is no civilian death count. We never see the actual death brought on by the war, we see destroyed buildings and numbers.

This war is being lost because of the almost comically bad pre-war planning, not because of mass media.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

The mass media is partially responsible for the negative view of the war. By showing the dirty-but-often-necessary aspects of fighting an insurgency (torture, etc.), they're showing people the true ugly side of war. Nobody wants to see that, so they push for getting out the conflict without realizing that war sometimes is necessary, and that, in war, ugly things happen.

Also, the US has a 20:1 kill ratio for insurgents and sectarian deaths have gone down since the surge began (it hasn't even gone into full effect yet). Try hearing that on CNN or Fox News.

The problem is that, in today's world of instant gratification, we are unwilling to make the major commitments needed to successfully pave over a government and, in a sense, a society. This is not a 3, 5, or even 10 year commitment. We invaded the Philippines in 1898. We left in 1945. It's going to take a similar time commitment and whole lot more troops than we have now for us to achieve victory in Iraq, and I blame the Bush administration for foolishly thinking otherwise at the invasion. Cultural diffusion takes time, and, in the era of mass communication, people expect and demand it to be instantaneous

[lunchforthesky]

no, america is bad at rebuilding countries that don't want help.

anyways, i say yes as it's fairly easy to destroy communication infrastructure.

Is that not part of the war?

[griftadan]

it's not part of the "fighting" part. were pretty good at that part.

[lunchforthesky]

it's not part of the "fighting" part. were pretty good at that part.

It's all part of the war though.

[griftadan]

well it's part of our strategic objective and the broader "war on terror", so i suppose so. historically, were about as succesful if not more than most other countries at war.

[lunchforthesky]

well it's part of our strategic objective and the broader "war on terror", so i suppose so. historically, were about as succesful if not more than most other countries at war.

Well the major victories came in WW2 and WW1. Both of which were unlosable in all honesty. For a country as powerful as America is you shouldn't ever even come clsoe to losing a war.

[griftadan]

ww1 and 2 weren't unlosable by any extent. were lucky that hitler was a horrible strategic commander.

[lunchforthesky]

ww1 and 2 weren't unlosable by any extent. were lucky that hitler was a horrible strategic commander.

World War One was certainly unlosable and it would of taken serious errors on hte part of the Americans to lose the second.

[AmericanWeiner]

it's impossible to win a war when the objective is to stop a war that you opened the gates to by starting a war.

[Reaganista]

No

and that's a good thing

[Dave de Sylvia]

If by "major" you mean "pointless and badly-thought-out" then yeah.

Not sure why you'd choose that term though.

[griftadan]

World War One was certainly unlosable and it would of taken serious errors on hte part of the Americans to lose the second.

ok i agree about the first, but if any of the following events occurred it would have been much more difficult if not impossible to win.

1. if the japanese had attacked pearl harbor a few weeks later or earlier, our entire aircraft carrier fleet would have been destroyed, making later victories in the pacific impossible.

2. had hitler decided not to blitz london instead of finishing off the RAF, englang would have been done assuming that....

3. had hitler waited to invade russia and finish off england first.

4. upon invading russia, invaded in the spring to be able to sieze moscow and the caucuses before the winter set in.

5. had hitler seized the caucus oilfields instead of taking stalingrad, the soviets would have a large portion of their recources removed.

all of these were more or less due to luck or hitler not listening to his generals.

granted, america did develope the atomic bomb first, but the germans were close as well, any of these things happen and the war would have been delayed to the point where they would have gotten it.

i don't even know what we were talking about anymore...

[Cain]

This is a dumb thread topic. Anybody who's been paying attention since Korea knows that war is no longer an effective way to achieve a foreign policy goal of any kind.

1. if the japanese had attacked pearl harbor a few weeks later or earlier, our entire aircraft carrier fleet would have been destroyed, making later victories in the pacific impossible.

Maybe, but as it stands not all of the battleships were beyond salvage and I highly doubt that the Japanese would have invaded the US short of occupying Hawaii anyway. The main goal for attacking Pearl Harbor was to put off potential US involvement/intervention in their ambitions to turn Asia into a large Japanese sphere of influence--once power was consolidated, America would be less likely to try.

2. had hitler decided not to blitz london instead of finishing off the RAF, englang would have been done assuming that....

Yeah but Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he possessed that kind of foresight. He had absolutely no ideological quarrel with the West other than the unfortunate (for Hitler) declarations of war on him by France and England after his invasion of Poland. Operation Sea Lion could have been a great success if Hitler, anxious about his peculiar affinity for England as a fellow imperial power, hadn't postponed it so many times.

3. had hitler waited to invade russia and finish off england first.

Again, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he had waited, and besides, there's plenty of evidence that Stalin was going to attack Hitler first if Hitler didn't jump right on him when he was unprepared. The Red Army's test drive in Finland is enough evidence that Stalin wasn't going to put his own expansionist ambitions on hold for his worst enemy to consolidate its conquests in the West.

4. upon invading russia, invaded in the spring to be able to sieze moscow and the caucuses before the winter set in.

There is marginal evidence to support that the Soviet Union would have been defeated, as German occupation policy was a notorious failure in the East (making partisans out of thousands and thousands of people who would have gladly joined forces with the Germans) and also that the USSR is just too darn big. They probably would have gotten dragged into an insurgency conflict over the entire conquered expanse, stopping maybe at the Urals.

5. had hitler seized the caucus oilfields instead of taking stalingrad, the soviets would have a large portion of their recources removed.

Temporarily. The USSR had begun to effectively make use of its vast manpower by this point and there's little evidence that Hitler could have held the oilfields in a definite way. It could have been Stalingrad in reverse except over a much larger expanse of territory, and besides it's not as though the two armies and the significant proportion of Russian steel and agricultural products originating from Stalingrad could have been ignored entirely.

all of these were more or less due to luck or hitler not listening to his generals.

Only to a certain extent. The German generals tend to be highly apologist and often fail to note how their own fallacies contributed to their defeat. The whole "we are just simple soldiers but Hitler was crazy" thing is stupid when you see how many photographs of Army troops massacreing villages there are, and how detrimental to their occupation policy that was.

granted, america did develope the atomic bomb first, but the germans were close as well, any of these things happen and the war would have been delayed to the point where they would have gotten it.

Actually that's a common fallacy. The Germans weren't even close. They hadn't even made elementary advancements that British scientists had made in 1940, nor did they have any sort of official backing or the kinds of funds from the German government that the Manhattan Project or even von Braun's V-2s did.

[Reaganista]

. Anybody who's been paying attention since Korea knows that war is no longer an effective way to achieve a foreign policy goal of any kind.

only if coup d'état is not war

[GreyHam]

from my understanding the japenese attack on america had the aim of drawing america away from the european arena

backfired to a massive extent
(as much as many americans say they saved our asses in the war - not necceserily true, but it was certainly a MASSIVE boost for morale and reinforcements for all)

[griftadan]

Maybe, but as it stands not all of the battleships were beyond salvage and I highly doubt that the Japanese would have invaded the US short of occupying Hawaii anyway. The main goal for attacking Pearl Harbor was to put off potential US involvement/intervention in their ambitions to turn Asia into a large Japanese sphere of influence--once power was consolidated, America would be less likely to try.

well my point was that it would be a serious delay while the japanese were gaining ground everywhere. if those ships were hit, the battel of midway wouldn't even be able to happen, and the japanese could have easily taken that island as an outpost in the mid pacific.

Yeah but Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he possessed that kind of foresight. He had absolutely no ideological quarrel with the West other than the unfortunate (for Hitler) declarations of war on him by France and England after his invasion of Poland. Operation Sea Lion could have been a great success if Hitler, anxious about his peculiar affinity for England as a fellow imperial power, hadn't postponed it so many times.

well yeah but the point i was trying to make was more over what was possible from our perspective, it wasn't going to be a easy win no matter what happened.

Again, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if he had waited, and besides, there's plenty of evidence that Stalin was going to attack Hitler first if Hitler didn't jump right on him when he was unprepared. The Red Army's test drive in Finland is enough evidence that Stalin wasn't going to put his own expansionist ambitions on hold for his worst enemy to consolidate its conquests in the West.

i think how off gaurd the blitz caught russians on the western front is testament to how likely the russian were to invade the rest of eastern europe, i don't think the germans were oblivious to the troop levels of the russian army. besides, they had actually amassed a large majority of their army in siberia to ward off the japanese whom with they had no treaties.


There is marginal evidence to support that the Soviet Union would have been defeated, as German occupation policy was a notorious failure in the East (making partisans out of thousands and thousands of people who would have gladly joined forces with the Germans) and also that the USSR is just too darn big. They probably would have gotten dragged into an insurgency conflict over the entire conquered expanse, stopping maybe at the Urals.

well assuming that england had already been subdued, and that the luftwaffe could have been fully use don the eastern front, it's really a matter of the germans being able to outproduce the russians.

Temporarily. The USSR had begun to effectively make use of its vast manpower by this point and there's little evidence that Hitler could have held the oilfields in a definite way. It could have been Stalingrad in reverse except over a much larger expanse of territory, and besides it's not as though the two armies and the significant proportion of Russian steel and agricultural products originating from Stalingrad could have been ignored entirely.

yeah, but the nazis already were outproducing them from the start, if their main industrial centers and cosntantly being attacked it's hard to imagine the russians being able to produce an army capable of defeating the full nazi army.

Only to a certain extent. The German generals tend to be highly apologist and often fail to note how their own fallacies contributed to their defeat. The whole "we are just simple soldiers but Hitler was crazy" thing is stupid when you see how many photographs of Army troops massacreing villages there are, and how detrimental to their occupation policy that was.

well "to a certain extent" is quite a bit considering hitlers strategic mistakes

Actually that's a common fallacy. The Germans weren't even close. They hadn't even made elementary advancements that British scientists had made in 1940, nor did they have any sort of official backing or the kinds of funds from the German government that the Manhattan Project or even von Braun's V-2s did.

the history channel lied to me :mad:

[Dr Hooch]

Your problem is that you won the battle but keep losing the wars

you're not getting anywhere in iraq

things aren't improving

for anyone

[griftadan]

the kurds are probably better off.

[Dr Hooch]

Some guys are better off for the invasion

but the occupation is merely maintaining a country at breaking point

it isn't getting it nay further from said breaking point

[A Spoonful Supreme]

everybody hates america including democrats and the only people that love america are republicans right

[White Riot!]

american diplomacy is a contrast in terms

[griftadan]

everybody hates america including democrats and the only people that love america are republicans right

no?

american diplomacy is a contrast in terms

we probably conduct more diplomacy than anyone else actually

[Amit]

Think about it. We've had two major wars (I won't count Gulf Storm and other minor operations), and, if the Democrats have their way, we will have suffered defeat in both of them.

The Democrats of course are just listening to the loud angry base, many of whom are going off a knee jerk hatred of everything George Bush. But the majority of the American public has lost faith in the operation, in large part due to the blanket media coverage. Even though, relative to other operations, few American soldiers have died, the death toll is magnified by the attention paid to it.

Imagine if during WW2 they would've reported about all the deaths suffered through the island hopping operation, where thousands of soldiers would die to take a rock in the middle of the ocean. Had the media existed then as it does today, the American public might've lost faith and we might've had a different result.

So, I wonder, can a major war (that being entailing multiple years and thousands of casualties) be won in the age of mass communication and modern media?

world war 2 and the second gulf war

such a valid comparison!

awards should be arranged

[lfantwister]

everybody hates america including democrats and the only people that love america are republicans right
then certainly we shouldn't elect a democratic president amiright

[Give me Beer]

from my understanding the japenese attack on america had the aim of drawing america away from the european arena

backfired to a massive extent
(as much as many americans say they saved our asses in the war - not necceserily true, but it was certainly a MASSIVE boost for morale and reinforcements for all)

Uhm, who told you that? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was made because the American army and politicians had already voiced their concern and intentions of interfering with the Japanese imperial policies in South-East Asia. Japan wanted to consolidate their conquests and streamline their empire to such an extent that the US would not be able to beat them. That and the oil business.

[GreyHam]

some research i did for an essay...which im not hoping is more accurate than what youve said, or at least is true, else ill be royally arse raped

god knows why, in both world wars, they thought it neccesery to get the US involved. the isolationist policy would have meant they probably wouldnt have entered the war for a good couple of years, by which time germany would probably have conquered europe. maybe

but yea, playing 'what if' with WWII is depressing

[Dr Hooch]

world war 2 and the second gulf war

such a valid comparison!

awards should be arranged

I mean there Hitler was minding his own business when WHOOOMPH in came the last known defenders of the free world amirite

[Smokey D]

I believe America has the highest success rate in wars of any nation.

if the japanese had attacked pearl harbor a few weeks later or earlier, our entire aircraft carrier fleet would have been destroyed, making later victories in the pacific impossible.

Not really. US production won the war, not the luck of having the main fleet out of base at the time. At the wars end, America had produced 144 carriers. Japan had made 17 or something.

As to the original question, mass communication makes wars much harder to win politically when they start getting tough, but it really depends on the goals and specific circumstances. America is still easily capable of winning any major conflict with another nation state. It has demonstrated less ability in quelling dissent and civil wars, which are much harder to target. Essentially, the US military is specifically designed to win 'major wars' (ie, wars between recognised state actors and infrastructures) but cannot nation build in a remotely hostile environment.

[Akira]

I believe America has the highest success rate in wars of any nation.

We are also an extremely young country. You cannot, with any fairness, compare our record with, say, England or France.

[:amaze:]

many of whom are going off a knee jerk hatred of everything George Bush.

what do you think is one of the main reasons for bush hatred?

i'd say it isn't so much being against the war because the hate bush ... but rather hate bush because they are against the war....




:amaze:

[Hababi]

what do you think is one of the main reasons for bush hatred?

i'd say it isn't so much being against the war because the hate bush ... but rather hate bush because they are against the war....


For some yes, but for the core leftist base, it wouldn't matter. They'd want to surrender to Hitler, just because it's Bush who is president. They root for failure and defeat, and celebrate any signs of it.

[AmericanWeiner]

well there's that whole thing that leaving iraq isn't actually surrendering anything

[Hababi]

well there's that whole thing that leaving iraq isn't actually surrendering anything

Yes it is. Hence Harry Reid's stupid statement "We have lost the war." They're pushing for surrender and defeat, defeat to the terrorists and insurgents. Make no mistake about it: Leaving Iraq unstable is surrendering.

[Akira]

For some yes, but for the core leftist base, it wouldn't matter. They'd want to surrender to Hitler, just because it's Bush who is president. They root for failure and defeat, and celebrate any signs of it.

:lol:

...

:upset:

[griftadan]

I believe America has the highest success rate in wars of any nation.



Not really. US production won the war, not the luck of having the main fleet out of base at the time. At the wars end, America had produced 144 carriers. Japan had made 17 or something.

at the end of the wars. they japanese probably would have taken midway if the carriers were lost, and who knows how long that would have delayed things or effected other aspects of the war.

[YDload]

"mass communication" includes the radio and television fyi. it's not the Democrats' fault that nobody wants to invade another country without first being attacked and, you know, having a good reason to avenge ourselves. it's just not the same.

[Hababi]

"mass communication" includes the radio and television fyi. it's not the Democrats' fault that nobody wants to invade another country without first being attacked and, you know, having a good reason to avenge ourselves. it's just not the same.

I don't think that's the case. I think that the majority of Americans would support an invasion of most any country, particularly France ;), provided there was not a prolonged commitment. But give the prolonged commitment and almost any cause, no matter how important and moral, becomes unpopular amongst the general population, in part because of the impact of the mass media.

[YDload]

you're right it's much better when Americans don't know what's going on, then they can support things without thinking too much about why they're doing them :):)

[:amaze:]

I don't think that's the case. I think that the majority of Americans would support an invasion of most any country, particularly France ;), provided there was not a prolonged commitment.

or maybe provided there's a legitimate reason for it, is what i think you mean.




:amaze:

[lfantwister]

or maybe provided there's a legitimate reason for it, is what i think you mean.
by legitimate you mean marketable right

[MattSharpIsCool]

Comparing World War II to the war in Iraq is really, really, dumb.

Germany had their eyes on eventual world domination. Would they have achieved that? I dont know, but they were going to try. They committed mass genocide, they controlled nearly the whole European continent, they bombed and killed civilians on a massive scale.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor for their own personal gain. The US was trying to stay out of the war, and they were attacked by another nation. They retaliated. This is how war normally works.

In 2001 the US was attacked by a terrorist organization. Not by Iraq, not by Afghanistan. Nobody really has a clue why we're fighting in Iraq.

You see how the comparison just isn't really there?

I think we could have fought WWII in this age of mass media. That was a war that people were behind, and they had reason to be behind it. Like I said earlier, the US was attacked, our allies had been under attack for two years, and there was an obvious "bad guy".

However, with Vietnam and Iraq, mass media has allowed the public to see that we're not really fighting for or against anything or anyone.

[:amaze:]

by legitimate you mean marketable right

ummm, no. i mean legitimate.




:amaze:

[Give me Beer]

I don't think Germany wanted total world domination by the way, Hitler wanted to unite all the Germanic people and create enough "lebensraum" (livingspace) for them.

[GreyHam]

Comparing World War II to the war in Iraq is really, really, dumb.

Germany had their eyes on eventual world domination. Would they have achieved that? I dont know, but they were going to try. They committed mass genocide, they controlled nearly the whole European continent, they bombed and killed civilians on a massive scale.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor for their own personal gain. The US was trying to stay out of the war, and they were attacked by another nation. They retaliated. This is how war normally works.

In 2001 the US was attacked by a terrorist organization. Not by Iraq, not by Afghanistan. Nobody really has a clue why we're fighting in Iraq.

You see how the comparison just isn't really there?

I think we could have fought WWII in this age of mass media. That was a war that people were behind, and they had reason to be behind it. Like I said earlier, the US was attacked, our allies had been under attack for two years, and there was an obvious "bad guy".

However, with Vietnam and Iraq, mass media has allowed the public to see that we're not really fighting for or against anything or anyone.


^^^^^^ this

absolutely this

[Smokey D]

at the end of the wars. they japanese probably would have taken midway if the carriers were lost, and who knows how long that would have delayed things or effected other aspects of the war.

Really, the most important things in total war are the ability to produce and the ability to develop new technologies. Even if they had lost at Midway, the US would have won the war in the Pacific.

We are also an extremely young country. You cannot, with any fairness, compare our record with, say, England or France.

I believe England is second.

But 200 years isn't that young for a country. Most of Europe is younger.

[Give me Beer]

We are also an extremely young country. You cannot, with any fairness, compare our record with, say, England or France.

You also can't compare older wars with wars today. There is no way you can compare making war in the 1600s with war today.

[Smokey D]

But seriously, the vast majority of the world's states are younger than the United States, so it's pretty silly.

Actually, thinking that past success in anyway reflects on modern capabilities is pretty silly too.

[angry armadillo]

there is too many repercussions in having a war which results in a 'win' so it will never happen

[Smokey D]

What are you talking about? The Alllies unquestionably won both World Wars.

[Give me Beer]

True, never said the US was a "young" nation. I think that's a stupid phrase anyway since as far as I know there's nobody around anymore from the 1600s.

Belgium has been around since 1830, so it's "younger" than the US. Although the area has been grouped together far longer, being part of France, Germany, Spain, Austria ... in turns. Charles V, y'know the famous Emperor was born in Ghent and he actually spoke the dialect as well. :D

Besides the term "state" has changed a lot. France during the 100 year war was not the France you know now.

[Smokey D]

I was referring to the claim that since the US is a young nation, its military record doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

And yeah, the dynastic states of the medieval period are very different to the nation states of today. It is in some ways anachronistic (but certainly not entirely) to think of military victories and defeats in earlier periods in terms of 'English' or 'French' instead of 'Valois' or 'Tudor'.

[angry armadillo]

What are you talking about? The Alllies unquestionably won both World Wars.
i wasnt talking in response to anyones point, i was thinking about present day.

[Der Übermensch]

at the end of the wars. they japanese probably would have taken midway if the carriers were lost, and who knows how long that would have delayed things or effected other aspects of the war.

By a year after Pearl Harbor, the entire aircraft losses of Pearl Harbor were being replaced within about 2 days of production. Pearl Harbor was a more a morale victory then anything actually fufilling for the Japs.

It 'woke the sleeping giant' as the put it...

[griftadan]

aircraft are easy to make, carriers not so much.

[EinzingerIsGod]

The surge has significantly lowered casualty rates in Baghdad.

According to...?


http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070419-034132-8024r

[Der Übermensch]

aircraft are easy to make, carriers not so much.

True, but the US was pumping out Carriers at an unprecendented rate as well.
I think they launched something like 150 during the war. No other nation had the capability to EVER reach that level of production, and thats the point that was being made. Japan could have wiped out the entire fleet, and the US still could have bounced back in a year.

[YDload]

What are you talking about? The Alllies unquestionably won both World Wars.

and there were repercussions! WWI's result was WWII, and WWII's result was the Cold War.

[EinzingerIsGod]

and there were repercussions! WWI's result was WWII, and WWII's result was the Cold War.

Which resulted in the US being sucked in to Vietnam, and then we didn't learn from that and invaded Iraq.

[griftadan]

True, but the US was pumping out Carriers at an unprecendented rate as well.
I think they launched something like 150 during the war. No other nation had the capability to EVER reach that level of production, and thats the point that was being made. Japan could have wiped out the entire fleet, and the US still could have bounced back in a year.

i was under the impression that this production process wasnt well underway untill after midway in 42

[Der Übermensch]

Depends which production... I know that the first light Carrier commisioned was commisioned a few months after midway(It was ordered in January, using a keel already laid for a Cruiser).
The majority of production was excort carrier though.
Over all,the average for a Light Carrier was about a year from keel to commision, by mid/late 42.
Pre-war Escort Carrier rates were about a year and a half keel to commision, that would have been considerably shortened once war came along, so I'd estimate... 9 months by 42?

[south_of_heaven 11]

Yes it is. Hence Harry Reid's stupid statement "We have lost the war." They're pushing for surrender and defeat, defeat to the terrorists and insurgents. Make no mistake about it: Leaving Iraq unstable is surrendering.

Yes.

We plowed through Iraq; the real war was over in the blink of an eye. What's going wrong, as I believe many have pointed out, is that now our military is being used as a police force to bring stabilization to a country. To try and use our military as a police force in an unstable country (or even if it was stable) was not a good call at all; they haven't been trained for this kind of scenario.

[Reaganista]

For some yes, but for the core leftist base, it wouldn't matter. They'd want to surrender to Hitler, just because it's Bush who is president. They root for failure and defeat, and celebrate any signs of it.
yeah leftists were really favorable to Hitler
that's why the Soviet Union
you know
seized Berlin

[YDload]

sup tway i didnt know you were still around

so who feels like shouting at the brick wall that is Zerokewl for several days?

[Reaganista]

yeah i sorta came back i guess

[Smokey D]

and there were repercussions! WWI's result was WWII, and WWII's result was the Cold War.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but we won that too, didn't we?

Also, there's no reason to think that reprecussions preclude victory. There are complexities that make some wars less clear cut than others, but it doesn't mean winning is out of the question, if the right strategy was employed.

[Iskandar]

yeah leftists were really favorable to Hitler
that's why the Soviet Union
you know
seized Berlin
He clearly meant American leftists.

[Der Übermensch]

yeah leftists were really favorable to Hitler
that's why the Soviet Union
you know
seized Berlin
Well for a few years they were. Communists in the USA were advocating a pro-hitler national platform from '39-'41.

[YDtoad]

Yes.

We plowed through Iraq; the real war was over in the blink of an eye. What's going wrong, as I believe many have pointed out, is that now our military is being used as a police force to bring stabilization to a country. To try and use our military as a police force in an unstable country (or even if it was stable) was not a good call at all; they haven't been trained for this kind of scenario.

It's not the first time the military has been used as a police force, though. The Union policed the South for a decade after the Civil War; same thing in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Post war occupations are nothing new, nor are continued troop casualties following what amounted to a surrender.

One problem is that certain Bush administration members made very stupid statements in the lead up to and following the invasion. You know, "we'll be greeted with flowers", "the insurgency is on its last legs", "what insurgency" that type of thing. They created unrealistic expectations for the conditions on the ground.

But every report that has been done, both by groups in and out of the government, has contained the dire warning that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic. It would have dramatic long term consequences. This is an unavoidable reality.

So, it comes down to one of two things. Either:
1) The Americans don't realize what the reports of Baker Hamilton etc. say
or
2) The Americans don't care.

I think it's a mix of the two. But number two is significant. A lot of people on the left know full well what the reports have said and don't care about the long term consequences.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

I think it's a mix of the two. But number two is significant. A lot of people on the left know full well what the reports have said and don't care about the long term consequences.

That's true, and it frustrates me that such people think this is solely about American casualties and preserving integrity (as if leaving would save our tarnished reputation). I've heard the argument made that we need to step up, admit we made a mistake and leave the country to collapse into itself.

It's not the first time the military has been used as a police force, though. The Union policed the South for a decade after the Civil War; same thing in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Post war occupations are nothing new, nor are continued troop casualties following what amounted to a surrender.
It's been a standard practice of war to occupy the enemy's territory once you defeat him practically since war's inception.

[YDtoad]

That's true, and it frustrates me that such people think this is solely about American casualties and preserving integrity (as if leaving would save our tarnished repuation). I've heard the argument made that we need to step up, admit we made a mistake and leave the country to collapse into itself.


Absolutely. I do wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq, because I think it was a strategic mistake, in hindsight, to do so. Also because it was based on bad intelligence. But as poor a move as it was to invade the country, it would be even worse, significantly so, to now leave the country in chaos and disrepair.

[gregulus]

That's true, and it frustrates me that such people think this is solely about American casualties and preserving integrity (as if leaving would save our tarnished repuation). I've heard the argument made that we need to step up, admit we made a mistake and leave the country to collapse into itself.


It's been a standard practice of war to occupy the enemy's territory once you defeat him practically since war's inception.

The country's already collapsed into itself, even with us there.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

It may be chaos there, but I don't think it's fair to say it's already collapsed into itself.

[gregulus]

It may be chaos there, but I don't think it's fair to say it's already collapsed into itself.

I'd say with bombers being able to get into the Green Zone and into Parliament, it's pretty close...

[Cain]

It's not the first time the military has been used as a police force, though. The Union policed the South for a decade after the Civil War; same thing in Germany and Japan after World War 2.

yeah union occupation of the south was a real success partly contributing as it did to the failure of reconstruction

and its not like nationalist sentiments weren't stirred or stoked at all by joint allied occupation of berlin and other areas of germany post-war. why do you think there was such a strong neo-nazi subcurrent to the reunification of germany? nationalism. foreign occupation breeds nationalism and resistence. hence, Iraq.

Post war occupations are nothing new, nor are continued troop casualties following what amounted to a surrender.

they're not the preference, though, clearly. i can't imagine why you'd argue for one of the most inefficient ways to pacify the restless population of a militarily defeated nation known to man for someone who invokes the nazis in your arguments as much as you do.

One problem is that certain Bush administration members made very stupid statements in the lead up to and following the invasion. You know, "we'll be greeted with flowers", "the insurgency is on its last legs", "what insurgency" that type of thing. They created unrealistic expectations for the conditions on the ground.

yeah you were right there with them spewing propaganda puke all over this forum for some years and have only marginally adjusted your views to reflect reality

complaining about how all the good stuff that happened that never happened wasnt reported by our wonderfully liberally biased media

But every report that has been done, both by groups in and out of the government, has contained the dire warning that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic. It would have dramatic long term consequences. This is an unavoidable reality.

no kidding but the essential point is that it is fundamentally stupid for us to be there in the first place

and we all know bush is just killing time trying to dump it on the next president...that way if there's a success he can claim he started the precedent and if there's a pullout he can claim it was because of the weak knees of his successor. the degree to which the war is totally unessential to our war on terror or our national security is what makes so many people advocate military pullout, zero.

EDIT: and another thing: what is it with this conceit that just because we have been lucky to grow strong in the world and have a general degree of economic prosperity we assume that democracy can be so easily adopted by those whose minds have never once turned to it as a viable or even a morally proper form of government? successful democracies are founded on the wills of the people expected to run them. iraq had and has had no such will because of their sectarianism and their inability to work together, and military occupation will not force them or help them make democracy work. we have forced it on them and we have nobody to blame but our own pig-headedness for assuming they'd take to it just because america is a prosperous democracy.

[Smokey D]

It may be chaos there, but I don't think it's fair to say it's already collapsed into itself.

It's getting pretty close. I think it's fair to say that if the US wasn't there, it would have ceased to be viable.

[gregulus]

EDIT: and another thing: what is it with this conceit that just because we have been lucky to grow strong in the world and have a general degree of economic prosperity we assume that democracy can be so easily adopted by those whose minds have never once turned to it as a viable or even a morally proper form of government? successful democracies are founded on the wills of the people expected to run them. iraq had and has had no such will because of their sectarianism and their inability to work together, and military occupation will not force them or help them make democracy work. we have forced it on them and we have nobody to blame but our own pig-headedness for assuming they'd take to it just because america is a prosperous democracy.
This statement is spot on. The course of action we took in Iraq is part of the stereotypical neoconservative foreign policy plan. Spread democracy throughout the world, even if it means forcing it on people.

Essentially, what we've done in Iraq is ousted a pretty secular ruler, regardless of how atrocious his ways of sustaining that secularism were, and have left the gate for power wide open for another fundamentalist group take control in an already volitile region. gg George Bush.

[Hababi]

yeah union occupation of the south was a real success partly contributing as it did to the failure of reconstruction

The disappointing results of Reconstruction weren't due to the basic idea of occupation following a war, but rather the vindictiveness and pettiness of the radical reconstructionists.


and its not like nationalist sentiments weren't stirred or stoked at all by joint allied occupation of berlin and other areas of germany post-war. why do you think there was such a strong neo-nazi subcurrent to the reunification of germany? nationalism. foreign occupation breeds nationalism and resistence. hence, Iraq.


The Neo Nazi movement in Germany is negligible. And Japan became a healthy, functioning Democracy thanks to the US rebuilding process. I don't understand how you can say it bred nationalism in Japan when Japan's war-time government was nationalist and militarist. It has diminished significantly since then, and the only time it rears its head now is when they do something insensitive like trying to white-wash their war-time activity.

There's a much better way of explaining away the success of post-war rebuilding in Japan. The Japanese people, by and large, remained united under Hirohito, who went along with rebuilding in order to save his own butt. Iraq has no such unifying leader, which has contributed to the sectarian breakdown.

But then there's still Germany. And South Korea. And others that I can't recall :\


they're not the preference, though, clearly.


Well duh :lol:


i can't imagine why you'd argue for one of the most inefficient ways to pacify the restless population of a militarily defeated nation known to man for someone who invokes the nazis in your arguments as much as you do.


I don't think it's inefficient, and I think there's plenty to back me up. Liberals have done nothing but complain about contractors, who are trained to rebuild the country, so it's a lose-lose situation. People are going to complain no matter what.


yeah you were right there with them spewing propaganda puke all over this forum for some years and have only marginally adjusted your views to reflect reality

I don't think I was, and I challenge you to find evidence of the contrary.


complaining about how all the good stuff that happened that never happened wasnt reported by our wonderfully liberally biased media


I'm almost positive I've never used the term 'liberal media'.


no kidding but the essential point is that it is fundamentally stupid for us to be there in the first place


That's completely insignificant and shows that liberals want to do nothing but talk about the past and use the misfortune for political gains. Who cares that invading was a mistake? The important thing is to now get it right. And you don't do that by running away, which is what the Democrats are pushing for.


and we all know bush is just killing time trying to dump it on the next president...that way if there's a success he can claim he started the precedent and if there's a pullout he can claim it was because of the weak knees of his successor.


It's also because many military analysts have projected that we'll need to be there for at least another 8-10 years. So therefor, it could be the president after the next one who finishes the job. Once again you're concentrating on politics instead of progress.


the degree to which the war is totally unessential to our war on terror or our national security is what makes so many people advocate military pullout, zero.


Every report done, including Baker-Hamilton, strongly disagrees with that statement.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

but rather the vindictiveness and pettiness of the radical reconstructionists.
Way to use the same logic Andrew Johnson and the vast majority of white, male Southerners did in 1865 and throughout the post Civil War years. Reconstruction failed so miserably because the Radical Republicans in Congress (who wanted to punish the South, or at the very least its most prominent leaders) were constantly going toe-to-toe with Johnson (who was an astonishingly bigoted man) not only for a plan for Reconstruction, but also for public support behind their respective paths. Johnson essentially wanted the South to be restored as quickly as possible (similar to Lincoln's original plan), but also ignored all attacks on the former slaves in the South, allowed some militias in Georgia to re-arm, and wanted General Grant to pull the majority of Union troops stationed in the South. Johnson very nearly allowed the South to continue as they did when they were the Confederate States of America (after initially vowing to punish the "traitors vigorously"), only with the title of the Union behind them. Amdist all the arguing, veto-ing, and so forth, nothing really got done. Meanwhile, the South were also refusing to let freedmen assert their newly garaunteed rights, which the Radical Republicans were vehemently pushing for, as I'm sure you know.

Trying to pin the results of Reconstruction on one political group just isn't fair.

bombers, green zone, etc.

We both know the situation Iraq is not as horrific as it could be, for both the civilians and for the soldiers. That's not to say things aren't complete ****, but I think when it truly (to utilize the same phrase again) 'collapses into itself' the casualties and destruction will be much worse than it is now, or at the very least more widespread.

And what about the Korean War? There was a period early on when the Communists had U.N. forces pushed back literally all the way to the Southern most portion of South Korea. South Korea obviously didn't collapse into itself, even admist that sort of chaos.

[Hababi]

Way to use the same logic Andrew Johnson and the vast majority of white, male Southerners did in 1865/post Civil War years. Reconstruction failed so miserably because the Radical Republicans in Congress were constantly going toe-to-toe with Johnson not only for a plan for Reconstruction, but also for public support behind their respective paths. Amdist all the arguing, veto-ing, and so forth, nothing really got done. Meanwhile, the South were also refusing to let freedmen assert their newly garaunteed rights, which the Radical Republicans were vehemently pushing for, as I'm sure you know.

Trying to pin the results of Reconstruction on one political group just isn't fair.


Yeah that's a fair statement.

[Cain]

The Neo Nazi movement in Germany is negligible.

If there weren't an overall ban on all Nazi paraphernelia or referencing I think you'd find that radical Neo-Nazi-aligned conservative parties would otherwise be getting close to 15% votes in elections of local representatives in Austria as well as large parts of East Germany (and this is from an Austrian friend of mine). Neo-Nazism may be negligable in the States but in Europe it's a very real concern. Not to mention the degree to which former SS soldiers are held in high regard by the official governments of nations such as Latvia and other Balkan nations.

And Japan became a healthy, functioning Democracy thanks to the US rebuilding process. I don't understand how you can say it bred nationalism in Japan when Japan's war-time government was nationalist and militarist. It has diminished significantly since then, and the only time it rears its head now is when they do something insensitive like trying to white-wash their war-time activity.

If you're the only country that's ever had two atom bombs dropped on your cities you'd probably be compelled to renounce your imperialist past as a rather cost-ineffective method of propogating one's national interests. And besides that just goes to my point about how the will of the people expected to participate in the democracy is integral to its function, and how you can't force people who don't want to work together to work together.

There's a much better way of explaining away the success of post-war rebuilding in Japan. The Japanese people, by and large, remained united under Hirohito, who went along with rebuilding in order to save his own butt. Iraq has no such unifying leader, which has contributed to the sectarian breakdown.

That was mostly our fault.

But then there's still Germany. And South Korea. And others that I can't recall :\

Germany wasn't all that successfully rebuilt. You may recall it was split in half for a few decades. And even now that it's reunified you have vastly different economic and social views and situations in the East and West because the Eastern Germans focused too heavily on acquiring the cosmopolitan trappings of Western life rather than gradually integrating themselves into the workings of a democratic government. There is still a divide there.

I don't think it's inefficient, and I think there's plenty to back me up. Liberals have done nothing but complain about contractors, who are trained to rebuild the country, so it's a lose-lose situation. People are going to complain no matter what.

This side-steps my point completely. You do realize that the Nazi occupation policy was a total failure because it denied potential allies the right to national self-determination. It's not that much different in Iraq: we're trying to jerry-rig their democracy so that no extremists get voted in, no persecution-minded religious majority gets voted in, even if that's what people want and that's the way the cards would fall. The military occupation combined with that does nothing to promote belief in democracy's benefits and supports the notion that America is there not for its own national security but to create a test-tube ideological ally.

That's completely insignificant and shows that liberals want to do nothing but talk about the past and use the misfortune for political gains. Who cares that invading was a mistake? The important thing is to now get it right. And you don't do that by running away, which is what the Democrats are pushing for.

You still don't seem to understand that the misguided reason for going in can only mean that we will fail in Iraq no matter how much more time we spend in there. Again, for somebody who invokes the Nazis as much as you do, I would expect you to be aware of the basic political truth that, as Czeslaw Milosz said, "Consistent reasoning which orders one to by-pass a fact when concept comes into conflict with reality must lead to costly errors." Within the very reason and purpose we have for going in and staying, fundamentally misguided on the deepest level, is the seed for our defeat, which is inevitable.

It's also because many military analysts have projected that we'll need to be there for at least another 8-10 years. So therefor, it could be the president after the next one who finishes the job. Once again you're concentrating on politics instead of progress.

THE WHOLE IRAQ ISSUE IS A POLITICAL ONE. Besides, 8-10 years to accomplish WHAT? Educate the stupid Iraqi masses about the benefits of democracy? Eliminate Shiite-Sunni sectarianism by converting everyone to Christianity? Build a working water and electricity system that doesn't get damaged by suicide bombers? Killing all the suicide bombers? Killing everybody? Can't you see that everything we would like to accomplish through the use of the military is impossible purely on the ideological level, much less the practical one?

Every report done, including Baker-Hamilton, strongly disagrees with that statement.

But again it was only because that we waged war on them that they now present a security threat. We essentially made our own ****ing problem, which is retarded. Well I say too bad, don't vote for anymore Republican hawks with dangerously low vocabularies and high levels of incompetence. Hopefully we'll finally KNOW BETTER next time.

Let's face it. Our ideological desire to make something out of the utter waste that is Iraq is hindering us from behaving realistically. The only realistic option in a misguided morass of a self-made problem, founded on dubious ideological and political concerns, is ultimate defeat, and hopefully the sense not to do the same thing someplace else. You might think about THAT when you invoke all the wonderful things that happened to Germany and Japan--AFTER they were unquestionably defeated in their own ideological ventures.

[gregulus]

We both know the situation Iraq is not as horrific as it could be, for both the civilians and for the soldiers. That's not to say things aren't complete ****, but I think when it truly (to utilize the same phrase again) 'collapses into itself' the casualties and destruction will be much worse than it is now, or at the very least more widespread.

And what about the Korean War? There was a period early on when the Communists had U.N. forces pushed back literally all the way to the Southern most portion of South Korea. South Korea obviously didn't collapse into itself, even admist that sort of chaos.

The chinese didn't strap bombs onto themselves and otherwise hide...

People are loyal to religious leaders, such as Al-Sadr, over any sort of governing body. This poses and enormous problem.

[Der Übermensch]

And what about the Korean War? There was a period early on when the Communists had U.N. forces pushed back literally all the way to the Southern most portion of South Korea. South Korea obviously didn't collapse into itself, even admist that sort of chaos.
The Korean War is hardly comparable to the situation in Iraq though...

[Hababi]

If there weren't an overall ban on all Nazi paraphernelia or referencing I think you'd find that radical Neo-Nazi-aligned conservative parties would otherwise be getting close to 15% votes in elections of local representatives in Austria as well as large parts of East Germany (and this is from an Austrian friend of mine).


Ok, I'll accept 15%. I consider that pretty piss poor. Ask your friend what it's like compared to 20 years ago, because I bet it's diminished. There will always be some element of extremists, but so long as they're less than 20%, who cares?

Now, consider this: what do you think would have happened if, following Germany's surrender, at which point their cities and infrastructure had been decimated, we'd have simply picked up and left?


That number wouldn't be 15%. It'd be more like 40, maybe 50. Instead of being a very prosperous democracy, with perhaps the best health care in the world, Germany would be a poor country with radical groups perpetrating violence.


Neo-Nazism may be negligable in the States but in Europe it's a very real concern. Not to mention the degree to which former SS soldiers are held in high regard by the official governments of nations such as Latvia and other Balkan nations.


Which SS officers? And by which leaders?

Antisemitism is a big problem in Europe, definitely. But I can't gather how you can attribute this to post-war occupation. On the contrary, post-war occupation helped keep it to a minimum.


If you're the only country that's ever had two atom bombs dropped on your cities you'd probably be compelled to renounce your imperialist past as a rather cost-ineffective method of propogating one's national interests.


The effects of the atomic bombs are overstated. Take into account the bombing of Dresden and other incidents. And I think the point still stands that post-war rebuilding worked there.


And besides that just goes to my point about how the will of the people expected to participate in the democracy is integral to its function, and how you can't force people who don't want to work together to work together.


Sure you can, we do it all the time in America :p

But there are a number of different ideas about how to possibly restructure the way the Iraqi government works. Joe Biden has a sensible one. You seem to be proposing leaving them to chaos; I don't see the sense in that.


That was mostly our fault.


I don't see how it's anyone's fault that the Iraqi people have no unifying leader.


Germany wasn't all that successfully rebuilt. You may recall it was split in half for a few decades. And even now that it's reunified you have vastly different economic and social views and situations in the East and West because the Eastern Germans focused too heavily on acquiring the cosmopolitan trappings of Western life rather than gradually integrating themselves into the workings of a democratic government. There is still a divide there.


It worked out rather well for Western Germany, and if the SU hadn't stuck their nose in it, it would've worked out well for all of them. What you're describing is the fault of Communism and the Soviet Union, not post-war occupation.


This side-steps my point completely. You do realize that the Nazi occupation policy was a total failure because it denied potential allies the right to national self-determination. It's not that much different in Iraq: we're trying to jerry-rig their democracy so that no extremists get voted in, no persecution-minded religious majority gets voted in, even if that's what people want and that's the way the cards would fall. The military occupation combined with that does nothing to promote belief in democracy's benefits and supports the notion that America is there not for its own national security but to create a test-tube ideological ally.


So...what you're saying is that you'd rather have radical leaders bent on genocide elected? I see nothing wrong with the Iraqi government keeping extremists as minimized as possible. And I don't see how allowing jihadists to get elected (particularly when they would use intimidation to get elected) would somehow mean that America is interested in our national security. You're just not making any sense.


You still don't seem to understand that the misguided reason for going in can only mean that we will fail in Iraq no matter how much more time we spend in there. Again, for somebody who invokes the Nazis as much as you do, I would expect you to be aware of the basic political truth that, as Czeslaw Milosz said, "Consistent reasoning which orders one to by-pass a fact when concept comes into conflict with reality must lead to costly errors." Within the very reason and purpose we have for going in and staying, fundamentally misguided on the deepest level, is the seed for our defeat, which is inevitable.


This isn't the first war based on bad intelligence, and there have been previous occupations that were nothing more than land grabs at their core (see: Hawaii, Philippines). Our time in the Philippines lasted longer and involved more casualties. There's no such thing as inevitable defeat, only defeatism, which is what you seem to have embraced.


THE WHOLE IRAQ ISSUE IS A POLITICAL ONE.


No it's not. It's not a military issue to the Generals and the soldiers they lead, who the Democrats are attempting to sabotage. It's a political issue to the stuffed shirts in Washington who are rooting for failure and celebrating it when it comes. Some of the Democrats desire failure in Iraq because they feel it will ensure victory in 08.

(No, I'm not saying Republicans haven't used Iraq politically, too, and they would continue to do so if things were going well.)


Besides, 8-10 years to accomplish WHAT? Educate the stupid Iraqi masses about the benefits of democracy?


What, you think the Iraqi's are inferior? Incapable of seeing reason? That's pretty illiberal.

Can't you see that everything we would like to accomplish through the use of the military is impossible purely on the ideological level, much less the practical one?


No, because history says otherwise.


But again it was only because that we waged war on them that they now present a security threat. We essentially made our own ****ing problem, which is retarded. Well I say too bad, don't vote for anymore Republican hawks with dangerously low vocabularies and high levels of incompetence. Hopefully we'll finally KNOW BETTER next time.

:confused: So, we waged war on them, which you disagree with, leading to a condition that creates dire circumstances should we give up, which you seem to accept, but continue to support, due to the fact that we invaded on faulty intelligence...Again, I don't see the logic.

We know what will happen if we give up and run away. That is the worst case scenario. There is no reason to accept that. Baker-Hamilton maintained that Iraq is not lost, and significant progress can be made.


Let's face it. Our ideological desire to make something out of the utter waste that is Iraq is hindering us from behaving realistically. The only realistic option in a misguided morass of a self-made problem, founded on dubious ideological and political concerns, is ultimate defeat, and hopefully the sense not to do the same thing someplace else.


I don't see how, given that statement, you can object to the label of defeatist.


You might think about THAT when you invoke all the wonderful things that happened to Germany and Japan--AFTER they were unquestionably defeated in their own ideological ventures.

But earlier in the reply you'd said that we in fact did not defeat their idealogical will, only suppressed it.

And what is the Iraqi's idealogical ventures? Do you really think the average Iraqi desires to wipe out opposing tribes and religious sects?

[Cain]

Ok, I'll accept 15%. I consider that pretty piss poor. Ask your friend what it's like compared to 20 years ago, because I bet it's diminished. There will always be some element of extremists, but so long as they're less than 20%, who cares?

The point is that once they represent any constituency, be it a local representative accounting for a specific town, maybe even city, they can have a say in how policy is influenced for their region, etc. They can lay the groundwork for future support. And the fact that there is substantial enough support or at least sympathy with one or two tenets recognizable as ultra-conservative or neo-nazi you could have much more support. This is only to contradict your supposition that it's a negligable influence--it's not. This is not to suggest that they're in the majority.

Which SS officers? And by which leaders?

Antisemitism is a big problem in Europe, definitely. But I can't gather how you can attribute this to post-war occupation. On the contrary, post-war occupation helped keep it to a minimum.

I guess you weren't around when there was that article or thread about the Latvian government trying to erect a monument to members of the SS Latvian legion. But anyway here's a nice bit of historical revisionism.

http://www.am.gov.lv/en/latvia/history/legion/

And when did I attribute anti-Semitism to postwar occupation? I'm only dealing with your claim that Neo-Nazism in Europe is negligable here.


The effects of the atomic bombs are overstated.

excuse me what

Having two cities annihilated in an instant is a perfect motivator for renouncing imperialism if that's what it led you to was all I was saying.

Take into account the bombing of Dresden and other incidents. And I think the point still stands that post-war rebuilding worked there.

Why? I was giving you the psychological reasons on the part of the defeated for why they would accept democracy while the Iraqis wouldn't because the situations are totally different GAH LEARN TO READ BEFORE YOU ARGUE WITH ME ABOUT STUFF THAT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON


I don't see how it's anyone's fault that the Iraqi people have no unifying leader.

It's not so much that as much as it's that we removed all semblance of order from Iraqi life and didn't replace it with new order.

So...what you're saying is that you'd rather have radical leaders bent on genocide elected? I see nothing wrong with the Iraqi government keeping extremists as minimized as possible. And I don't see how allowing jihadists to get elected (particularly when they would use intimidation to get elected) would somehow mean that America is interested in our national security. You're just not making any sense.

It's not something I would prefer, you dolt. It's just the only realistic thing I see happening eventually, since we can't change anything doing what we're doing now and staying except the list of American and Iraqi dead.

This isn't the first war based on bad intelligence, and there have been previous occupations that were nothing more than land grabs at their core (see: Hawaii, Philippines). Our time in the Philippines lasted longer and involved more casualties. There's no such thing as inevitable defeat, only defeatism, which is what you seem to have embraced.

I'm not talking about bad intelligence, I'm talking about CONCEPT VERSUS REALITY. The idea that a notion that provides the basis for action being mistaken fundamentally leads to the inevitable and costly failure of the action to succeed. Your reading comprehension really needs some work, jeez.

No it's not. It's not a military issue to the Generals and the soldiers they lead, who the Democrats are attempting to sabotage. It's a political issue to the stuffed shirts in Washington who are rooting for failure and celebrating it when it comes. Some of the Democrats desire failure in Iraq because they feel it will ensure victory in 08.

And why would they think that it would ensure them victory, eh?

What, you think the Iraqi's are inferior? Incapable of seeing reason? That's pretty illiberal.

I was being sarcastic, but it's ok, you can have your straw.

No, because history says otherwise.

Um no it doesn't.

:confused: So, we waged war on them, which you disagree with, leading to a condition that creates dire circumstances should we give up, which you seem to accept, but continue to support, due to the fact that we invaded on faulty intelligence...Again, I don't see the logic.

No, FAULTY CONCEPT!! The whole idea that we could build a democracy while removing a government unprovoked with no will on the part of the people being involved is a totally impossible notion to succeed at! Why do you think everybody's talking about the date we can safely leave more than the date Iraqis will overcome sectarianism? The only difference is that Republicans are talking about waiting longer.

I don't see how, given that statement, you can object to the label of defeatist.

Said Hitler to his generals.

But earlier in the reply you'd said that we in fact did not defeat their idealogical will, only suppressed it.

And what is the Iraqi's idealogical ventures? Do you really think the average Iraqi desires to wipe out opposing tribes and religious sects?

I'm not talking about Iraqi ideology, I'm talking about ours. The war in Iraq was a purely ideological venture. And I never said anything like what you're saying. As a matter of fact I don't know what you're talking about.

[Reaganista]

He clearly meant American leftists.
but national borders were a completely arbitrary construct designed to fragment the proletariat

Well for a few years they were. Communists in the USA were advocating a pro-hitler national platform from '39-'41.
well i dont believe you

but if it's true it only represents a complete misunderstanding of what Stalin was trying to do with the Molotov pact

[Hababi]

The point is that once they represent any constituency, be it a local representative accounting for a specific town, maybe even city, they can have a say in how policy is influenced for their region, etc. They can lay the groundwork for future support. And the fact that there is substantial enough support or at least sympathy with one or two tenets recognizable as ultra-conservative or neo-nazi you could have much more support. This is only to contradict your supposition that it's a negligable influence--it's not. This is not to suggest that they're in the majority.


If suppport runs 15%, at most, in some districts, then they will gain no representation and no voice. And the louder they speak, the more they will turn others against themselves.



And when did I attribute anti-Semitism to postwar occupation? I'm only dealing with your claim that Neo-Nazism in Europe is negligable here.


...Which linked back to your claim that post-war occupation was somehow responsible for it.


Why? I was giving you the psychological reasons on the part of the defeated for why they would accept democracy while the Iraqis wouldn't because the situations are totally different


I don't see how suffering devastating defeat in war leads a people to renounce previous ways. Germany suffered defeat in WW1 and yet went the exact opposite route, embracing greater militarism and nationalism.

Iraq is totally different, yes, but you must still deal with a basic reality: the majority of the folks there want peace and stability. It's a loud and powerful minority that resists it...

It's called the Democrat party

:D No, I kid. You know what I mean.


It's not so much that as much as it's that we removed all semblance of order from Iraqi life and didn't replace it with new order.


What exactly was order? Living under a brutal dictator and his insane sons? Do you think we should've put installed a dictator in his wake? I don't understand your point. I'll give you that we didn't have enough troops or organization to properly manage the post-war environment, but I don't think that's what you're getting at, and that's what the administration is trying to overcome now, to the opposition of the Democrats.


It's just the only realistic thing I see happening eventually, since we can't change anything doing what we're doing now and staying except the list of American and Iraqi dead.


Of course we can. The surge has resulted in greater security; progress is being made. It is much safer now than it was last year, and will continue to get safer. The Baker-Hamilton report maintained that Iraq is not lost.


The idea that a notion that provides the basis for action being mistaken fundamentally leads to the inevitable and costly failure of the action to succeed.

Unfortunately that's a false concept and I already listed several instances where it proved fallacious.



And why would they think that it would ensure them victory, eh?


Because Bush and the Republicans in general get the blame for Iraq.


Um no it doesn't.


Germany. Japan. South Korea. Etc.


The whole idea that we could build a democracy while removing a government unprovoked with no will on the part of the people being involved is a totally impossible notion to succeed at!


Of course the Iraqi people wanted Saddam overthrown. Well, the Kurds and Shiites, anyway.

Why do you think everybody's talking about the date we can safely leave more than the date Iraqis will overcome sectarianism? The only difference is that Republicans are talking about waiting longer.


:lol: Safely leave? That's an oxymoron and you know it. Unsafely run away, leaving the Iraqis to chaos, civil war, and genocide. Give up and allow destabilization of the entire region. Go home and wait for the broad repercussions, outlined by every report on the matter, to come to fruition. No, that's not safely leave. That's make a blunderheaded mistake unlike any in history.


Said Hitler to his generals.


Once again, Baker-Hamilton, all the Generals, and most everyone else in the know says you're wrong. The people agreeing with you? Spineless politicians trying to score political points.

[Smokey D]

If suppport runs 15%, at most, in some districts, then they will gain no representation and no voice. And the louder they speak, the more they will turn others against themselves.

You don't know how parliaments are elected, do you?

[shaqadelic]

Of course we can. The surge has resulted in greater security; progress is being made. It is much safer now than it was last year, and will continue to get safer.


If you follow daily news reports, you will see that level of violence saw a small decrease (1,689 Iraqis died in April which is a less than 20% decrease from March) and now is increasing sharply again (one of the latest attack killed 120+ in a single run). Furthermore, the heavily guarded Green Zone is seeing attacks now, something which is unheard of last year.

There is no basis to say that 'greater security' has been reached.

[Surtr]

No, the terrorists and insurgents will have won.

It's such a terrible idea to begin with.

We're fighting a symbol, a thought, an idea, not actual people.

Even if we kill off EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "Terrorists & Insurgents" in Iraq, there is no way we've won the "War on Terrorism". Really all we've done, is eliminated people who at that moment in time supported that idea. But moments after we leave that "war-zone" there's nothing to stop that idea from growing back there, or anywhere really.

You can't defeat an idea unless you've got the ability to erase it from people's minds forever and completely.

[Hababi]

You don't know how parliaments are elected, do you?

Yes, I do. My point is that if 15% in one or two districts vote for an extremist candidate, that amounts to a minute number.

There are districts in America that send impeached judges (Alcee Hastings), open advocates of corruption (Maxine Waters) and documented criminals (William Jefferson) to Congress. I find that more perturbing than some nutter getting 15% in a backward district in Austria.

If you follow daily news reports, you will see that level of violence saw a small decrease (1,689 Iraqis died in April which is a less than 20% decrease from March) and now is increasing sharply again (one of the latest attack killed 120+ in a single run). Furthermore, the heavily guarded Green Zone is seeing attacks now, something which is unheard of last year.

Look at Baghdad, where the surge was concentrated. There was a much more pronounced drop in violence. The Green Zone is getting attacked because the insurgents are having a tougher time in areas where they used to have it easier, thanks to the surge. And as more troops are added, so too will be greater security.




We're fighting a symbol, a thought, an idea, not actual people.


We're fighting jihadists. You want to tell a soldier who got his leg blown off by an IED that we're fighting an idea? We're fighting people, people bent on creating an unstable Iraq and furthering the global Jihadist cause across the globe.



But moments after we leave that "war-zone" there's nothing to stop that idea from growing back there, or anywhere really.


Not really. When the government is strengthened, they will be able to take care of themselves, and with a stable economy, fewer people will join the ranks of the Jihadists.

There's a reason Jihadists shoot up, blow up, and otherwise harm people in markets: They fear success. They need Iraq to fail. They need the economy to fail. If it works, they lose.

[Dr Hooch]

We're fighting jihadists. You want to tell a soldier who got his leg blown off by an IED that we're fighting an idea? We're fighting people, people bent on creating an unstable Iraq and furthering the global Jihadist cause across the globe.

There's a difference between the terrorists who did 7/7, 9/11 and the people in baghdad who rightly or wrongly ae fighting against an invading force.

And yes, i tell him he's fighitng an idea, and he should do what he can for his freinds by making sure washington knows what fools they're being in trying to declare war on terror.

[gregulus]

In order for Iraq to succeed, the Iraqi government needs to take a lot more initiative than they are now. American forces shouldn't be there to play security gaurd. That should be left to an Iraqi army with American support.

Also, zero, I think it's fair to say that our biggest enemy in this debacle is religion.

I believe the Baker-Hamilton report stated that by the "first quarter" of 2008, all American forces not involved in the support and training of Iraqi forces should be out of Iraq, does it not?

[Hababi]

There's a difference between the terrorists who did 7/7, 9/11 and the people in baghdad who rightly or wrongly ae fighting against an invading force.

The people who are attacking the markets, planting the car bombs, IED's, etc. are not "fighting an invading force." They are jihadists intent on destabilizing the country to defeat the United States in the war on terrorism, and establish a starting base to destabilize all moderate Muslim governments.

In order for Iraq to succeed, the Iraqi government needs to take a lot more initiative than they are now. American forces shouldn't be there to play security gaurd. That should be left to an Iraqi army with American support.


When that is able to be done, it will happen.



Also, zero, I think it's fair to say that our biggest enemy in this debacle is religion.


I don't :p

I believe the Baker-Hamilton report stated that by the "first quarter" of 2008, all American forces not involved in the support and training of Iraqi forces should be out of Iraq, does it not?

I don't think it does.

[Surtr]

We're fighting jihadists. You want to tell a soldier who got his leg blown off by an IED that we're fighting an idea? We're fighting people, people bent on creating an unstable Iraq and furthering the global Jihadist cause across the globe.

But you kill one of them, and then there are twelve more who agree with this idea.

You're fighting a Medusa of sorts. By taking down one head, you've only created more.

It's by attempting to eliminate "Terror" that we're truly losing this war.

If we made the goal to eliminate "All Iraqi people" then it's possible. But one moment a man can be for the invasion of Iraq, and seconds later, he can be on the "Terror" side of it.

It's an idea, a symbol. You can't kill that, or stop it. It's the same thing as Freedom. You can't stop Freedom. You can take it away, but the idea of it still exists, and it evidently can't be stopped, it seems the force controlling freedom always eventually becomes overthrown.

Because you're not fighting an actual thing, you're fighting an abstract idea and thought, you can't defeat that unless you could erase everyone's perception of it.

[shaqadelic]

Look at Baghdad, where the surge was concentrated. There was a much more pronounced drop in violence.

I was talking about Baghdad, the violence is increasing sharply (example 120+ killed in a single run recently). There is no basis to claim 'profound decease in violence' is occurring.

The Green Zone is getting attacked because the insurgents are having a tougher time in areas where they used to have it easier, thanks to the surge. And as more troops are added, so too will be greater security.

If you are going to determine the effectiveness of more troops, then the Green Zone is the best place to gauge, it is the most heavily guarded area in Baghdad and it being attacked is a simple message that the surge is not effective.

The people who are attacking the markets, planting the car bombs, IED's, etc. are not "fighting an invading force."

Many Iraqis feel the US soldiers provoke more violence than it prevents and that the US is THE enemy - evident in how they approve attacks on US-led forces -.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701435.html

Attack on markets caused by sectarian violence happens because one side - the Shias - is perceived to be aligned with THE enemy (invading force).

[Independent_CA]

This is my first reply to the original question so if it's a little off topic forgive me...you can kick me in the balls or something later.

I said yes because if the US was involved in another major world war, the press would have basically no freedom. Yes this is the age of high technology and whatnot, but remember that the government has much of the same if not better equipment and can basically shut down whatever or whoever it doesn't like. Not to mention that FOX News would be kicked into overdrive and it would probably be made illegal to not watch it at least once a day...

On a fairly consistent basis, military technology has gotten better and more efficient at killing people in each successive war throughout history. "Total War" is still possible today and would be far more destructive, especially when you consider the pinpoint capabilities of modern weapons on infrastructure, than it has been in the past.

[gregulus]

Um, when is the right time for a government to start doing its job? I think the Iraqi government should have been doing this all along. They've had 4 years now to build a viable military, it's past time to increase pressure on them to get their act together.

From the report:
pg xvii
If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and
makes substantial progress toward the achievement of mile-
stones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the
United States should make clear its willingness to continue
training, assistance, and support for Iraq’s security forces and to
continue political, military, and economic support. If the Iraqi
government does not make substantial progress toward the
achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security,
and governance, the United States should reduce its political,
military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.
pg xvi
The United States must not make an open-
ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops
deployed in Iraq.
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve
to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over pri-
mary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter
of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security
situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for
force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat
forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with
Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams,
and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and
search and rescue.
If the troop surge is working as well as you say it is, the early 2008 withdrawl should not be a problem.

Another crucial point in the Executive Summary of the report:
pg xv
Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events
within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the
United States should try to engage them constructively. In
seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United
States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should
stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sover-
eignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi
Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of
Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the
five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with
Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in
and out of Iraq.
The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle
East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and
regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained
commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-
Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s
June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and
Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by,
and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept
Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

This would PROBABLY be beneficial.

[shaqadelic]

It is not the Iraqi's government's sole fault that they cannot rebuild a viable military. National reconciliation must occur first between the Sunni and Shia community. Unfortunately, with the US insisting on using military solutions over political solutions, you can't archive reconciliation.

[Hababi]

I was talking about Baghdad, the violence is increasing sharply (example 120+ killed in a single run recently). There is no basis to claim 'profound decease in violence' is occurring.


While hard numbers are not yet available, pretty much everyone concedes that violence has dropped:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070504/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryunrest_070504142818




If you are going to determine the effectiveness of more troops, then the Green Zone is the best place to gauge, it is the most heavily guarded area in Baghdad and it being attacked is a simple message that the surge is not effective.


There will always be violence, and there will always be attacked. Green Zone attacks will not prove successful for the insurgents, because of how well guarded it is. The fact that they have been forced into less effective, more desperate attack operations proves that the surge has been effective. Nobody said it will eliminate violence.


Many Iraqis feel the US soldiers provoke more violence than it prevents and that the US is THE enemy - evident in how they approve attacks on US-led forces -.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701435.html

Attack on markets caused by sectarian violence happens because one side - the Shias - is perceived to be aligned with THE enemy (invading force).[/QUOTE]

There are much more significant things to pull out of that article. They also disapprove of Osama Bin Ladin and Ahmadinejad. They say they want troops out within a year, but I see nothing about an immediate pullout. Every time I have seen such a poll, it has shown that Iraqis do not want an immediate withdrawal.

They want security. Shiites turned against the rebuilding process because they feel it hasn't provided security. When security is increased, so will support. Same with the infrastructure. They don't want America there permanently, and they will realize that we don't want to be there permanently, either.


Um, when is the right time for a government to start doing its job? I think the Iraqi government should have been doing this all along. They've had 4 years now to build a viable military, it's past time to increase pressure on them to get their act together.


I don't think anyone opposes putting pressure on them. But immediate and unconditional withdrawal? Disaster.

[Surtr]

I don't think anyone opposes putting pressure on them. But immediate and unconditional withdrawal? Disaster.

Most likely..But really now, they're just relying on us to save their arses. They know that we won't leave, because if we do, they'll be destroyed right away. So rather than them building their own military they're just letting us do all the work. SERIOUS pressure should be put on them to get a go on 'er, or else we're going to stop wasting our countries lives on them.

[gregulus]

I don't think anyone opposes putting pressure on them. But immediate and unconditional withdrawal? Disaster.

I'm not advocating immediate or unconditional withdrawal.

[Hababi]

I'm not advocating immediate or unconditional withdrawal.

That's essentially what the Democrats are calling for. Unconditional withdrawal of troops.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They're only calling for it because it'll never happen.

[Hababi]

They're only calling for it because it'll never happen.

So what does that make them? :p

[Dave de Sylvia]

Christians?

[Hababi]

Wrongo :o

[gregulus]

That's essentially what the Democrats are calling for. Unconditional withdrawal of troops.

Most of the troops should be out of Iraq soon. Our troops should be there to support the Iraqi army.

[Hababi]

If we make the necessary progress, then this will be the case. But having a blanket withdrawal (surrender) date only emboldens terrorists and makes the job impossible to do.

[Cain]

Yes, I do. My point is that if 15% in one or two districts vote for an extremist candidate, that amounts to a minute number.

There are districts in America that send impeached judges (Alcee Hastings), open advocates of corruption (Maxine Waters) and d0cumented criminals (William Jefferson) to Congress. I find that more perturbing than some nutter getting 15% in a backward district in Austria.

Actually I meant 10-15% nationwide, not just in one district. And I mean 10-15% votes in terms of 10-15% actual representation in parliament. Again, according to my Austrian friend, in explaining his support for the laws banning all display of Nazi paraphernalia there.

[gregulus]

If we make the necessary progress, then this will be the case. But having a blanket withdrawal (surrender) date only emboldens terrorists and makes the job impossible to do.

we're not making a blanket withdrawal. we're withdrawing the troops that don't need to be there.

[Hababi]

we're not making a blanket withdrawal. we're withdrawing the troops that don't need to be there.

Who are you to say that? General Petraus (sic) says we need those troops, and more on the ground. Let the generals decide how to run the operation, not politicians. Micromanaging military operations, or deciding them on polls, is a sure fire way to be defeated.

[lunchforthesky]

Over zealous army types who have little political intelligence or general sense of perspective?

I dont really like the idea of them having any control over people's lives.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Iraq isn't a major war in the same way WWII was. America isn't fighting for survival or to destroy another army, they're fighting an ideology (which is only being fuelled by the way they're going about it) and a group of people who aren't trying to defend themselves so much as cause a ruckus. Reconstruction through war is as ridiculous a motive for war as shooting at an ideology. Survival isn't.

In a war between countries where both countries faced the very real threat of being wiped off the face of the earth, nukes would be used and the war would probably be over in 48 hours. Assuming the war was non-nuclear, wars could be won in the same way they used to be.

p.s. stop blaming the democrats. Iraq had mess written all over it since before a single bullet was fired.

[Hababi]

Over zealous army types who have little political intelligence or general sense of perspective?

I dont really like the idea of them having any control over people's lives.

Erm he happens to have a doctorate from Stanford and is universally respected and admired.

[lunchforthesky]

Erm he happens to have a doctorate from Stanford and is universally respected and admired.


No-one is universally respected.

[Hababi]

No-one is universally respected.

He comes as close to anyone, and if you want proof, look up video of his confirmation hearing.

[lunchforthesky]

He comes as close to anyone, and if you want proof, look up video of his confirmation hearing.

i would of thought MLK or Mandela comes a lot closer.

[Hababi]

i would of thought MLK or Mandela comes a lot closer.

MLK's kinda dead so that's pretty insignificant :\

[lunchforthesky]

MLK's kinda dead so that's pretty insignificant :\

When did this happen??

You dont have to be alive to be respected.

[Hababi]

When did this happen??

You dont have to be alive to be respected.

Yeah but talking about dead people is kinda pointless. Because then we'd be busy talking about how respected George Washington and co. are.

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah but talking about dead people is kinda pointless. Because then we'd be busy talking about how respected George Washington and co. are.

He isnt outside of America.

Darwin is pretty well respected, Einstein, Newton, Gallileo.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Over zealous army types who have little political intelligence or general sense of perspective?

I dont really like the idea of them having any control over people's lives.

Who else would know what the military needs to achieve victory? 55 year old draft dodging ex-lawyers and businessmen who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag?

[lunchforthesky]

Who else would know what the military needs to achieve victory? 55 year old draft dodging ex-lawyers and businessmen who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag?

At least they would have a sense of perspective, military types seem to focus solely of winning wars and have no concerns for humanitarian issues, perhaps they have become desensatised but they would have us fight until every last adult male had returned in a box.

[lfantwister]

At least they would have a sense of perspective, military types seem to focus solely of winning wars and have no concerns for humanitarian issues, perhaps they have become desensatised but they would have us fight until every last adult male had returned in a box.
That's just dumb. They'll make sure there's at least enough soldiers to perpetuate the illusion of an overwhelming force (if we're "winning' more people want to join)

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

was it ever, wars are horrible losses for both sides

[shaqadelic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070504/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryunrest_070504142818

You just quoted an article that further shows the ineffectiveness of the surge and at the same time raises serious worries that the Iraqi government and US Armed Force are trying hide the real conditions in Iraq.

In a report last week, the UN Humanitarian Mission For Iraq (UNAMI) said that although it could not substantiate it numerically, evidence "nonetheless shows that the high level of violence continued throughout the reporting period."

"While government officials claimed an initial drop in the number of killings in the latter half of February following the launch of the Baghdad Security Plan, the number of reported casualties rose again in March," it said.


Hamourtziadou (from the Iraq Body Count) has calculated, on the basis of media reports, that 2,588 civilians were killed in Iraq in April. Iraqi government sources this week came up with a much lower April toll of 1,689 civilian dead.

Even situations that seem to improve (death squad style killing) has deceased in Baghdad are happening more frequently and in worsening fashion in other parts of Iraq.

"In the past when I was covering these incidents, there might be one person found in Baqubah, one person in Mosul. Now it's more than 30 people," she said. "That wasn't there before."

Whatever it is, the claim that "violence has decreased profoundly" is laughable if scrutinized even in front of the most flattering report.

There will always be violence, and there will always be attacked. Green Zone attacks will not prove successful for the insurgents, because of how well guarded it is.

The attack not successful? One attack hurt a cabinet member. One attack destroyed part of the parliament building. The claim that these attacks were not successful have no basis.


The fact that they have been forced into less effective, more desperate attack operations proves that the surge has been effective.

As I pointed out earlier, attack on the Green Zone has been successful - and subsequently effective - in showing that a heavily guarded area is not a problem for the resistance.

Nobody said it will eliminate violence.


Cause nobody think that the security plan can solve the fundamental problem that is dividing the Iraqi people.

There are much more significant things to pull out of that article. They also disapprove of Osama Bin Ladin.

Yep, which shows that the Iraqi people are not interested in a government that is run or affiliated to Al Qaeda, which solves the worry that the Iraqi people will embrace Al Qaeda if US troops set a date for withdrawal.

They say they want troops out within a year, but I see nothing about an immediate pullout.

'Within a year' means they want US troops out by the end of 2007. In any case, they want a set date and timetable for withdrawal.

They want security. Shiites turned against the rebuilding process because they feel it hasn't provided security. When security is increased, so will support.


And security is not gonna be achieved with the security plan. As evident by how Iraqis think themselves that US troops cause more violence than they prevent. Thus, the rebuilding process will never get support.

[gregulus]

Basically, here are the statistics coming from Iraq that I have found. Since the surge: American casualties are up, sectarian violence is down, car/suicide bombings are up, the overall death toll is up.

The whole plan could be absolutely destroyed by two things. These are, more mass casualty attacks by extremists, and the unwillingness of Sunni and Shia factions to reach some sort of political compromise. In all honesty, both of these things are extremely possible.

[Hababi]

And security is not gonna be achieved with the security plan. As evident by how Iraqis think themselves that US troops cause more violence than they prevent. Thus, the rebuilding process will never get support.


If violence goes down, which it already has (as the article says), then that opinion won't be as popular. Unless you think the majority of Iraqi's are going to be irrational and continue to believe something that isn't true.


In any case, they want a set date and timetable for withdrawal.


Once again: That is not tied to conditions on the ground. Making it a surrender date.


The attack not successful? One attack hurt a cabinet member. One attack destroyed part of the parliament building. The claim that these attacks were not successful have no basis.


How many people did they kill? Not near as many as attacks in areas that are now much harder to attack thanks to the surge. And future attacks in the Green Zone are unlikely with the new policies put in place.

[Dr Hooch]

He comes as close to anyone, and if you want proof, look up video of his confirmation hearing.

Well a huge demographic don't respect him because he advises sending more troops to iraq so hah

[Akira]

Lunch, gtfo the internets. You make Zero look smart.

[shaqadelic]

If violence goes down, which it already has (as the article says), then that opinion won't be as popular.

The instances when a type of violence has decreased, it is either offset by increase in the same type of violence in other areas of the country or it being only a temporary decrease and now is increasing again. One part of the article sums it up really well.

Another alarming trend are major attacks in which 50 or more people were killed. There were 12 attacks of that magnitude last year. In the first four months of this year, there have been 14, she said.

Unless you think the majority of Iraqi's are going to be irrational and continue to believe something that isn't true.

You are being irrational if you still think that "profound decrease in violence has occurred".

Not only that the Iraqi people consider US troops THE enemy. Violence has gotten worse since the troops surge. This will only reinforce their negative view.

Once again: That is not tied to conditions on the ground.

The conditions on the ground is that the security plan is not working. Just this Sunday, almost 60 people were killed from attacks all over Baghdad.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59F4EBCF-2767-4AE0-B474-68FC8F2205AC.htm

Making it a surrender date.

People who support setting up a withdrawal date also see national reconciliation - political solution - as the main solution to the security problem. They also see troops removal as to stop the presence of what the Iraqi people consider THE enemy - a significant dividing factor among Iraqis -.

With this approach, setting up a withdrawal date is in no way setting up a surrender date.


How many people did they kill? Not near as many as attacks in areas that are now much harder to attack thanks to the surge.

One attack in the Green Zone left around 10 casualties.

In other places that the resistance supposedly had a harder time to attack, 15 on a normal basis and 120+ when they want to make a statement against claims that the security plan has made them ineffective.

Comparing numbers here do not prove anything though.

The success of attacks on the Green Zone is determined by the target they managed to hit. If a cabinet member (who is heavily guarded) is wounded and part of the Parliament building is damaged, then attacks are successful.

And future attacks in the Green Zone are unlikely with the new policies put in place.

What policies?

Attacks in the Green Zone are continuing as of now and is more frequent than ever. The most recent attacks are mortars shot into that area.

[Hababi]

Well a huge demographic don't respect him because he advises sending more troops to iraq so hah

Yeah, a bunch of morons who have no clue about what they're talking about and have the gall to believe they're better strategists than a four-star general, career military man. That's the equivelant of a group of barely literate punks mocking Shakespeare and claiming that they're better writers than he.

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah, a bunch of morons who have no clue about what they're talking about and have the gall to believe they're better strategists than a four-star general, career military man. That's the equivelant of a group of barely literate punks mocking Shakespeare and claiming that they're better writers than he.

If America wants to win then sure more troops are needed, but how many is that gonna be?

Double what is already there?

Is it really worth it?

[Hababi]

If America wants to win then sure more troops are needed, but how many is that gonna be?

Double what is already there?

Is it really worth it?

Yes.

[lunchforthesky]

Yes.

For what exactly?

Fighting only creates more extremists.

[gregulus]

I said this earlier in the thread, but the only violence that has decreased is the sectarian violence. Suicide/car bombings are on the rise, as are American and civilian death tolls.

[Cain]

Okay let me just step in right now and say that nearly everybody in this thread is in total agreement with everybody in this thread except for Serenity. We might want to either stop talking about this since Zero is such a lost cause to begin with and get back on topic or just let the thread die.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Fighting only creates more extremists.

In the short term. Victory in Iraq is going to take decades of American presence. We invaded the Philippines in 1898. We left in 1945

[Hababi]

For what exactly?


To prevent the catastrophic consequences outlined in the Baker-Hamilton commission report.


Okay let me just step in right now and say that nearly everybody in this thread is in total agreement with everybody in this thread


That doesn't make you right.

[lunchforthesky]

In the short term. Victory in Iraq is going to take decades of American presence. We invaded the Philippines in 1898. We left in 1945

If the violence in Iraq continues at this rate for say 20 years, there will be no Iraqis left to police.

And a whole generation (if not two or three) of US males will have been wiped out, assuming a draft was needed to maintain such an occupation.

[Hababi]

And a whole generation (if not two or three) of US males will have been wiped out, assuming a draft was needed to maintain such an occupation.

Hardly. This shows you have no depth of knowledge about prior wars.

[Der Übermensch]

And a whole generation (if not two or three) of US males will have been wiped out, assuming a draft was needed to maintain such an occupation.

A "peacetime" draft would never fly though.

[gregulus]

To prevent the catastrophic consequences outlined in the Baker-Hamilton commission report.



That doesn't make you right.

You keep citing the "catastrophic consequences" outlined in the Baker-Hamilton report, but you don't seem to advocate actually following their plan...

[lunchforthesky]

Hardly. This shows you have no depth of knowledge about prior wars.

You didn't make any points.

A "peacetime" draft would never fly though.

I dont think so either but how else could America maintain the war in Iraq for 20 years plus?

[Der Übermensch]

I dont think so either but how else could America maintain the war in Iraq for 20 years plus?
I don't think we will stay there 20 years. We will give up long before then if it actually looks like thats what it would take. (Or rather if the administration comes to that conclusion).

[Iskandar]

America will pull out when the Democrats take office in 2008, if not before that.

[Dr Hooch]

In the short term. Victory in Iraq is going to take decades of American presence. We invaded the Philippines in 1898. We left in 1945

was it worth it?

[Der Übermensch]

Philippines worth it you mean?

[Cain]

To prevent the catastrophic consequences outlined in the Baker-Hamilton commission report.



That doesn't make you right.

It does make the conversation one-sided and pointless, centered as all the debate is around one person, namely you.

[Dr Hooch]

Philippines worth it you mean?

Yes.

[Smokey D]

No. The Phillipines was a massacre when they conquered it and a basket case when they left it.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

If the violence in Iraq continues at this rate for say 20 years, there will be no Iraqis left to police.

Doubtful, though I will agree that if we're not willing to take all necessary steps to achieve victory, including inter-generational occupation and potentially a draft, we should get the hell out. Half-assing a war wastes soldiers lives

And a whole generation (if not two or three) of US males will have been wiped out, assuming a draft was needed to maintain such an occupation.

Compulsory military service wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It sure would keep us out of war if people knew their kids would be going off to fight it

[Smokey D]

Large standing armies have led to more wars than professionalised volontary forces.