How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 45 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**661** 09-09-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

How well did upping the brutality quotient work out for WW2 Germany and Japan? Conflicts before the age of mass communication were perhaps less susceptable to suffering disadvantage from excess brutality. In the case of WW2, I think knowledge of Japanese excesses strengthened resolve to put a stop to them.

I've read that Viet Cong and the like were determined to drive out the Americans in part because of carpet bombing and agent orange spraying which they considered cowardly. A case where heightened brutality was counter-productive. Yes, I know they were hard on POWs. Our bombs were harder on peasants.

Whoops! I forgot. VN has no bearing on history in any way.

Is a nuclear bomb more or less brutal than conventional warfare? Perhaps we should ask the Japanese.

If we had nuked the ***** out of North Vietnam, how long would the war have lasted? We (Lyndon Johnson) got the United States into a war he was unwilling to fight.

B

cmac2012 · #**662** 09-09-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

So are you saying that people in the middle east are just too stupid to be democritized?

BTW, you are ignoring that the "remorse" on the part of Japan and Germany were given to them in a crushing defeat. Both countries were great exploiters - just ask China and the Phillipines. You are completly mischaracterizing these two countries. So much for historical accuracy.

You are incorrect, there were many violent deaths post WWII in Germany and the Asian theatre.

Where do you get the 80% figure "against" the axis powers. In the middle east, countries such as Iran and Iraq were extremely pro Germany during WWII. They still are today. Jihadi is a best seller, you may know the english/german version, Mein Kampf. Hitler was and still is a hero in most of the middle east. I remember very well my peers in Iran doodling swastikas on their school books the same way an American child would doodle a star, and talking about the glory that was the third reich and Hitler - there was no remorse there other than that for Germany's loss. These were the privilaged children of our ally the Shah.

You really should take that history class I suggested months ago rather than rely on the sources you are apparently relying on.

They appear to me to be way to nationalistic and stubborn to be led by the hand into democracy by the hated infidel. And yes, a bit ignorant as well.

I don't ignore for a minute that the crushing defeat handed to G and J had a lot to do with the remorse. My post was not 12 pages long, sorry I left a few things out. 80% is an off the top of my head figure. The middle east might comprise 15 to 20% of the world. Certainly at that time, they were way less than that in terms of power. Whatever, G and J had much more opposition than allies.

I've read many times that post WW2 deaths were not extensive, particularly in Japan. By contrast, we're losing more post war than during the war in Iraq, if indeed there is a dividing line that means anything.

cmac2012 · #**663** 09-09-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is a nuclear bomb more or less brutal than conventional warfare? Perhaps we should ask the Japanese.

If we had nuked the ***** out of North Vietnam, how long would the war have lasted? We (Lyndon Johnson) got the United States into a war he was unwilling to fight.

I've said it before: humans don't build weapons and then not use them. If a nuke had to be used at least once (twice, but close enough) then WW2 Japan at that time was the ideal candidate.

VN by comparison, had done nothing remotely similar to Japan in the imperialism category. Nuking N. Vietnam may have given the appearance of victory but I suspect we'd have experienced much the same that we're seeing in Afghanistan now: a gradual resurgence with years of costly, fruitless occupation.

And then there's the chance that the rest of the world, or enough of it anyway, would have decided, after a nuking of N Vietnam, that the US had gone too far and needed to be reined in. Much of the world felt that way even w/o the nuking, though we hadn't gone far enough to push anyone to try to form a coalition to put a stop to us.

cmac2012 · #**664** 09-09-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

CMAC's original comment (above) was in regards to paying for military operations, to which I responded. Reconstruction of Iraq, IMO, is a separate issue.

So oil revenues paid for the miltary part then?

t walgamuth · #**665** 09-09-2006, 06:29 PM

lets not forget that in ww2 we had an exclusive on nuclear weapons.

in nam the russians and probably the chinese had them too. so us using them in nam is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.

we fought a limited war because we were on china's border in nam and didn't want to bring them into it.

nucing nam wouldn't have won us anything but a lot of trouble.

i have never seen precise figures of our casualties in japan and germany after the war but i suspect they were less than the cops killed in any of our big cities for the same time period....in other words insignificant.

the iraqis melted away in front of our superior CONVENTIONAL army so they could fight another day as they are now. it was a deliberate plan, they had plenty of weapons stored away. imho they took a page from the american revoultion handbook. dont fight a superior force on their terms. fight them on your own terms.

i didnt know exactly what had happened when the armies sort of disappeared on the gates of bagdad, but it is quite clear now.

tom w

peragro · #**666** 09-09-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

They appear to me to be way to nationalistic and stubborn to be led by the hand into democracy by the hated infidel. And yes, a bit ignorant as well.

Boy! It's a good thing us folk of European descent never have been to nationalistic or stubborn. And I sure am glad we're a lot smarter than them ayrabs. Too bad democracy is only for smart folk.

Botnst · #**667** 09-09-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

So oil revenues paid for the miltary part then?

No, exactly the opposite. If the United States had commandeered Iraq's oil to pay for military operations taht would be no better than buccaneering. As (or if...) Iraq's civilian government gains control of civil life and if it can also control its military, then it will be in a position to independently determine how to exploit their oil wealth to the benefit of their people. If Saddam had that goal in mind (a benevolent dictatorship like say, the direction taken by Venezuela's Chavez), then the coalition would have had absolutely no grounds at all to depose Saddam. The coalition was lucky in having such a thoroughly disreputable despot as the personification of the Baathist regime.

I wonder why nobody asks me whether I think that the current administration chose the the best path to effect regime change in Iraq. You guys are so certain that since I supported the overthrow of Saddam that I am a supporter of the Administration. We wear the blinders we choose.

B

Botnst · #**668** 09-09-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

lets not forget that in ww2 we had an exclusive on nuclear weapons.

in nam the russians and probably the chinese had them too. so us using them in nam is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.

we fought a limited war because we were on china's border in nam and didn't want to bring them into it.

nucing nam wouldn't have won us anything but a lot of trouble.

i have never seen precise figures of our casualties in japan and germany after the war but i suspect they were less than the cops killed in any of our big cities for the same time period....in other words insignificant.

the iraqis melted away in front of our superior CONVENTIONAL army so they could fight another day as they are now. it was a deliberate plan, they had plenty of weapons stored away. imho they took a page from the american revoultion handbook. dont fight a superior force on their terms. fight them on your own terms.

i didnt know exactly what had happened when the armies sort of disappeared on the gates of bagdad, but it is quite clear now.

tom w

That is precisely the point. Johnson was unwilling to use the level of barbarity necessary for victory. The North Vietnamese were. They won.

B

Honus · #**669** 09-09-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

No, I'm trying to point out that myself, and I would guess Bot and others, aren't suprised by what was said and what happened.

As I said, it seemed obvious from the beginning.

And it doesn't bother you that all those Bush administration figures were so wildly off the mark?

Honus · #**670** 09-09-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

CMAC's original comment (above) was in regards to paying for military operations, to which I responded. Reconstruction of Iraq, IMO, is a separate issue.

B

To borrow a phrase from peragro - that dog won't hunt. Somehow distinguishing "operations" from whatever that other word was is, shall we say, less than satisfying. The administration blew it. And the people in Congress, Kerry chief among them, who went along with their snake oil sales pitch, blew it just as bad.

Honus · #**671** 09-09-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

So oil revenues paid for the miltary part then?

OMG. That is classic. C'mon Bot, what do you have to say to that one? That is great.

Honus · #**672** 09-09-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

Yes, you are mistaken.

Oh really? Then how do you explain the following quote?

Quote:

In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Honus · #**673** 09-09-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

No, exactly the opposite. If the United States had commandeered Iraq's oil to pay for military operations taht would be no better than buccaneering. As (or if...) Iraq's civilian government gains control of civil life and if it can also control its military, then it will be in a position to independently determine how to exploit their oil wealth to the benefit of their people. If Saddam had that goal in mind (a benevolent dictatorship like say, the direction taken by Venezuela's Chavez), then the coalition would have had absolutely no grounds at all to depose Saddam. The coalition was lucky in having such a thoroughly disreputable despot as the personification of the Baathist regime.

I wonder why nobody asks me whether I think that the current administration chose the the best path to effect regime change in Iraq. You guys are so certain that since I supported the overthrow of Saddam that I am a supporter of the Administration. We wear the blinders we choose.

B

Sorry, Bot. I missed your reply when I posted my previous response to cmac's question. Having read your answer, I stand on my previous review of cmac's comment - classic. Right on the money.

BTW, where do you get the following idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...You guys are so certain that since I supported the overthrow of Saddam that I am a supporter of the Administration...

Speaking for myself, I never thought that you are a supporter of the administration. I just thought that you supported the invasion. Why did i think that? Because you have defended every ridiculous argument that the administration has made in support of its invasion of Iraq.

peragro · #**674** 09-09-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I wonder why nobody asks me whether I think that the current administration chose the the best path to effect regime change in Iraq. You guys are so certain that since I supported the overthrow of Saddam that I am a supporter of the Administration. We wear the blinders we choose.

B

Oh quit trying to unburden yourself of the label you have been smighted with.

Honus · #**675** 09-09-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

What a rhetorical question but, if Gore would have won, what would the lib Democrats have done?? Please tell me how ya'll would have kept us safe. And don't you dare try to tell me how 9/11 wouldn't have happened. You and I both know it was inevitable. All I hear is how Bush is doing it wrong. Friggin tell me what is right then. This same reason is why the Dem's keep losing to a "paper mache president" as he has been called. Dem's complain about what he is doing, but have no answer to what he should be doing.

You have a point. I don't know what Gore would have done were he President on 9/11/01. All I know is that Bush has blown it. I know that is a cop-out on my part, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush was the wrong man at the wrong time. Maybe Gore would have been just as bad.