# Which Wars Work Best?



## elder999 (Dec 5, 2006)

Which wars work best? The ones we fight or the ones we avoid? 

History is supposed to teach us the lessons of wars past so we wont blunder into stupid wars in the present. Since I have mixed feelings about our War against Terrorism and our war in Iraq, I thought Id review the wars America has fought in or close to my lifetime, as well as the ones we avoided. Maybe it will paint a path for America to follow now. 

I was born fifteen years after the end of World War II, which history calls "the good war" because it saved Europe and possibly the world from the tyranny of the Nazis. We lost 400,000 dead, the world lost 60 million dead, European and Japanese civilizations were nearly destroyed, and Soviet Communism, a system at least as murderous as the Nazis, emerged from the war a superpower,but we forced American-style democracy on Germany and Japan, and after they got over the bitterness of defeat, they prospered under democracy and became allies of America. America was the only real victor in that war. Our homeland had not been devastated by bombs, and we emerged as the most powerful nation in the world. 

The Korean Conflict came next. That war ended in stalemate after 50,000 Americans died, but our side, South Korea, went on to prosper under American-style democracy while the other side, North Korea, undergoes famines and starvation to this day under a regime that sells arms to the highest bidder and is working to develop a viable nuclear bomb that the buyer will no doubt aim at America. We still have to maintain an army in South Korea. 

Then came Vietnam-I was just a boy, but, by the time it was "over," I had friends among the 50,000 Americans killed there. After public pressure from back home, America abruptly left and ushered in a blood letting in Southeast Asia that killed millions of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia. Vietnam is the war we seldom talk about today because it accomplished nothing but the destruction of the cream of Americas youth. Today, as before the war, Vietnam does not openly threaten America. 

Most recently weve had Americas two wars against Iraq, both spectacularly successful militarily. We had to fight the first war because Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened our oil supply, a fuel we probably should have made ourselves independent of a long time ago. We fought the second one because we thought Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb that could possibly be sold to terrorists, or because Saddam had chemical weapons, or to overthrow Saddam. These last contentions are vehemently debated now by politicians, whatever the truth is, but we are in Iraq nevertheless, with nearly 3,000 Americans dead and no end in sight. 

Along with Iraq, we have our ongoing War against Terrorism, launched when radical Islamists brought down the twin towers in New York. We killed or captured much of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, main sponsor of the radical Islamists, after invading Afghanistan. Now the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq have sort of combined, with a civil war among Shia and Sunni Arabs thrown in, and with Syria and Iran and others fanning the flames, and a resurgent Takiban in Afghabistan. Its become a big mess. 

Heres the wars we *didnt* fight in my lifetime: 

We never fought the Soviet Union, the most dangerous enemy of America in my lifetime. We would have won because we had better technology than them, but many of our cities would have fallen to nuclear bombs. As capitalists, we understood that communism was an unsound economic system, so we wisely pursued a policy of "mutually assured destruction," keeping the Soviets at bay until the inevitable happened-with a little help from us, they bankrupted themselves. It was the wisest war we never fought. The Soviet Union is now a bunch of separate countries, sort of third worldish, and no longer a threat to us. 

We also never fought the Red Chinese. This communist system was never strong enough to pose as serious a threat as the Soviets, and as the Soviets stumbled under their own bad economic policy, the Chinese cracked their doors open to the West to see if they could avoid the same fate. Luckily, that much-maligned former president, Richard Nixon, seized the opportunity and extended Americas hand. China is now the workshop of the world, prosperous, and less and less communist every day. It is simply evolving out of its tyrannical self and into a prosperous capitalist society. The fact that it remains communist, and godless does not seem too relevant anymore.Though it remains a leader in human-rights violations, we can expect those to diminish as the inevitable increase in its people's freedoms proves to be less and less a threat to the power elite . This is the second wisest war we never fought. 

So in light of all these past wars and avoided wars, what can be deduced to guide us today? 

Obviously, the wars we avoided worked out best. No one got killed, civilizations were not devastated, and America was triumphant. That was because American-style capitalism was allowed to do its thing. Our system is simply better than anyone elses. The Soviet Union learned that too late, but China learned it just in time. 

All the real wars had disappointing results. Even World War II, which I dont think America could have avoided, ended up empowering the communists for half a century. 

Our current wars dont look promising in light of history. Sure, we can defeat any enemy in the short-term, but history says that for success in the long-term we need to convert the enemy to American-style capitalism so they, too, can prosper. I dont know how we are going to do that. I dont think anyone does. But just as it did with communism, I think it will make Islamic jihadism a moot point.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 5, 2006)

your post sounds less like a question and more like an essay you believe in already.

interesting points you make, although some lack substance.  looking foward to hearing from others as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2006)

You have touched on something that has caused more anger in Europe than possibly even the "War on Terrorism". that is the arrogance of certain Americans regarding the Second World War. Firstly, and this is not an attack on everyone, just a few who believe as elder999 seems to that the American way is the only right and proper way for a country to be! No one denies that American entry into the Second World War make a huge contribution but it was also for Americas own good too. American style democracy wasn't forced on the Germans as Britain and France were also occupying powers, the nazis were forced out and they went back to being a European democracy. The Japanese are starting to move back to pre war thinking and many are rejecting "American" ways.
 Again with Korea you forget how many British soldiers fought and died there, it is by no means an American democracy. In Vietnam Australian troops fought alongside Americans and remind me again why you were there in the first place?
 Your films made in Hollywood covering these times regularly omit the fact that other countries were fighting in these wars, sometimes facts are even changed to omit non Americans totally. How many times do you think we can stand to be told 'Oh us Americans saved the world, you should be grateful to us'. and to say you were the only victors in the Second World war is preposterous! Do you realise how demeaning that sounds?
To say also the two Iraqi wars were spectacularly successful militarily is also a strange thing to say. If the first one was so successful why the second one?
 Don't get me wrong Europeans are grateful for American help and we do like Americans but there are a certain few who ram down our throats that American alone is the saviour of the world and we are all backward peasants who need to be converted to the Great American Way of living. European culture may have taken some batterings in history but for the most part we have been going for a couple of thousand years now.
Have you considered how much resentment the constant pushing of 'your way' has caused? Reading some of the threads on this forum would lead peole to believe that your idea of the American way isn't quite the same as reality. Look up Iceland, it's the worlds oldest democracy without help from anyone!  Communism may not be to your taste but capitalism had kept China in the Dark Ages for centuries. Communism, at a price admittedly, dragged China into the Twentieth century. 
As I said this is not an attack on Americans as such more the blinkered view that some people have.I think a more in depth study of world history would be useful for such believers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> You have touched on something that has caused more anger in Europe than possibly even the "War on Terrorism". that is the arrogance of certain Americans regarding the Second World War. Firstly, and this is not an attack on everyone, just a few who believe as elder999 seems to that the American way is the only right and proper way for a country to be! No one denies that American entry into the Second World War make a huge contribution but it was also for Americas own good too. American style democracy wasn't forced on the Germans as Britain and France were also occupying powers, the nazis were forced out and they went back to being a European democracy. The Japanese are starting to move back to pre war thinking and many are rejecting "American" ways.
> Again with Korea you forget how many British soldiers fought and died there, it is by no means an American democracy. In Vietnam Australian troops fought alongside Americans and remind me again why you were there in the first place?
> Your films made in Hollywood covering these times regularly omit the fact that other countries were fighting in these wars, sometimes facts are even changed to omit non Americans totally. How many times do you think we can stand to be told 'Oh us Americans saved the world, you should be grateful to us'. and to say you were the only victors in the Second World war is preposterous! Do you realise how demeaning that sounds?
> To say also the two Iraqi wars were spectacularly successful militarily is also a strange thing to say. If the first one was so successful why the second one?
> ...


 
Well said...and I am an American.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2006)

I think to be honest Elder999 is being naive more than anything else but I'm afraid it comes over as arrogant which I'm sure is not what was meant. I admire the fact that it comes over as being proud of America and the Aerican way of doing things, I'd just like him/her to realise that we are all different, not better or worse just different.
 In the best of all possible worlds there would of course be no wars (and I'd be 20 again and the top female fighter in MMA!) but we have to sort out what we can the best way we can. As for learning nothing I posted my view on the thread "2000  dead in Iraq". 
  I think some of the facts in Elder's post are wrong too, I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam war.  The bloodletting in Cambodia was not caused by the Americans leaving abruptly, it was caused by Pol Pot. His reign of terror ended when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979. Life in Viernam certainly wasn't easy but while there was oppression there weren't massacres. http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/40.htm
 Korea http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/roh-korea/roh-korea.html
this also has the casualties from Canada, Australia,new Zealand and South Africa. I think too that while North Korea goes under the name of communism it is actually a dictatorship. In themselve capitalism and communism are systems that would work well.... if human beings weren't involved! or at the very least power mad politicians!


----------



## Kensai (Dec 6, 2006)

I happen to think that the attitude of "riding out the storm" of Islamic jihadism is woefully naive, and I have to say, very typical of US thinking. America is great with being technologically militarily superior, but always seems to show a lack of understanding of world feeling. 

To pinpoint "*T*he *W*ar *A*ainst *T*error", being against Islam, (and don't let any  politician tell you it isn't) trying to bankrupt a whole culture/way of life/religion ain't gonna happen. What potentially will happen will be continued attacks on the US/European/UK mainland, and in other Islamic countries that maintain links with the West. Continued UK/US presence in the Islamic countries causes great offence to many Muslims, an attack on one being an attack on all. The Umah(sp?), or world community of Muslims means a 1500 year old, billion strong religion spread throughout the Earth, cannot be beaten, or cajoled, or more importantly sold the American Dream/Western democracy. This is no war on terror that should or shouldn't have been avoided, this is a gargantuan culture clash being fed by radical imams on one side, and right-wing neocons with oil and weapons at their heart.

There are no easy answers to this set of circumstances, I don't think either regime, be it here in the UK, or in the US has the answers, nor do I think they are appropriate anymore. Tomahawks and tanks win wars. I wonder what it will take to win peace.


----------



## bushi jon (Dec 6, 2006)

First Korea was a Un action thats why there were other countries involved that included Turkey and Greece.Because I am a Man from the U.S.A I believe our system is the best in the world though I could give a rats **** what other people think of it. I must remember the U.S.A has not established our stlye Democracy anywhere we have though tried to establish democracy everywhere.Where the U.S.A empowers states most other systems empower the federal burecrats. I believe that is one of the problems with Iraq today we are trying to make things federal when it should almost be broken down into tribal/state like areas because thats how the folks there have done it for centuries. As far as it being a war against Islam I would have to say you are correct. But I have yet to see one Jew or Christian blow themselves up or kill another human being because of a picture of their prophet. What I have seen is alot of non-peaceful things against Christian,Jew,Hindu,Buddest in the name of right a wrong against Islam. Not all member that follow the Islamic fasith are bad just like not all chrstians are good. But it is the propencity of Islam to lean towards the disrespect of others. Does war suck Yes is it stupid Yes does it need to happen sometimes Yes


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2006)

The seeds of the current problems in the Middle East were sown at the end of the First World War when the area was carved up into countries with no regard for tribal lands or religious differencies. Tribal leaders were made kings on the basis they were friendly towards America and the UK.
Far from giving them democracy they were basically colonies of America and the UK. 
Bushi Jon are you trying to say that America is the only democracy in the world? Were you trying to establish democracy when you invaded Grenada? Or financed terrorism in South America and Asia? Remember the old joke, how do we know Iraq has WMD? because we have the receipts.
 I don't believe that Islam does disrespect others. Let's go back a little further in history. At one time America was a colony of Britain, you were supposed to do as we told you, pay us your taxes and be respectful royal subjects but you decided, rightly, that you needed independance.Britain sent it's troops to quell you and bring you into line but you fought back. Why? You felt you were right to fight back against 'foreign' soldiers on your soil. Do you see how it would look to the Iraqis? Whatever thoughts you may have about Saddam, he was Iraq's leader kept there by the Americans. He thought he could get away with anything which basically he did until he invaded Kuwait ( a country with a worse humans rights record than Iraq). He would have got away with that too if it hadn't been oil rich. If he'd invaded the Sudan he'd probably still be there. So the Allies kicked him out of Kuwait, Bush Snr decided not to pursue him so he stayed safely in Iraq, really he got off with it. Along comes Bush jnr determined to finish what daddy started along with 'Yo Blair' (did you know that's what Bush calls Blair?) we invade Iraq and you are all so surprised that the people aren't grateful, far from it they start fighting back! But we wanted them to be good citizens, paying their taxes and nodding respectfully at their betters, the west. How could they be so ungrateful as to not want us there? All we wanted was for them to do as we tell them. They were going to be given the great American way of life, the same way we were going to give you the great British way of life.
Christians have killed Muslims for centuries, what do you think the Crusades were for? all through history the west has been anti Islam ( and I'm Jewish saying this).
if killing Kurds was one of the rationales for invading Iraq why haven't we invaded Turkey who have also being doing this for years? 
Kensai is right, I'm afraid America is woefully bad at judging world feeling. It's like America is the teenager who feels that his parents and grandparents know nothing and he's discovered everything for the first time so insists he's right and 'we don't understand him'. Sorry it's not an insult or getting at you, it's just the rest of us have such a hard time with such enthuisasm for rushing around converting the world to Macdonalds etc!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

> You have touched on something that has caused more anger in Europe than possibly even the "War on Terrorism". that is the arrogance of certain Americans regarding the Second World War. Firstly, and this is not an attack on everyone, just a few who believe as elder999 seems to that the American way is the only right and proper way for a country to be! No one denies that American entry into the Second World War make a huge contribution but it was also for Americas own good too. American style democracy wasn't forced on the Germans as Britain and France were also occupying powers, the nazis were forced out and they went back to being a European democracy.


 
Just for historical perspective, without the US involvement into WWII, all of Europe would be speaking German and butchering Jews.  Great Britain was within months of capitulating to the Third Reich, the only thing allowing them to last as long as they did being supply runs by the U.S. to the U.K.

Also, we saved Russia's butt by supplying them with tons of material, including war material (supply trucks, tanks, small arms).  I think that it's safe to say that without the U.S. this would be a radically different world, one in which, as a Black/Caucasian American, I would probably not be here.



> The Japanese are starting to move back to pre war thinking and many are rejecting "American" ways.


 
Where do you get this information from?



> Again with Korea you forget how many British soldiers fought and died there, it is by no means an American democracy. In Vietnam Australian troops fought alongside Americans and remind me again why you were there in the first place?
> Your films made in Hollywood covering these times regularly omit the fact that other countries were fighting in these wars, sometimes facts are even changed to omit non Americans totally. How many times do you think we can stand to be told 'Oh us Americans saved the world, you should be grateful to us'. and to say you were the only victors in the Secoond World war is preposterous! Do you realise how demeaning that sounds?


 
I understand the worlds frustration when it comes to this.  Of course, I wouldn't use movies as a reason to become upset with this issue.  Every country makes movies, especially war movies, highlighting the bravery, heroism, contribution, etc., of the parent nation.  The real issue in that case is that U.S. movies are prevalent throughout the world, where as, to my knowledge, that is not the case with other countries movies.

Should we feel proud of our service in WWII, absolutely.  Should we disregard the contributions of others, absolutely not.



> To say also the two Iraqi wars were spectacularly successful militarily is also a strange thing to say. If the first one was so successful why the second one?


 
Because the Elder President Bush followed the UN mandate in Iraq I: eject Iraq from Kuwait.  Period.  It stated nothing about removing Hussein from power, destroying his army, or what have you.  But in combat operations, we spanked his butt.



> Don't get me wrong Europeans are grateful for American help and we do like Americans but there are a certain few who ram down our throats that American alone is the saviour of the world and we are all backward peasants who need to be converted to the Great American Way of living. European culture may have taken some batterings in history but for the most part we have been going for a couple of thousand years now.


 
Not that I like country-bashing (with certain exceptions) but I think that you need to examine your timelines a little more clearly.  The government of France, Germany, etc. (possibly with the exception of Great Britain) are nothing like they were two-hundred years ago, much less "thousands."



> Have you considered how much resentment the constant pushing of 'your way' has caused? Reading some of the threads on this forum would lead peole to believe that your idea of the American way isn't quite the same as reality. Look up Iceland, it's the worlds oldest democracy without help from anyone! Communism may not be to your taste but capitalism had kept China in the Dark Ages for centuries. Communism, at a price admittedly, dragged China into the Twentieth century.
> As I said this is not an attack on Americans as such more the blinkered view that some people have.I think a more in depth study of world history would be useful for such believers.


 
I do think tha Elder999 has an idealist view of American.  He seems to be forgetting slavery, the genocide of the Native-Americans, the rasict treatment of many other cultures.  But I think he was writing his statement from the perspective of his country, and it's contributions.  Not out of any sinister intentions.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

> I happen to think that the attitude of "riding out the storm" of Islamic jihadism is woefully naive, and I have to say, very typical of US thinking. America is great with being technologically militarily superior, but always seems to show a lack of understanding of world feeling.


 
I say this knowing that it is somewhat simplistic, but the job of the US government is not to concern itself with the "feelings" of the world.  It is to protect and defend the people of the U.S.  So in a sence (knowing my statement is simplistic), who cares what the world feels.



> To pinpoint "*T*he *W*ar *A*ainst *T*error", being against Islam, (and don't let any politician tell you it isn't) trying to bankrupt a whole culture/way of life/religion ain't gonna happen. What potentially will happen will be continued attacks on the US/European/UK mainland, and in other Islamic countries that maintain links with the West. Continued UK/US presence in the Islamic countries causes great offence to many Muslims, an attack on one being an attack on all. The Umah(sp?), or world community of Muslims means a 1500 year old, billion strong religion spread throughout the Earth, cannot be beaten, or cajoled, or more importantly sold the American Dream/Western democracy. This is no war on terror that should or shouldn't have been avoided, this is a gargantuan culture clash being fed by radical imams on one side, and right-wing neocons with oil and weapons at their heart.


 
I agree, the WOT is against Islam.  Islam holds itself that it will destroy all others that do not accept the Muslim faith.  It holds that you cannot swear allegience to a country.  It holds that all who don't believe in Allah should be killed.

 You're absolutely right this is a war against Islam.  And I don't have a problem with that.  They want to kill me, I'll kill them first.

And this is not being fed by radical imams.  These are mainstream, typical, everyday religious leaders who are teaching death to the West, and that anyone not Muslim needs to be slaughtered.  Anyone who says otherwise is being naive.

The only thing that will stop Islamic Aggression is education.  And, unfortunately for Islam I believe, a destruction of their faith.  (Waits for the accusations of rasicm to begin.

There are no easy answers to this set of circumstances, I don't think either regime, be it here in the UK, or in the US has the answers, nor do I think they are appropriate anymore. Tomahawks and tanks win wars. I wonder what it will take to win peace.[/QUOTE]

Education.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> The seeds of the current problems in the Middle East were sown at the end of the First World War when the area was carved up into countries with no regard for tribal lands or religious differencies. Tribal leaders were made kings on the basis they were friendly towards America and the UK.
> Far from giving them democracy they were basically colonies of America and the UK.
> Bushi Jon are you trying to say that America is the only democracy in the world? Were you trying to establish democracy when you invaded Grenada? Or financed terrorism in South America and Asia? Remember the old joke, how do we know Iraq has WMD? because we have the receipts.
> I don't believe that Islam does disrespect others. Let's go back a little further in history. At one time America was a colony of Britain, you were supposed to do as we told you, pay us your taxes and be respectful royal subjects but you decided, rightly, that you needed independance.Britain sent it's troops to quell you and bring you into line but you fought back. Why? You felt you were right to fight back against 'foreign' soldiers on your soil. Do you see how it would look to the Iraqis? Whatever thoughts you may have about Saddam, he was Iraq's leader kept there by the Americans. He thought he could get away with anything which basically he did until he invaded Kuwait ( a country with a worse humans rights record than Iraq). He would have got away with that too if it hadn't been oil rich. If he'd invaded the Sudan he'd probably still be there. So the Allies kicked him out of Kuwait, Bush Snr decided not to pursue him so he stayed safely in Iraq, really he got off with it. Along comes Bush jnr determined to finish what daddy started along with 'Yo Blair' (did you know that's what Bush calls Blair?) we invade Iraq and you are all so surprised that the people aren't grateful, far from it they start fighting back! But we wanted them to be good citizens, paying their taxes and nodding respectfully at their betters, the west. How could they be so ungrateful as to not want us there? All we wanted was for them to do as we tell them. They were going to be given the great American way of life, the same way we were going to give you the great British way of life.
> ...


 
Here's the flaw in your argument: The people fighting the British in our War of Independence were Americans (with the assistance of the French).

The people fighting us in Iraq are primarily from countries other than Iraq.  We are not primarily fighting Iraqis anymore, we are fighting Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Syrian, etc, Muslims.

This is not a case of people rising up in defense of their country.  This is a case of American hating Muslims interjecting themselves into this war.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

Erm? Of course it was the Americans fighting the British. The British were regarded as the 'invader'  and the Americans were fighting them to get them off their land. If this had happened now you would have allies coming in from different countries to help you! In the Spanish Civil War, sypmathisers came from other countries to support both sides. It's natural that Muslims would come to support their fellows, if the Vatican were attacked wouldn't Catholics want to help? perhaps non Catholic Christians would as well. In this war we came in to help you so we can hardly complain if other countries people come to help the Iraqis!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Erm? Of course it was the Americans fighting the British. The British were regarded as the 'invader' and the Americans were fighting them to get them off their land. If this had happened now you would have allies coming in from different countries to help you! In the Spanish Civil War, sypmathisers came from other countries to support both sides. It's natural that Muslims would come to support their fellows, if the Vatican were attacked wouldn't Catholics want to help? perhaps non Catholic Christians would as well. In this war we came in to help you so we can hardly complain if other countries people come to help the Iraqis!


 

So all Muslims are friends now.  I think not.  And this is not a case of Muslim brother's helping each other.  This is a case of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (the governments) trying to influence Iraq in a way that benefits them (like the French did in the U.S. Civil War).  I'm not saying that's not how the world works.

I'm just arguing the point that it's not the Iraqis that don't want us there.  It's other countries that don't want us there.  Remember, the violence there is not over the fact that we are in Iraq.  It's religious sectarian violence.  And since we haven't picked sides in this Shiite/Sunni debate, we are getting caught in the middle.


----------



## Kensai (Dec 7, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo, I agree Britain was months away from defeat, but then we'd been fighting Germany and Japan for over 2 years before the US graced us with her presence. Easy to come in fresh to a fight and claim you won it all. I believe the US did that in WW1 too.... 

As for your "they want to kill me, I'll kill them rhetoric", did you want to kill Muslims 10 years ago? Before the latest US/UK regimes were in power? Before the media, in particular US media began it's mass hysteria? Or is your aggression towards them fuelled by current circumstances?

In answer to your "the role of the US govt isn't to concern itself with the feelings of the world" implies mass lack of understanding. Perhaps if it were, your country wouldn't be facing the problems it does, and non Americans the world over, and for the record that's about 5.7 BILLION people that aren't wouldn't think "Oh bollocks" when they hear an American accent on holiday, and hide. Sensitivity isn't in the US vocabulary it seems. A total lack of care, and dareIsay ignorance of other cultures is what causes friction.

I love individual Americans. I've found them to be fun, gregarious, hard working and generous. And I mean that sincerely. "But". US culture, fast food, wild west, yeehauuwgh ride-em cowboy attitude doesn't sit that well with non-Americans. The world does NOT owe the US anything, and as importantly vice-versa. The US is simply the Britain of today, and like Britain, every dog has its day. Within 20-30 years, that day will belong to China and possibly India. Ancient cultures with equally massive resources. Interesting times we live in. Starting wars and choosing which ones to fight, and which ones not too, is a dangerous way to do business. I say that as a 2nd Gulf war veteran myself. I didn't fight for freedom or democracy, I was there because my political leader didn't have a big enough sack to turn round and tell yours to get stuffed, and for corporate America.

I am in 100% agreement with you. Education, not bombs will win the day. If only we could persuade Yo Blair, and Tony B-liar of that. 
Education is the single biggest weapon/tool we have as a species if we are to improve the standard of life, not for Americans and Brits, but everyone. And understanding between different cultures. Instead of fearing other cultures, let's celebrate our differences. I'll drink to that. :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

Info on Japan? From British Foreign Office briefings, Humint. I will try and find a link for you but the nationalist movement is growing.
The Iraqis do not want us there full stop.I like the idea that the US/UK forces are there only because the UN said to! Mmmm I wonder who could have pushed the UN into that one then, a couple of countries with the veto in the Security Council?
The supplies America *sold *us did enable us to survive but we were paying back America for many years afterwards, thats why rationing went on long into the fifties.Russia too bought their supplies. These weren't donations so a cynical person could say America did well out of our war but of course I couldn't possibly comment. 
Why not get upset when lies are told in films, when people have died for their country and that is turned into a mockery?
 I never said governments were the same for thousands of years I said we'd survived for that long through all sorts of mayhem and havoc.


Kensai, I loved your abbreviation of The War Against Terror!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2006)

> 5-0 Kenpo, I agree Britain was months away from defeat, but then we'd been fighting Germany and Japan for over 2 years before the US graced us with her presence. Easy to come in fresh to a fight and claim you won it all. I believe the US did that in WW1 too....


 
I'm not denying that Britain was had been fighting far longer then the U.S. was.  We had certain advatages in that ares.  I'm simply saying that in the case of WWII (not too particularly knowlegeable on WWI) without our assistance, the Germans would have won.  So it's no surprise that Americans are justly proud of that accomplishment.  Hey, by way of contrast, the French could do the same about the U.S. Civil War.



> As for your "they want to kill me, I'll kill them rhetoric", did you want to kill Muslims 10 years ago? Before the latest US/UK regimes were in power? Before the media, in particular US media began it's mass hysteria? Or is your aggression towards them fuelled by current circumstances?


 
Ten years ago I just entered my 20's, I was struggling to make ends meet, had two jobs, and was completely uninterested in politics. So, no, I can't say that I felt the same way.

However, looking at a bit of history, and realizing that we have been in a war against "militant" Muslims for almost 30 years, I probably would have said the same thing then as now, had I known.



> In answer to your "the role of the US govt isn't to concern itself with the feelings of the world" implies mass lack of understanding. Perhaps if it were, your country wouldn't be facing the problems it does, and non Americans the world over, and for the record that's about 5.7 BILLION people that aren't wouldn't think "Oh bollocks" when they hear an American accent on holiday, and hide. Sensitivity isn't in the US vocabulary it seems. A total lack of care, and dareIsay ignorance of other cultures is what causes friction.


 
As I said, it was a simplistic statement.  I understand that the world is more complex then that.  I would appreciate not being taken out of context.  But simply put, it is the job of the American government to protect Americans, not put on airs about world "feelings."  If considering others "feelings" furthers the United State's interests, then so be it.  But we should not defer to a just course simply because of somone else's "feelings."

And the problem I have is with the word "feelings."  You know, a child "feels" bad when you spank him, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  And people watching the spanking my "feel" bad for the child, but that shouldn't affect the parent's decision when chastizing their child.

Californian's "feel" that other Californian's shouldn't be able to own certain weapons, like the AR-15 (similar to the M-16) because it hurts people (or more precisely "looks" mean and ugly).  No matter that I can go and get a rifle with better range and killing power than that, because that gun doesn't "look" like a modern military rifle.

I use those illustrations to make the point that "feelings" are not what we should be concerned about (in most instances).  We should be concerned about what's just and right.  Perhaps we should make decisions based mostly on logic and on what works.



> I love individual Americans. I've found them to be fun, gregarious, hard working and generous. And I mean that sincerely. "But". US culture, fast food, wild west, yeehauuwgh ride-em cowboy attitude doesn't sit that well with non-Americans. The world does NOT owe the US anything, and as importantly vice-versa. The US is simply the Britain of today, and like Britain, every dog has its day. Within 20-30 years, that day will belong to China and possibly India. Ancient cultures with equally massive resources. Interesting times we live in. Starting wars and choosing which ones to fight, and which ones not too, is a dangerous way to do business. I say that as a 2nd Gulf war veteran myself. I didn't fight for freedom or democracy, I was there because my political leader didn't have a big enough sack to turn round and tell yours to get stuffed, and for corporate America.


 
Every government has to decide which wars to fight and which ones not to.  I don't understand how this statement has anything to do with what really occurs in the world.

And if the U.S. were the modern Imperialist, then why are we not openly dictating what goes on in countless countries of the world.  That's what Britain did, finally until they allowed Hong Kong it's independence.  Admittedly, we do try to steer other contries in our direction.  What's wrong with that.  I guarantee you that every country in the history of the world, throughout history, has done the same.

Let's be frank, we give more aid, and offer more help, then any other country of the world.  Hell, we tried to help in Somolia, a war-torn genocidal country, that was of no strategic interest to the U.S.  So why do it?  Because, as you say, Americans are generous.

And as regards China (I've been wanting to say this since the start of the thread), they consider themselves at war with the Western world.  Their generals have openly stated this.  Opening up to capatilism is a political and economic strategy to defeat the west.  Its about time that more people realize that, then maybe we can be smarter about dealing with it.

So when it comes to Elder999's perspective on "war", he really needs to understand that we were at war with the Soviet Union, and now China.  It's just a different kind of war.  Remember Carl von Clausweitz: war is politics by another means.




> I am in 100% agreement with you. Education, not bombs will win the day. If only we could persuade Yo Blair, and Tony B-liar of that.
> Education is the single biggest weapon/tool we have as a species if we are to improve the standard of life, not for Americans and Brits, but everyone. And understanding between different cultures. Instead of fearing other cultures, let's celebrate our differences. I'll drink to that. :asian:


 
The only question is: how do you educate a people that still live in the 2nd century, and who want to kill you if you don't follow their religion?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Info on Japan? From British Foreign Office briefings, Humint. I will try and find a link for you but the nationalist movement is growing.
> The Iraqis do not want us there full stop.I like the idea that the US/UK forces are there only because the UN said to! Mmmm I wonder who could have pushed the UN into that one then, a couple of countries with the veto in the Security Council?
> The supplies America *sold *us did enable us to survive but we were paying back America for many years afterwards, thats why rationing went on long into the fifties.Russia too bought their supplies. These weren't donations so a cynical person could say America did well out of our war but of course I couldn't possibly comment.
> Why not get upset when lies are told in films, when people have died for their country and that is turned into a mockery?
> ...


 

Is it any surprise that France and Russia vetoed the war in Iraq when they were making millions from the Oil-for-Food Program.  Even officials in the UN governing body itself were taking bribes from Iraq.

And I would believe that the Iraqi's do not want us running their government.  Neither does the American government.  We are trying to give them democracy (for all the good it will do them), and allow them self-determination.  The U.S. never wanted to remain there forever.

And if it's all about oil, how come we aren't simply taking it from them.  We're buying it from them (and others) to fight what has now become their war.  Not so much the sign of an imperialist, I think.


And you're wrong when it comes to the supply of Britain and Russia during World War 2.  The U.S. gave $31.4 billion to Britain and $11.3 billion to Russia.  And this figure does not include money given to other countries to fight the war.  The only thing asked (and given) in return was such things as reduced rent on bases, which totalled about $7.8 billion ($6.8 coming from Britain).  Quite a bargain.

The payments you are possibly referring to are sales of military supplies *after *the war.  The goods that were in transit after the war ended were paid for at $0.10 on the dollar.  The loan repayment was at 2%, with a loan ending date 50 years into the future.  Still, a very good deal. 

So, although not "donations", these were pretty much free supplies, with only some repayments/considerations received by the U.S.  And that just to satisfy the American public, not really the desire of the then President Roosevelt.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease )


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

Britain did not allow Hong Kong it's independance, the lease was up and we had to give it back to China, Hong Kong belongs to them now. 
You may have considered the banking rates a good deal but when the country is bankrupt it wasn't. Do you know how much rebuilding it took just to try to get the country to a barely livable condtion? How many homes, factories, streets, schools, dockyards, railways had to be rebuilt? a bargain? did you know how little food and raw supplies there actually was in the UK? It was a long and horrible war for ALL of the British.The war in Europe had finished but the war in the Far East hadn't, that still had to won.
I take it you have never been to the Middle East? if you think all of it is stuck in the Middle Ages I think you'd be in for a surprise. I don't know if you realise how rascist you sound when you talk about the Iraqis and the Muslims? No I'm not accusing you of being one, just concerned that you may not realise how your words can be read.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Firstly, and this is not an attack on everyone, just a few who believe as elder999 seems to that the American way is the only right and proper way for a country to be!


 
Actually, what I said was that our system was the best. It may not be best for everyone, and it certainly has its issues, but I'll stand by that. I'm not at all naive; I've been almost everywhere in the world that's worth going to, and more than a few places that are worth avoiding, and the simple fact is that whether one is trying to buy a Snickers bar in El Salvador, get medical care in Liberia, or defend oneself in Great Britain, the superiorities of the American system become evident. Of course, I was really only talking about capitalism, and in the context of the fall of the Soviet Union and the still-in-progress transformation of China, and I'll admit that capitalism, or rather, corporatism is part of the still-in-progress downfall of the United States, but hey-for the oh too short time being, our system is still best. 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> No one denies that American entry into the Second World War make a huge contribution but it was also for Americas own good too. American style democracy wasn't forced on the Germans as Britain and France were also occupying powers, the nazis were forced out and they went back to being a European democracy.


 
At the end of WWII, Great Britain had 300,000 military casualties, with a total population of 48 million, after having been in the war for two years more than the United States. The United States also had 300,000 military casualties, out of a total population of 129 million. 

West Germany became a democracy only after the partitioning of greater Germany appeared to be permanent, due to Soviet actions in the east. The remainder (west) of Germany was partitioned into three separate zones, each with an allied military governor, French, British and American. The principle author of West Germany&#8217;s constitution, Theodor Huess, not only consulted the United States Constitution, but directly with the American military government, in the person of the American military governor, General Lucius D. Clay. While the document and government Huess helped craft were German in character, they had several distinctly American characteristics ,as France had a constitution that basically reconstituted the Third republic that existed prior to Germany's invasion in WWII, and it was extremely inefficient and unwieldly.As you know, the UK has no codified constitution. 




			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Again with Korea you forget how many British soldiers fought and died there, it is by no means an American democracy.


 
4,286 British soldiers are officially listed as dead or missing in action from the Korean conflict/ U.N. police action/war, and 50,000 Americans. And you&#8217;re right, it is by no means an American democracy, but it is capitalist. I&#8217;d rather try to buy a Snickers bar, or toilet paper, or get my teeth fixed there than Russia or China anyday.




			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> In Vietnam Australian troops fought alongside Americans and remind me again why you were there in the first place?


 
In Viet Nam a total of 6,032 Australians were listed as killed or MIA, again versus 50,000 some odd Americans. As for why we were there in the first place, it kind of supports the original point of my post (which you seemed to have missed) that the _wars that have worked best have been the ones we didn&#8217;t fight_ 




> To say also the two Iraqi wars were spectacularly successful militarily is also a strange thing to say. If the first one was so successful why the second one?


 
Actually, they *were* spectacularly successful, _militarily.  _Each achieved its military objective in short order. The aftermath, of course, has been less than successful, in fact, the whole thing has been a downright disaster, that I haven&#8217;t supported in the least. Again, though,  this supports my initial point.

More in a bit.....


----------



## elder999 (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I I think some of the facts in Elder's post are wrong too, I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam war. The bloodletting in Cambodia was not caused by the Americans leaving abruptly, it was caused by Pol Pot. His reign of terror ended when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979


 
From 1969 until 1973, the U.S. intermittently bombed North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia, killing up to 150,000 Cambodian peasants. As a result, peasants fled the countryside by the hundreds of thousands and settled in Cambodia's capital city, Phnom Penh. 
All of these events resulted in economic and military destabilization in Cambodia and a surge of popular support for Pol Pot. 

By 1975, the U.S. had withdrawn its troops from Vietnam. Cambodia's government, plagued by corruption and incompetence, also lost its American military support. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge army, consisting of teenage peasant guerrillas, marched into Phnom Penh and on April 17 effectively seized control of Cambodia. 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> I think too that while North Korea goes under the name of communism it is actually a dictatorship. In themselve capitalism and communism are systems that would work well.... if human beings weren't involved! or at the very least power mad politicians!


 
Communism simply doesn't work with human beings involved, for a variety of reasons. The best evidence for this is the fall of various communist systems, or their gradual embrace of capitalism, or, as in the case of Cuba, their inherent bankruptcy.

Capitalism, with all its faults and many potentials for abuse-as in the sorporate takeover of America-has still proven to be the most viable economic system extant for individual and collective good.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Britain did not allow Hong Kong it's independance, the lease was up and we had to give it back to China, Hong Kong belongs to them now.
> You may have considered the banking rates a good deal but when the country is bankrupt it wasn't. Do you know how much rebuilding it took just to try to get the country to a barely livable condtion? How many homes, factories, streets, schools, dockyards, railways had to be rebuilt? a bargain? did you know how little food and raw supplies there actually was in the UK? It was a long and horrible war for ALL of the British.The war in Europe had finished but the war in the Far East hadn't, that still had to won.
> I take it you have never been to the Middle East? if you think all of it is stuck in the Middle Ages I think you'd be in for a surprise. I don't know if you realise how rascist you sound when you talk about the Iraqis and the Muslims? No I'm not accusing you of being one, just concerned that you may not realise how your words can be read.


 

Ok, but don't be, as you say, cynical because the U.K. got *billions* of dollars and only had to pay for less then 1/6th of that amount back.  I feel for the struggles of the British people of the time, who were, and still are, our best ally in the world.  I haven't got a single problem with them.  And don't try to make us feel bad for being proud of our contributions, nor try to minimize the affect that we actually had in that war.

And we shouldn't feel bad about the fact that we honor American soldiers with movies regarding what they did and call them lies.  Your country, I'm sure, does the same thing.  These movies show the American perspective, that's all.  Granted, they are movies, which are usually embellished, but that is on all sides.

And I knew the racist thing would come up.  If anything, the Middle East is stuck in a time warp because of their religion, not for being Arab.  So if anything, call it a religious bias, but definately not racial.  

And by 2nd century, I mean the mentallity of the region, not the actual geography.  Sure, skyscrapers may abound, but you tell the women that there isn't a backwards thinking.  

And I may *sound *racist, but that's only because I don't give in to the politically correct sound bites that most people seem to think that I should.  I don't mean to be rude, but honest, even if at times brutally so.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> . Life in Viernam certainly wasn't easy but while there was oppression there weren't massacres. http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/40.htm


 

Oh and from _your_ source, noted above:



> In its quest for a new socialist order in the South, Hanoi relied on other techniques apart from socialist economic transformation and socialist education. These included thought reform, population resettlement, and internal exile, as well as surveillance and mass mobilization. Party-sponsored "study sessions" were obligatory for all adults. For the former elite of the Saigon regime, a more rigorous form of indoctrination was used; hundreds of thousands of former military officers, bureaucrats, politicians, religious and labor leaders, scholars, intellectuals, and lawyers, as well as critics of the new regime were ordered to "reeducation camps" for varying periods. In mid1985 , the Hanoi government conceded that it still held about 10,000 inmates in the reeducation camps, but the actual number was believed to be at least 40,000. In 1982 there were about 120,000 Vietnamese in these camps. According to a knowledgeable American observer, the inmates faced hard labor, but only rarely torture or execution.


 
From what we know of "reeducation camps," between substandard food and living conditions, combined with hard labor, they themselves not only could constitute a form of torture, but also guaranteed untimely death.



> Some Western observers, however, have estimated that as many as 65,000 South Vietnamese may have been executed.




Finally, for a somewhat biased if more orderly perspective on Viet Nam in the years immediately following U.S. withdrawal, I suggest the article  here


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I do think tha Elder999 has an idealist view of American. He seems to be forgetting slavery, the genocide of the Native-Americans, the rasict treatment of many other cultures.


 
I'm probably the last person on this board who'd forget about those things....

Oh, and Tez3?

_Hag orim same'ah!_


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2006)

You quote the military deaths not the civilians? I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about the American contribution to the war effort in the Second World War but if I had never met any Americans which luckiily I have, I would be rather more sympathic to the Middle Eastern point of view after reading your posts. If you idea of being a higher civilisation is being to buy a Snickers bar I'm rather sad. As for defending yourself in the UK very few of us have a problem. I actually live in an area that hasn't has a violent death for years. I don't want to turn this into an argument over whose country is better your's or ours. We may not think living in places that don't have our modern amenities is proper but we don't have the right to force our beliefs and way of living on anyone. Human rights in the Middle East is horrendous but can you put your hand up and say your house is perfect, that there are no human rights abuses in the US? I can't say that about my country, only thankfully there are still people willing to address the problems. 
Thinking about it the Snickers bar remark has made me think that trying to debate this issue is rather pointless as you are so entrenched in your ideas and can't see pass the statistics to see the suffering of the people. Perhaps I'm getting too old and seen too much of it. Every death in Iraq and Afghanistan is a loss. I can be proud of the sacrifices made by people to give us freedom in the Second World War but this war leaves me shamed and heartsick.


----------



## Kensai (Dec 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Info on Japan? From British Foreign Office briefings, Humint. I will try and find a link for you but the nationalist movement is growing.
> The Iraqis do not want us there full stop.I like the idea that the US/UK forces are there only because the UN said to! Mmmm I wonder who could have pushed the UN into that one then, a couple of countries with the veto in the Security Council?
> The supplies America *sold *us did enable us to survive but we were paying back America for many years afterwards, thats why rationing went on long into the fifties.Russia too bought their supplies. These weren't donations so a cynical person could say America did well out of our war but of course I couldn't possibly comment.
> Why not get upset when lies are told in films, when people have died for their country and that is turned into a mockery?
> ...



That's what it was referred to in the RN during Op Telic. 

Veto's from permanent security members, i.e P5? Well informed mate. 

I too have heard about Japan's increasing dissatisfaction with their special relationship. My source was the BBC news website.


----------



## Kensai (Dec 8, 2006)

To Kenpo 5-0 and elder999.


I don't have a problem with feelings. I don't have a problem being considerate towards others in an increasingly global community. It's that lack of "feeling", or perhaps understanding of other cultures that has caused this conflict with Islam at large. Funding various mujahadeen groups throughout the 80's in Afghanistan, to fight the Red Army, and then embroiling yourself in the 1st Gulf war at the start of the 90's has to some extent led to this point in time and set of circumstances. Complex sets of events don't _just_ happen for no reason. 1000 million people didn't just wake up one morning and decide that the time was up for the US, that for no reason whatsover, a group of Muslims would fly aircraft into the side of buildings, other than the pretext that they were American. As for the Chinese considering themselves at war with the West, what are your scources for this? If that's bad, it doesn't strike me as bad as America seemingly being at war with the world. Then-again, when you spend $500 billion dollars a year on defence, you HAVE to have someone to fight. All you need to do then, is find an enemy, convince the public that it needs fighting, and you're away. Jobs 'a' good-un. Only perhaps the next time the US feels the need to invade somewhere for the good of that country, perhaps you could do it alone? As mentioned, I served in the 2nd Gulf, was shot at many times, had mates killed, flew helo missions into southern Iraq, served in ALL theatres, air, land and sea, and I am truly saddened by this whole  situation. All needless, all pointless and all for American big business and George Dubya Bush. 

The point about US culture, was merely to point out that no-body besides Americans wants it. The American Dream (c)? Enforced democracy? If that's your concept of the land of the free, then please, feel free to keep it. 

How would I propose to educate a people that live in the 2nd century, and who want to kill you if you don't want to follow their religion? How do you propose to "win" a war fighting them? Would you advocate a "kill 'em all" policy? Would you propose the killing of a 6th of the worlds populace? What then? The Chinese? Finish of the Russians perhaps? Then there's those pesky North Koreans, or what really is going on with those Europeans? Never trusted them anyway! Forgive the pedanticity there, but the slow but steady impression I'm gaining here, is almost of that view. All this talk in US politics over the last few days of "are we winning the war"? WHAT'S there to win? Freedom? Where? From whom? Saddam Hussein? Great, he's no longer here, but what we've replaced it with is total, and utter sectarian violence that makes Northen Ireland look like the pre-match entertainment. Are we winning for Democracy? Are we winning, or forcing democracy on a state that couldn't point to a democratic parliament, much less want one, because it suits "us"?

Clearly there's little further we can all say to each other, as our views are apparently polarised. I used to believe in this. I really did. I believed that might is right, that Islam was a threat that HAD to be neutralised to preserve "our" way of life. Then I went to Iraq, or Eye-rak, and had an epiphone. Believe away that this is right, that there are right wars and wrong wars to fight, perhaps there are? Perhaps there aren't. I've given it much thought, just do me one favour, a little one, just once, only once, ask yourself if this is the right thing to be doing, if you trust Dubya with everything that is dear to you. If, perhaps, there may be another course of action, just give it deep, sincere thought. If it is, then so be it, fair enough, if however you are just 1% hesitant, then it's a whole 'nother game.

Again, respectfully,

Kensai.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> You quote the military deaths not the civilians?






			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Again with Korea you forget how many British soldiers fought and died there




So, I&#8217;ll point out that _you&#8217;re_ the one who made it about American contributions, vs. the rest of the world, or the British, at least, and also the one who turned it into an argument about  one country vs. the other. I was trying to make a point about warfare and its conduct, one you seem to have missed  in zeroing in on what you see as some sort of distinctly American prejudice on my part. 




> I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about the American contribution to the war effort in the Second World War but if I had never met any Americans which luckiily I have, I would be rather more sympathic to the Middle Eastern point of view after reading your posts. If you idea of being a higher civilisation is being to buy a Snickers bar I'm rather sad. As for defending yourself in the UK very few of us have a problem. I actually live in an area that hasn't has a violent death for years. I don't want to turn this into an argument over whose country is better your's or ours. We may not think living in places that don't have our modern amenities is proper but we don't have the right to force our beliefs and way of living on anyone. Human rights in the Middle East is horrendous but can you put your hand up and say your house is perfect, that there are no human rights abuses in the US? I can't say that about my country, only thankfully there are still people willing to address the problems.
> Thinking about it the Snickers bar remark has made me think that trying to debate this issue is rather pointless as you are so entrenched in your ideas and can't see pass the statistics to see the suffering of the people. Perhaps I'm getting too old and seen too much of it. Every death in Iraq and Afghanistan is a loss. I can be proud of the sacrifices made by people to give us freedom in the Second World War but this war leaves me shamed and heartsick.




Chalk it up to my quirky sense of humor, or some across the pond gulf in communication, but the Snickers bar comment was a tongue in cheek remark based upon actual experience, though I wasn&#8217;t the one jonesing for a Snickers where there were none to be had&#8230;and, while I&#8217;ll stand by my statements about capitalism-with one notable exception among many that I will get to in a bit-in no way did I mean that we should force-feed democracy, American style or otherwise, on the world. Indeed, that tactic has proven to be our principle failure in Iraq. If American history teaches us anything, it is that democracy must  rise from the people; it is not something to be imposed. The only way it was imposed in Germany and Japan was, because as you rightly pointed out, those countries did have a democratic tradition to fall back upon, and, they had been virtually defeated to the point where they simply had no resources, no infrastructure, and were dependent upon their conquerors to attain them. Their success, however, is indicative, again, of the inherent virtues (as well as many of the ills) of capitalism.
While the &#8220;Coalition&#8217;s&#8221;  conquest of Bagdhad, and defeat of the Iraqi army was a military victory, the aftermath has been a complete disaster, and, in the years to come, I believe that many analysts will point to a failure to follow the Powell doctrine. Of course, the U.S. administration wasn&#8217;t at all interested in completely disabling the Iraqi infrastructure as much as they were interested in restoring it, for reasons pragmatic and nefarious-the reasons why we invaded that nation in the first place, and ones that again fall back to the question of what we&#8217;re doing there in the first place, and whether this would have been a better war-as I&#8217;ve posited-not being fought. 

Prior to 9/11, the words we constantly heard from the administration in reference to Iraq, in the persons of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, were _containment, contained,_ and _not a threat._ In  this context, analysts will (are already, in fact) framing a variety of non-war strategies that would have achieved the administration&#8217;s Middle East objectives-at least, in Iraq-without the loss of life, both military and civilian.

I should add, that while I do not and have never (or almost never) supported the invasion of Iraq (Afghanistan is another, somewhat nuanced and ugly matter) I continue to be proud of our troops, who sacrifice their lives to, as they swear _defend the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic_. I believe they are being sadly used.

As far as the suffering of the people, again, you are missing the entire point of my post, that the best wars are the ones we do not fight, and thus, suffering is reduced.. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Saudi Arabia is another-though it is the one notable exception I mentioned, as it has a capitalist economy, and it&#8217;s most troubling elements are products not of the disenfranchised and poor, but of the middle and upper class. Saudi Arabia and Egypt-all that speculation about Syria and Iran notwithstanding-are going to prove to be really problematic for the so-called Western World (yes, that means you in Europe, Tez) in the future.

As far as the whole war aginst Islam thing goes, I&#8217;ve posted elsewhere that not only is this not possible, and morally indefensible, but that it&#8217;s not Islam that&#8217;s at war with us, but  a corruption of that faith-a heresy, in fact, coupled with a long list of greivances, some legitimate and some contrived. I have nothing but love and respect for Islam itself, and have knelt and prayed with Muslims from around the world many times, especially Sufis. (Please see  this post)

I&#8217;ll also add that I&#8217;m probably one of the biggest, most consistent bashers of my country&#8217;s administration on the Internet, as well as a critic of much of what passes for culture here-it wasn&#8217;t my intention to promote either my country&#8217;s current policies or culture as cure-alls for the world&#8217;s ills.  

Only capitalism.....isn't that enough of an argument in and of itself??


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> You quote the military deaths not the civilians? I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad about the American contribution to the war effort in the Second World War but if I had never met any Americans which luckiily I have, I would be rather more sympathic to the Middle Eastern point of view after reading your posts. If you idea of being a higher civilisation is being to buy a Snickers bar I'm rather sad. As for defending yourself in the UK very few of us have a problem. I actually live in an area that hasn't has a violent death for years. I don't want to turn this into an argument over whose country is better your's or ours. We may not think living in places that don't have our modern amenities is proper but we don't have the right to force our beliefs and way of living on anyone. Human rights in the Middle East is horrendous but can you put your hand up and say your house is perfect, that there are no human rights abuses in the US? I can't say that about my country, only thankfully there are still people willing to address the problems.
> Thinking about it the Snickers bar remark has made me think that trying to debate this issue is rather pointless as you are so entrenched in your ideas and can't see pass the statistics to see the suffering of the people. Perhaps I'm getting too old and seen too much of it. Every death in Iraq and Afghanistan is a loss. I can be proud of the sacrifices made by people to give us freedom in the Second World War but this war leaves me shamed and heartsick.


 
It seems as if your combining the worst (in your opinion) of two different individuals ideas, and then addressing them at the same time.  I honestly don't know how rebut such statements, because I can't talk for someone else.

I don't care whether they have indoor plumbing, or have to go outside to use a porta-potty.  As long as they don't try to do me harm, which is what they are doing.

Why is it that you believe that just because someone sees this, or any other war as just, that all they look at is statistics when they are cited.  Although not the be all and end all of an argument, they do show pertinent facts supporting ones argument, or defeating anothers.  And just because I haven't "seen" the suffering that is occuring in Iraq, does not mean that I have not seen suffering at all, and can be sympathetic to anothers plight.

I would tell you this, based on all of your statements:  American should go back to being an isolationist country.  We never should have become involved (even to the point of giving supplies) in WWII because it was not our fight.  It was a European battle.  You should all be speaking German.  But no, we did help, as much as we could at various times of the war.  
And what sacrifices in WWII should we be proud of, other then the defeat of Japan, who attacked us.  Remember, it was a European war.  Not to mention WWI.

This way, regarding the current state of relations regarding Muslims, they could take over in France (as the riots of 2005 showed, and their growing population there).  Or the Muslim protest regarding cartoon depictions of Mohammed, which caused further protests and riots.  Hey, not our problem.

Perhaps the U.S. does look at itself as the big brother to the "righteous" nations of the world.  Uh.... sorry..???

And for some perspective as to the *radical, extreme *wing of Islam, have a look at these ordinary people (especially look at what the signs say):

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

It's not about trying your house being perfect, but if the dishes are dirty, clean them up.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 9, 2006)

> I don't have a problem with feelings. I don't have a problem being considerate towards others in an increasingly global community. It's that lack of "feeling", or perhaps understanding of other cultures that has caused this conflict with Islam at large. Funding various mujahadeen groups throughout the 80's in Afghanistan, to fight the Red Army, and then embroiling yourself in the 1st Gulf war at the start of the 90's has to some extent led to this point in time and set of circumstances. Complex sets of events don't _just_ happen for no reason. 1000 million people didn't just wake up one morning and decide that the time was up for the US, that for no reason whatsover, a group of Muslims would fly aircraft into the side of buildings, other than the pretext that they were American.


 
Yes, how evil of us to have assisted the Muslims of Afghanistan in their struggle against an invading Soviet Army. How can we not understand why they hate us.


And the first Iraq war. What audacity to think that we should defend Muslims from, oh, wait, other Muslims. What were we thinking?


And then to defend Muslims in Kosovo too. What is our problem?​ 



> As for the Chinese considering themselves at war with the West, what are your scources for this?


 
Two Chinese colonels, Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, in their book, Unrestricted Warfare:


"From this point on, war will no longer be what it was originally," the colonels write, but will be unrecognizable as it is waged in the heart of American society. "Does a single hacker attack count as a hostile act or not? Can using financial instruments to destroy a country's economy be seen as a battle..?" 

"If the attacking side secretly musters large amounts of capital without the enemy nation being aware of this at all and launches a sneak attack against its financial markets," they write, "then after causing a financial crisis, buries a computer virus and hacker detachment in the opponent's computer system in advance, while at the same time carrying out a network attack against the enemy so that the civilian electricity network, traffic-dispatching network, financial-transaction network, telephone-communications network and mass-media network are completely paralyzed, this will cause the enemy nation to fall into social panic, street riots and a political crisis." 


and:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071505A.shtml


and:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html


Put two and two together and you get top Chinese officials who want war with the United States, and are willing to try "unconventional" means to do it.​ 


> If that's bad, it doesn't strike me as bad as America seemingly being at war with the world. Then-again, when you spend $500 billion dollars a year on defence, you HAVE to have someone to fight.


 
No, you don't need to fight anyone when you spend that much on your military.  That's just needless rhetoric.

While the overall U.S. military budget has risen over time, as a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 4% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%. This is historically fairly low for the United States. While the spending budget has been slowly rising, the spending rate has been in a slow decline since peaking in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.

(source: wikipedia)


So although we spend more than absolute dollars, we do not necessarily spend more in relations to GDP in comparison of other countries. And considering what we both in and for the world with our military, is it any wonder that we spend so much?
​ 


> All you need to do then, is find an enemy, convince the public that it needs fighting, and you're away. Jobs 'a' good-un. Only perhaps the next time the US feels the need to invade somewhere for the good of that country, perhaps you could do it alone? As mentioned, I served in the 2nd Gulf, was shot at many times, had mates killed, flew helo missions into southern Iraq, served in ALL theatres, air, land and sea, and I am truly saddened by this whole situation. All needless, all pointless and all for American big business and George Dubya Bush.


 
Again, needless rhetoric.



> The point about US culture, was merely to point out that no-body besides Americans wants it. The American Dream (c)? Enforced democracy? If that's your concept of the land of the free, then please, feel free to keep it.


 
I hate to be sarcastic, but, you must be joking. We have more people immigrating to the U.S. (both legal and illegal) than any other country in the world. If they don't want the American dream, then why are they coming here? And what do you think the pro-illegal alien crowd is saying: they simply want a better life then they can have in their own country.


Are you kidding me.​


> How would I propose to educate a people that live in the 2nd century, and who want to kill you if you don't want to follow their religion? How do you propose to "win" a war fighting them? Would you advocate a "kill 'em all" policy? Would you propose the killing of a 6th of the worlds populace? What then? The Chinese? Finish of the Russians perhaps? Then there's those pesky North Koreans, or what really is going on with those Europeans? Never trusted them anyway! Forgive the pedanticity there, but the slow but steady impression I'm gaining here, is almost of that view. All this talk in US politics over the last few days of "are we winning the war"? WHAT'S there to win? Freedom? Where? From whom? Saddam Hussein? Great, he's no longer here, but what we've replaced it with is total, and utter sectarian violence that makes Northen Ireland look like the pre-match entertainment. Are we winning for Democracy? Are we winning, or forcing democracy on a state that couldn't point to a democratic parliament, much less want one, because it suits "us"?


 
You have agreed that education is the key to solving the problem, but you have yet to answer my question.



> Clearly there's little further we can all say to each other, as our views are apparently polarised. I used to believe in this. I really did. I believed that might is right, that Islam was a threat that HAD to be neutralised to preserve "our" way of life. Then I went to Iraq, or Eye-rak, and had an epiphone. Believe away that this is right, that there are right wars and wrong wars to fight, perhaps there are? Perhaps there aren't. I've given it much thought, just do me one favour, a little one, just once, only once, ask yourself if this is the right thing to be doing, if you trust Dubya with everything that is dear to you. If, perhaps, there may be another course of action, just give it deep, sincere thought. If it is, then so be it, fair enough, if however you are just 1% hesitant, then it's a whole 'nother game.


 
If you believed that might made right, then I'm glad you've changed your ways. But just because I believe that going into Iraq was the right thing for my country to do, doesn't mean I believe that.

And I only trust my wife and my parents with "everything that is dear to me." Just because I agree with him that going to Iraq was the right course of action, does not mean that I believe he will do everything that I think is right. More pointless rhetoric on your part.

And I have considered that I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone. Any introspective, thoughtful person will analyze his thought and beliefs (and courses of action) on a daily basis. Even if there was a _possibility _of another way, I have to way it against many considerations. I shouldn't say the war is wrong simply because I have a 1% chance of doubt. If that were the case, no one would get anything accomplished.​


----------



## Kensai (Dec 9, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Yes, how evil of us to have assisted the Muslims of Afghanistan in their struggle against an invading Soviet Army. How can we not understand why they hate us.
> 
> 
> And the first Iraq war. What audacity to think that we should defend Muslims from, oh, wait, other Muslims. What were we thinking?
> ...



What a patronising, sarcastic, pleasant little post. If I've made posts containing "pointless rhetoric" then you have been pedantic, and unwilling to consider others POV's. You reap what you sow, and you get what you deserve. You wouldn't be willing to listen to ideas anyhow. See ya.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 9, 2006)

*Mod Note

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator *


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 9, 2006)

Kensai said:


> What a patronising, sarcastic, pleasant little post. If I've made posts containing "pointless rhetoric" then you have been pedantic, and unwilling to consider others POV's. You reap what you sow, and you get what you deserve. You wouldn't be willing to listen to ideas anyhow. See ya.


 

I have considered your point of view, and rejected it.  Just as you are free to do to mine.

But just curious, what exactly in your argument was supposed to convince me or your viewpoint?  Your passion over the issue, because you certainly haven't given me any facts to support your position.  I'm not overly formal when it come to arguments, or else I might say something like the following:

What you are engaging in is called an ad hominim argument: replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

And it's funny that you call me pedantic, yet ask for the sources of my information the one time I don't give it.  Ironic.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 9, 2006)

> 5-0 Kenpo, I agree Britain was months away from defeat, but then we'd been fighting Germany and Japan for over 2 years before the US graced us with her presence.



BTW, how did that go for ya?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> BTW, how did that go for ya?


 

What does that mean?


----------



## Kensai (Dec 10, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> BTW, how did that go for ya?



Tez3, it isn't even worth arguing with idiots, they always drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 10, 2006)

*Mod Note

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator*


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

What disturbs me is the use of statistics to bolster an argument. Statistics are not the precise science that people would like to believe they are, nearly every set of statistics comes with an agenda.In short they prove nothing. There are also a great many "facts" too that are not facts. How many people believe Humphrey Bogart said "play it again Sam"? If you watch the film he actually says "Play it Sam, you played it for her you can play it for me". Yet it's the first that has passed into common belief.
 The problems in the Middle East situation including Israel started a long time ago, just after the first World War when it was divided by the Allies into , for them, convenient countries. This caused wars between them that have carried on to this day. Anti western feeling has always been there. I work with an ex-Para who fought in Aden in the 60's, my husband was injured fighting in Doha in the 70s (google SAS). The Americans killed in Lebanon haven't been mentioned, is that a war fought or a war not fought?
Perhaps the Afghans hate the fact that you weren't helping them because you believed in their freedom but because they were fighting your enemy? The first Iraq again wasn't about defending other Muslims, it was about OIL. it's self deluded of us to believe anything else.
  On the internet these days you can find 'facts' and figures to support every viewpoint you may have in the same way sadly they say you can find every sexual perversion you can think of and a great many you can't. For every factual report on there, there will be another contradicting it, to argue using these sources is pointless, as is relying on these reports to invade a country because the internet says it has WMD is also pointless unless the information proves a point that you want it to. 
  I know what I think as I wave off another coach load of young soldiers on their way to RAF Brize Norton to fly off to Iraq and I know what I think when the same aircraft fly back into Brize with their coffins.No amount of American rhetoric about American being the best country in the world, the best democracy, the best for everyone comforts the bereaved.
 I have met many Americans, thank god, who don't push this missionary line. In this world we are more alike than unlike. We worry about having enough money to pay the bills, if single we worry about finding the right partner, if married with children we worry about our children, their futures, will they be happy, will they get on in life etc etc. people all over the world worry about the same things. We should be talking about the things we have in common not the things that push us apart. being proud of being an American is good, you should be, it's not a perfect country, who's is, but please understand we also have the right to be proud of our countries and for the most part most of us like our way of life. personally I wouldn't want to be a woman in a Muslim country but we can support their struggle for freedom without patronising them, asking them what they would like us to do not wade in and say "hey our way of life is best, it's our way or nothing" that's as bad as the tryanny they are trying to escape from. 
Don't quote me figures, for example of the deaths in the Second World War because for every number in that figure you quote I can show you a family who lost at least one member who was lost in that war. I can take you round the graveyards in Europe showing you where the soldiers are buried, they aren't figures, these are people. I can't discuss the numbers dispassionately, my mother was the only survivor of her family from the concentration camps. So america sent us money, that was gratefully recieved but you have no idea what it was like to have to rebuild your life after losing everything in the Blitz. You comdemn the Muslims in the Middle East but you have no idea what their lives are like, you just berate them for not wanting the American way of life. Compassion and empathy would stop more mores starting, that and smaller egos.


----------



## Kensai (Dec 11, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> What disturbs me is the use of statistics to bolster an argument. Statistics are not the precise science that people would like to believe they are, nearly every set of statistics comes with an agenda.In short they prove nothing. There are also a great many "facts" too that are not facts. How many people believe Humphrey Bogart said "play it again Sam"? If you watch the film he actually says "Play it Sam, you played it for her you can play it for me". Yet it's the first that has passed into common belief.
> The problems in the Middle East situation including Israel started a long time ago, just after the first World War when it was divided by the Allies into , for them, convenient countries. This caused wars between them that have carried on to this day. Anti western feeling has always been there. I work with an ex-Para who fought in Aden in the 60's, my husband was injured fighting in Doha in the 70s (google SAS). The Americans killed in Lebanon haven't been mentioned, is that a war fought or a war not fought?
> Perhaps the Afghans hate the fact that you weren't helping them because you believed in their freedom but because they were fighting your enemy? The first Iraq again wasn't about defending other Muslims, it was about OIL. it's self deluded of us to believe anything else.
> On the internet these days you can find 'facts' and figures to support every viewpoint you may have in the same way sadly they say you can find every sexual perversion you can think of and a great many you can't. For every factual report on there, there will be another contradicting it, to argue using these sources is pointless, as is relying on these reports to invade a country because the internet says it has WMD is also pointless unless the information proves a point that you want it to.
> ...



I can add nothing further to that. *claps at screen.*


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

Thanks, Kensai!

War should never be discussed dispassionately, it should raise the emotions, make you angry and it should never be accepted. It may be necessary but never should it be accepted. It's not an academic study for non soldiers. If a war is inevitable it should be carried out like a surgical procedure, done as fast and as precisely as possible with the least damage to all possible. War isn't honourable, it isn't fun, it's not glorious it's hell on earth. It should never be reduced to bland figures, collateral damage, acceptable casualties. Use the words that descibe war properly... death, rape, destruction. Rage against wars, talk till you your voice goes then start writing if there's a chance it can stop a war. Swallow national pride and ego if it prevents a war. You don't have to bow down to tyrants but you don't have to become that tryant. Stand up for what is right but do it humbly not as a rabble rouser. On this forum of all places as martial artists we should understand violence, humility and doing the right thing perhaps more than anyone.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 11, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> What disturbs me is the use of statistics to bolster an argument. Statistics are not the precise science that people would like to believe they are, nearly every set of statistics comes with an agenda.In short they prove nothing. There are also a great many "facts" too that are not facts. How many people believe Humphrey Bogart said "play it again Sam"? If you watch the film he actually says "Play it Sam, you played it for her you can play it for me". Yet it's the first that has passed into common belief.
> The problems in the Middle East situation including Israel started a long time ago, just after the first World War when it was divided by the Allies into , for them, convenient countries. This caused wars between them that have carried on to this day. Anti western feeling has always been there. I work with an ex-Para who fought in Aden in the 60's, my husband was injured fighting in Doha in the 70s (google SAS). The Americans killed in Lebanon haven't been mentioned, is that a war fought or a war not fought?
> Perhaps the Afghans hate the fact that you weren't helping them because you believed in their freedom but because they were fighting your enemy? The first Iraq again wasn't about defending other Muslims, it was about OIL. it's self deluded of us to believe anything else.
> On the internet these days you can find 'facts' and figures to support every viewpoint you may have in the same way sadly they say you can find every sexual perversion you can think of and a great many you can't. For every factual report on there, there will be another contradicting it, to argue using these sources is pointless, as is relying on these reports to invade a country because the internet says it has WMD is also pointless unless the information proves a point that you want it to.
> ...


 
If we don't use statistics or other facts, then what can we use as the basis for making decisions, especially those relating to going to war?  It is understandable to want to avoid the death and destruction that go along with war, but even as you say, in your next post, that a war may be inevitable.  Upon what basis do you then make that decision?  That is my hard part in understanding where you are coming from.  

And not everyone here gets there facts from the internet.  I, for one, point to facts on the internet because it would be hard for them to try to verify, "well, one of my supervisors is on the FBI's Joint Terroism Task Force and he stated....."

Yes, perhaps for every fact you can find another that purports to contradict that fact.  But we cannot stagnate ourselves into indecision because we cannot have 100% reliabilty for information that we have.  Otherwise *nothing *will get done.

And I know people, too, who have had loved ones killed in WWII.  Both of my grandparent fought (and one injured in the battle of Iwo Jima) during that war.  I tear up everytime I hear a person talking who has had someone lost in Iraq.  I know people who've fought in Iraq and Somolia.  Please don't claim some special insight into the toll that wars and combat take on families and friends of the deceased and injured.  But that doesn't mean that those sacrafices weren't worthy or honorable.

It is my opinion that sometimes, the greater good can come from war (and "violence") then by any other means.  You tell me another way to have stopped Hitler.  I hate to see children spanked for running acroos the street without regard for traffic, but I know its for their own well being.

And you tell me how you *know *that the first Iraq War was about oil.  Why is it that you have this insight that not everyone shares?  I personally think its arrogant to speak of others as self-deluded when they don't agree with your particular viewpoint on this issue.

As a side note, I did, though indirectly, speak about the Lebanese, when I stated that terroists have been attacking the U.S. since the 1970's (Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon.  And it was a war that was fought.

Again, I want to make the point, as to some it may remain unclear.  I feel saddened at every loss in this, and any other war.  But sometimes these sacrifices are for the greater good, not only of an individual country, but perhaps the world as well.  And if we could do away with war and fighting, I would be more than happy.  Unfortunately, man has not evolved to that point yet, which is yet another reason why we all do martial arts.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

You may be the only person who doesn't think the Iraq war was about oil! To call me arrogant is a bit much considering that I may disagree with someones opinion but have no wish to force it upon anyone.
How do you decide anything in your life? How do you decide to buy a house? Do you decide by believing the sellers statistics? No you get as much information a you can, you get the house survey by someone you employ, you use your common sense and you make an informed decision. Before going to war you check the facts gained by your people. You use your common sense.I have had to take decisions in the past that have put peoples lives at risk, I didn't do it by looking up statistics and quoting them to prove my arguments for actions. 
I claim no special no special insight into losing people other than I lost my family in the war, I lost friends and colleagues in Doha, Northern Ireland (my fiance died there),Cyprus, Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. You look around my village and every family has had a grand parent, parent, uncle, aunt etc who was either injured or died in the Second World War. 
Join your countries armed forces and put your money where your mouth then come back and speak to us of noble sacrifices. it's fine for you to sit at your computer speaking of  the greater good and dying for noble cause, it's not you doing the dying. Iraq is not for the greater good.These sacrifices of our troops are made on the altar of money and oil with the knife wielded by the mutli national corporations.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 11, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> What disturbs me is the use of statistics to bolster an argument. Statistics are not the precise science that people would like to believe they are, nearly every set of statistics comes with an agenda.In short they prove nothing.


 
Again, I'll point out that it was *you* who made this about numbers by implying that I was disregarding the sacrifice of other nations such as yours. In the end, though, I'll still stand by what I said: the U.S. won World War II, and, while we had your help, we could well have done without it.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> The problems in the Middle East situation including Israel started a long time ago, just after the first World War when it was divided by the Allies into , for them, convenient countries. This caused wars between them that have carried on to this day. Anti western feeling has always been there.


 
Couldn't agree more. 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> The Americans killed in Lebanon haven't been mentioned, is that a war fought or a war not fought?


 
Obviously, it was a war fought-another in a long line of our troops beingwhere they didn't belong, or their masters not taking the threat to them seriously enough.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Afghans hate the fact that you weren't helping them because you believed in their freedom but because they were fighting your enemy? The first Iraq again wasn't about defending other Muslims, it was about OIL. it's self deluded of us to believe anything else.


 
Of course it was about oil-everything in the Middle East is about oil, or the control of it, or the control of the region. It's precisely why we kept Saddam in our pocket for so long, in spite of full knowledge of his evil nd depravity, and even sold him chemical weapons.He did, however, invade another Muslim country (almost at our behest, but that's another story) and we did go into that war at the request of Kuwait and the U.N.




			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> I know what I think as I wave off another coach load of young soldiers on their way to RAF Brize Norton to fly off to Iraq and I know what I think when the same aircraft fly back into Brize with their coffins.No amount of American rhetoric about American being the best country in the world, the best democracy, the best for everyone comforts the bereaved.


 
Your passion serves you well, and I share some of it. I'll repeat (in case you've missed it) that I think invading Iraq is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done. _It is a war that was better not fought._

I'd add, though, that our little Internet debate here began with your not simply disagreeing with me, but refuting my *facts*, vis a vis, Viet Nam and Cambodia, for example, or the imposition of democracy upon Germany and Japan. I then presented the historical facts that support my position-facts that you've not only done nothing to refute, but have simply ignored. This is the true essence of debate, not, as your position here seems to be: _"I feel that you're wrong, so *you're wrong."*_



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> I have met many Americans, thank god, who don't push this missionary line. *<snip!.* I can't discuss the numbers dispassionately, my mother was the only survivor of her family from the concentration camps. So america sent us money, that was gratefully recieved but you have no idea what it was like to have to rebuild your life after losing everything in the Blitz. You comdemn the Muslims in the Middle East but you have no idea what their lives are like, you just berate them for not wanting the American way of life. Compassion and empathy would stop more mores starting, that and smaller egos.


 
I can see how you think I'm pushing a missionary line-trust me, it's the last thing I'd do. Frankly, my superiors say I think too much about things like alternatives to war as a form of politics, about other ways that our objectives in terms of foreign polict might be used. I think about how it is that the most powerful (militarily and in terms of use of resources) country in the world doesn't have the wherewithal to think through policies that don't require the use of that power, or consideration for what comes next. Frankly, considering the state of Iraq prior to invading it, I've thought of dozens of actions we could have taken  that wouls not have lost nearly so much money, so many lives-both military and civilianp-and, of course, the support and respect of the world. In the end, it's all about money, and one has to consider the economic side of things, which is what my post was really about-with historical support, that, as I said, you've done little to refute.

You have all of my empathy for your family's experiences during the war. On of the very best teachers and friends  I ever had was a child in a concentration camp, and another friends parents were teenagers in the Dutch Resistance. My father in law was a war refugee as well, and even at 70 still shows deep emotional pain from the experience. 

I'd also point out that I too have lost friends and colleagues, and that friends and colleagues have lost children. That I knew too many people in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, and, that I have been almost everywhere, as I said-I've been to several Middle Eastern  countries, and I don't (and haven't) condemn any Muslims, or their nations. Nor do I berate them for not wanting the "American way of life"-heck, I'm wealthy enough to have any kind of life I want, and *I* don't want the "American way of life," from some of the things I've seen of it. Fortunately, though, my country affords me the ability to pretty much live my life any way I like, a choice that even the wealthy don't have in some Middle Eastern countries, and that's what makes America-for the time being-best in my opinion.

Lastly, it was just ideas. I have a condo in Cabo San Lucas,Mexico-it's where I've kept my boat for the last 14 years or so-ever since I moved to New Mexico.I was there just this past October for the first time in a while-work keeps both my wife and myself extremely busy, and all other vacations have been somewhat more immediate. When we got there, I was surprised to see a Home Depot, and to be told that there was going to be a Wal-Mart in a few months time. This-to me-is an excellent example of what's boh wrong and right with capitalism (getting back on topic). While many of the people who live there are glad to have the jobs that these businesses represent,  the inability of smaller usiness to compete, as well as what it means to the area culturally-the continuing Americanization of a place that once had good quiet life and its own cultural flavor, are sad to me, and make me ashamed-almost as ashamed as I am of the war in Iraq, and some of my country's feeling and beliefs about Muslims, which, as I've already said, I do not share...though, I have to admit the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Abu Dhabi is the best in the world..:lol2::lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

Elder, my comments about statistics was directed specifically at 5-0 kenpo, who takes a different view from you on the Iraqi war. I haven't refuted your facts on Germany and Japan what I did was point out that you didn't impose democracy on them. they lost the war and had democracy imposed on them by the winners of that war. I was keeping off the subject of the second world war deliberatly after the comments from Blotan Hunka

Quote:
5-0 Kenpo, I agree Britain was months away from defeat, but then we'd been fighting Germany and Japan for over 2 years before the US graced us with her presence. 
BTW, how did that go for ya? Unquote

I don't mind debates but that was a strange remark to make.
As for saying you could have won the war without us that's a riduculous and petty thing to say. You would have had a hard time bombing Germany and launching the D Day landings from America rather than Britain. It was a joint effort everyone concerned should be proud of don't devalue it by saying _you could have done have well done without us_, that implies you wish we had been invaded by the Germans! 
I could agree with you about Vietnam and Cambodia but then we'd both be wrong. Sorry. 
Your views aren't shared by your countryman 5-0 Kenpo and it was he who had upset us! It will be a surprise to him that someone else shares my view about oil and the Iraqi war.
I've not been to Abu Dhabi but my daughter is working in Dubai. She keeps phoning to say she's off to the beach and how warm it is while I freeze in the middle of winter's rain, cold and winds. I think I shall have to visit her _very_ soon!


----------



## elder999 (Dec 11, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> As for saying you could have won the war without us that's a riduculous and petty thing to say. You would have had a hard time bombing Germany and launching the D Day landings from America rather than Britain. It was a joint effort everyone concerned should be proud of don't devalue it by saying _you could have done have well done without us_, that implies you wish we had been invaded by the Germans!


 
Well, I didn't mean to imply as much-in fact, it's a stretch to say that it does, but that's okay, we still could have done it without you.Fact is, we did it with your help-thanks.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> I could agree with yo u about Vietnam and Cambodia but then we'd both be wrong. Sorry.


 
Wrong how? See, that's very glib of you, but it hardly refutes my statment of the facts in any way. If it didn't happen that way, enlighten me as to how?



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Your views aren't shared by your countryman 5-0 Kenpo and it was he who had upset us! It will be a surprise to him that someone else shares my view about oil and the Iraqi war.


 
Pretty certain he's from Missouri or someplace like that-hardly makes him a countryman at all, really.:lol:

As for your view about he Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz pretty well summed it up:



> "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason,"


 
Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with _Vanity Fair_. See it  here, in USA Today

Of course,we  Americans are notorious for ignoring facts in the face of truth...



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> I've not been to Abu Dhabi but my daughter is working in Dubai. She keeps phoning to say she's off to the beach and how warm it is while I freeze in the middle of winter's rain, cold and winds. I think I shall have to visit her _very_ soon!


 
Ask her about the chicken....:lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 12, 2006)

> You may be the only person who doesn't think the Iraq war was about oil!


 
I know lots of people who believe that the war is about terroism and not oil.  They would all agree, including myself, that a giant strategic interest in the region is oil, but that is not the same as saying the war itself is about oil.



> To call me arrogant is a bit much considering that I may disagree with someones opinion but have no wish to force it upon anyone.


 
I never said that you were arrogant.  What I said was that if you believe that someone is self-deluded because they don't share your point of view, *then* that is an arrogant view, whether you try to force your opinion on them or now.




> How do you decide anything in your life? How do you decide to buy a house? Do you decide by believing the sellers statistics? No you get as much information a you can, you get the house survey by someone you employ, you use your common sense and you make an informed decision. Before going to war you check the facts gained by your people. You use your common sense.


 
I would sugget that you indeed use statistics to buy a house.  I'll show you:

1.  Is the house in a safe neighborhood.  I find this out by going to the local constabulary to find out the amount of crime that occurs.  This is a statistic.

2.  Perhaps I have children and want to know the quality of the schools.  I look at the schools to see what are the number of Ivy league colleges graduates get into.  What is the average grade point average of the student body?  These are statistics.

3.  How much is the home worth compared to others in the surrounding area?  How much is it worth in the county?  This is a statistical comparison.

How you get these fact is up to debate.  You could ask your friends if its a quiet neighborhood, but they are likely to compare it to other neighborhoods.  This is a form of informal statistics, without exact numbers to be sure though.  

And just as a point, I think you do use statistics in your argument, just without basis or support, which I believe, you have made up.  For example:

A.  "The point about US culture, was merely to point out that no-body besides Americans wants it."

Where does this come from.  Some sort of survey.  Some type of report.  It's a statistic in laymans terms of, "4 out of 5 people reject the American way of life."  That would be a statistic.

B.  "being proud of being an American is good, you should be, it's not a perfect country, who's is, but please understand we also have the right to be proud of our countries and for the most part most of us like our way of life."

How do you know that "most of us like our way of life."  An informal survey among friends, perhaps.  This is a statistic.

The point being, you do use statistics, whether you realize it or not.



> I have had to take decisions in the past that have put peoples lives at risk, I didn't do it by looking up statistics and quoting them to prove my arguments for actions.


 
I don't know what your job is, but statistics are a part of everyday life, including work.  I'm sure that you used some type of probability matrix in your justification.  These are made off of past information.  That information must be presented in a logical fashion.  Statistics. 




> I claim no special no special insight into losing people other than I lost my family in the war, I lost friends and colleagues in Doha, Northern Ireland (my fiance died there),Cyprus, Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. You look around my village and every family has had a grand parent, parent, uncle, aunt etc who was either injured or died in the Second World War.



The way that you have expressed yourself in past posts is that because I do not agree with your viewpoint, I must not know anything about the suffering that has occurred in combat/wars.  If that was not your intent, then so be it.



> Join your countries armed forces and put your money where your mouth then come back and speak to us of noble sacrifices. it's fine for you to sit at your computer speaking of the greater good and dying for noble cause, it's not you doing the dying. Iraq is not for the greater good.These sacrifices of our troops are made on the altar of money and oil with the knife wielded by the mutli national corporations.


 

And this strikes to the heart of my above statement.  You know nothing about me.  You don't know whether I have served in the armed forces or not.  Without asking, you have made an assumption about me that you can't substantiate in any way.  This is how you have made your arguments in every case.

Which is why, unless you use facts, statistics, or even logic to substantiate your position, why should anyone consider what you say?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Perhaps I should have made my point simpker, you use nymbers to justify what you are doing. You proved my point when you said how you would buy a house, you'd go out and use intelligence gathered by someone you trust, not look us figures on the internet.
To say "I believe" and "I think" in a sentence denotes my point of view, if I said "it is or it was" without denoting it is my personal point of view then that could be called arrogant.
It was not my intent to say that you nothing about suffering rather that you are doing exactly what kensai and I said you were doing, being insensitive to other countries feelings. 
I have already said I do not believe war should be discussed dispassionately! On the Vietnam subject, what did America bring to it that was better than they have now? War, massacres, rapes, drugs and Agent Orange from which children are still being born deformed now and people dying of agent orange induced cancers.
This is not a subject to be dissected dispassionately, we should be raging!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 12, 2006)

> Perhaps I should have made my point simpker, you use nymbers to justify what you are doing. You proved my point when you said how you would buy a house, you'd go out and use intelligence gathered by someone you trust, not look us figures on the internet.


 
In no way did I prove your point.  You stated that you would not use statistics to buy a house.  I showed that you will, whether you get those statistics via a person or the internet.  I can do home price comparisons on the internet.  I can look up crime statistics on the internet.  I can look up school statistics on the internet.  Or go to the library if you prefer.  I do not necessarily have to go to an actual human being to discover this information.

But as I said before, *you* have no way of going to my local library.  You have no way of speaking with the people that I trust, nor would you necessarily trust them anyway.  The only thing that I can give you that you can look up for yourself is on the internet, which is why I provide those sources to you.



> To say "I believe" and "I think" in a sentence denotes my point of view, if I said "it is or it was" without denoting it is my personal point of view then that could be called arrogant.


 
This was the exact sentence you used to which I called arrogant:  "The first Iraq again wasn't about defending other Muslims, it was about OIL. it's self deluded of us to believe anything else."

Where in it do you say "I believe" or "I think"?  You don't.  And besides, arrogance means making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights.  That is exactly what you did by saying to believe anything else (other than what *you *think) is self-deluding.



> It was not my intent to say that you nothing about suffering rather that you are doing exactly what kensai and I said you were doing, being insensitive to other countries feelings.


 
Again, where do you get this idea that I am insensitive to the feelings of the populace of another country?  When speaking of their feelings, I admittedly made a simplistic argument, knowing that taking a measure of another's feeling should be taken into consideration.  But *only *if it furthers the goals and longevity of my own.  I am speaking from the point of view of a government official, not as a private citizen.  I can only make considerations as a public official so much, and definately not at the cost of my own populace.  Otherwise I would be neglectful in my duties.

I am wiling to take the feelings of the populace of another country into consideration.  Perhaps by doing so, we can better resolve conflicts.  However, I don't think this to be the case in the Middle East in general, or Iraq in particular.

They have said that they want to destroy America.  They have said that they will stop at nothing less than its complete annihalation.  We can argue what led up to this point, a beginning that started almost 60 years ago with the establishment of the nation of Israel, but what would be the point?  I can understand that, from their perspective, that they have a reason to be upset.  But where does that leave us* now*.  Even if they destroy Isreal, they will continue their terrorism until the whole world is Islamic.  These are their own words.  And we cannot now undo the creation of Israel either.  So where should we go?

And again, you continue to make assumptions about me with no information.  You have yet to even ask me whether I have served in the military,  I believe because this would cause you to have to possibly retract statements made to which you have already commited, and you are unwilling to do so.



> I have already said I do not believe war should be discussed dispassionately! On the Vietnam subject, what did America bring to it that was better than they have now? War, massacres, rapes, drugs and Agent Orange from which children are still being born deformed now and people dying of agent orange induced cancers.
> This is not a subject to be dissected dispassionately, we should be raging!


 
War is not a subject to be discussed dispassionately.  But, whereas you believe you have a passion against the war, I have a passion that says its a just war.  Now, its time to curtail that passion a bit so that we can have a productive discussion, look at facts and figures, and see who's cause has a greater justification.  

I can do that.... can you, or anyone else who has your same beliefs?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

How simple it is for you. I envy that simplicity. You play with words and get self righteous. There can be no meaningful discussions when you go in with your army first.
You are not willing to tell the difference between intelligence and numbers.
You assume that I am interested in you and whether you have served in the forces. I am not.
You assume that Israel solely is the cause of the unrest in the Middle East when in fact it happened long before that after the First World War.
Why would you take the point of view of a government official and not your own views?
Are you planning to bomb into annilation everyone that says they hate America?
Why invade Iraq when Syria payrolls the terrorists that are threatening us?
What makes you so positive they will take over the world?
Damn right I'm unwilling to retract any statements made, wouldn't have said them in the first place if I hadn't meant them. It doesn't mean I'm right it means that's my opinion. why would I waver backwards and forwards according to what you say is proof? I 'm happy to listen to otheres but I reserve the right to change my mind or_ not._


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 12, 2006)

> How simple it is for you. I envy that simplicity. You play with words and get self righteous.


 
There was no play on words.  I used there exact definition, and was very precise in everything I stated.



> There can be no meaningful discussions when you go in with your army first.


 
True, but recognize that sometimes there is not time for discussions.  And also, discussions (ten years of discussions with Iraq, and the U.N.) don't necessarily produce results. 



> You are not willing to tell the difference between intelligence and numbers.


 
There you go making assumptions again.  I clearly stated "statistics and other facts," a point which you carelessly, time and again gloss over.  And you are unwilling to realize that numbers can be intelligence.



> You assume that I am interested in you and whether you have served in the forces. I am not.


 
Then don't make statements like, "join your country's armed forces."  Its assumptive and irrelevant.  Don't make statements you can't back up.



> You assume that Israel solely is the cause of the unrest in the Middle East when in fact it happened long before that after the First World War.


 
You are assuming that is what I believe.  I will state that it is the modern reason for a lot of the conflict in that region.  Religion and tribal violence being another.  I could go back into antiquity, but what would be the point.



> Why would you take the point of view of a government official and not your own views?


 
I am taking my own views _as though I had a country to protect._



> Are you planning to bomb into annilation everyone that says they hate America?


 
No, but then, nothing I said should have led you to that conclusion.  Oh, wait, I disagree with you on this war, so I must love and cherish war, right?



> Why invade Iraq when Syria payrolls the terrorists that are threatening us?


 
At this point, even if I told you my opinion, you wouldn't hear it anyway.



> What makes you so positive they will take over the world?


 
Who said that I thought that they would.  I said that is their stated goal.



> Damn right I'm unwilling to retract any statements made, wouldn't have said them in the first place if I hadn't meant them. It doesn't mean I'm right it means that's my opinion.


 
You are trying to pass off your opinion as fact, as evidenced by the way you make your statements.



> why would I waver backwards and forwards according to what you say is proof?


 
At this point, you wouldn't change your mind if I had absolute proof of anything.  You have made that clear now.



> I'm happy to listen to otheres but I reserve the right to change my mind or_ not._


 
But nothing would ever change your mind, would it?


Now I'll try to revert this back onto topic.  For what reasons would you go to war?


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2006)

Thread closed pending review

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## Lisa (Dec 12, 2006)

*ATTENTION ALL POSTERS:

This thread has been reported to the moderating team on a few occassions.  There have been two in thread moderator warnings asking for a return to topic that have gone ignored.    The discussion of opinion, feelings and statistics has much to do with supporting or not supporting war and the topic of war in general, we simply ask that you refrain from any personal shots that will lead this thread off topic.

This is a final warning.  We are reopening this thread on a trial basis.  Should this thread be reported again it will be permanently locked and further action taken against those individuals.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator


*


----------



## Marginal (Dec 12, 2006)

To spin this out back into the realm of comfy abstration, really the wars that work best are ones that are fought for a clear reason from a soild moral high ground. Wars fought for indeterminate reasons with a murky moral basis may be successful or not, but they'll routinely be unpopular in history's eye. 

For example, who can clearly say "The good guys won" about WW1? It was basically a war of national entanglements/obligations. One side wasn't inherently evil. Compare that to WWII...


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 13, 2006)

This is nothing to do with the topic of the thread so please forgive me.  It is just to clarify some inaccurate information posted earlier in the thread with regard to 'lend-lease'.

It is surprising to me that the misconception still persists that Lend-Lease was essentially a 'gift'.  Some countries may not have paid back what America donated to fund others ability to fight but Britain did.

We made our last payment on lend-lease in December 2005.  Note that not only have we repaid lend-lease but also the loans taken out when lend-lease was stopped.  Further, lend-lease, as well as being a purely financial transaction involved Britain giving America, cost and patent free, such inventions as radar, amongst many others, the commercial value of which was incalculable (as in "huge").

Like I said, not on topic per se but the Net promulgates too much that is inaccurate and apocryphal as it is {wikipedia has a lot to answer for :lol:}.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 13, 2006)

Marginal said:


> To spin this out back into the realm of comfy abstration, really the wars that work best are ones that are fought for a clear reason from a soild moral high ground. Wars fought for indeterminate reasons with a murky moral basis may be successful or not, but they'll routinely be unpopular in history's eye.
> 
> For example, who can clearly say "The good guys won" about WW1? It was basically a war of national entanglements/obligations. One side wasn't inherently evil. Compare that to WWII...



I agree. A country must be clear about it's objectives and have a clear path to obtaining those objectives.  Without that, a war is doomed to failure.

I think, though, that you have to be careful with speaking about the moral high ground.  Moral from who's perspective?  I will say that the U.S. has never won a war that it the people have considered morally ambiguous.  But history is replete with victories by armies whose objectives would not be considered moral (by today's understanding anyway).


----------



## elder999 (Dec 13, 2006)

Marginal said:


> To spin this out back into the realm of comfy abstration, really the wars that work best are ones that are fought for a clear reason from a soild moral high ground. Wars fought for indeterminate reasons with a murky moral basis may be successful or not, but they'll routinely be unpopular in history's eye.
> 
> For example, who can clearly say "The good guys won" about WW1? It was basically a war of national entanglements/obligations. One side wasn't inherently evil. Compare that to WWII...


 

On the other hand, we had "clear objectives," during our decades-long Cold War with the former Soviet Union, no buildiings were destroyed (except for an embassy that got bugged), no innocent women and children were killed, and, in fact, the only "civilian" casualties on our side were those who, like me, grew up in the age of "duck and cover" and were psychic hostages to mutually assured destruction. The costs were, n the end, largely unavoidable, and the damages normally associated with warfare were nil-though many people did die, and the war did turn hot from time to time-they weren't on the level of WWIII, or WWII, or even WWI. And, of course, you could say that we won..I'd still maintain that the wars that are not fought are best.

We also had "clear objectives" that were acheived in Iraq: we removed Saddam from power and did it without causing too much damgage to Iraq's oil fields-at first, anyway, and even though the stated objective was to remove WMD from the hands of a madman, even though we were fairly certain that he didn't have any. We "installed" a democracy, for all that's worth. And, to hear the president, our administration, and some here tell it, the Iraq war was fought from a "solid moral high ground"-to paraphrase Mr. 5-0 Kepo, _how's that working out for us?_


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 13, 2006)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, we had "clear objectives," during our decades-long Cold War with the former Soviet Union, no buildiings were destroyed (except for an embassy that got bugged), no innocent women and children were killed, and, in fact, the only "civilian" casualties on our side were those who, like me, grew up in the age of "duck and cover" and were psychic hostages to mutually assured destruction. The costs were, n the end, largely unavoidable, and the damages normally associated with warfare were nil-though many people did die, and the war did turn hot from time to time-they weren't on the level of WWIII, or WWII, or even WWI. And, of course, you could say that we won..I'd still maintain that the wars that are not fought are best.
> 
> We also had "clear objectives" that were acheived in Iraq: we removed Saddam from power and did it without causing too much damgage to Iraq's oil fields-at first, anyway, and even though the stated objective was to remove WMD from the hands of a madman, even though we were fairly certain that he didn't have any. We "installed" a democracy, for all that's worth. And, to hear the president, our administration, and some here tell it, the Iraq war was fought from a "solid moral high ground"-to paraphrase Mr. 5-0 Kepo, _how's that working out for us?_


 

That's interesting, because I didn't say that....


----------



## elder999 (Dec 13, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That's interesting, because I didn't say that....


 

Oh, sorry-my bad. The question still stands, though, even if Mr. Blotan Hunka was the one who uttered it,,


----------



## Marginal (Dec 13, 2006)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, we had "clear objectives," during our decades-long Cold War with the former Soviet Union, no buildiings were destroyed (except for an embassy that got bugged), no innocent women and children were killed, and, in fact, the only "civilian" casualties on our side were those who, like me, grew up in the age of "duck and cover" and were psychic hostages to mutually assured destruction.


I wouldn't say the cold war was bloodless. Viet Nam, Korea, Afghanistan etc all had hot engagements of dubious strategic value. 



> And, of course, you could say that we won..I'd still maintain that the wars that are not fought are best.


 
The wars that should be fought are the ones that are unavoidable. Not every confrontation is. 



> We also had "clear objectives" that were acheived in Iraq:


 
I don't beleive this. The objectives changed weekly. Supporting UN resolutions? Really? (The UN disagreed IIRC) WMD's? Really? (Slam dunk yellow cake? Mushroom clouds?) Thwarting the terrorists? (No link between the two prior to the invasion.) Spreading Freedom? Well, that's just ducky. Rebranding it to the continuing struggle against global extremism for a few days... Yep, our objectives are crystal clear. 



> And, to hear the president, our administration, and some here tell it, the Iraq war was fought from a "solid moral high ground"-to paraphrase Mr. 5-0 Kepo, _how's that working out for us?_


 
What moral high ground? A failed easy win for quickie political capital? While some folks love to spin out the tale of the spookey islamofacists, compare that to WW2 where the opposistion was actively slaughtering groups of people and actually trying to take over the world and making serious on the ground, what's going on in the middle east now doens't rate.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

> "The point about US culture, was merely to point out that no-body besides Americans wants it."



Thats easy enough to disprove, just show the balance books of American movie, music, clothing, food and television companies. Countries are buying up our "culture" at a staggering rate. Thats the problem amongst the conservatives of those nations.


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats easy enough to disprove, just show the balance books of American movie, music, clothing, food and television companies. Countries are buying up our "culture" at a staggering rate. Thats the problem amongst the conservatives of those nations.



yes, the one thing america still has a lead in exports is culture. and the rightwingers in other countries despise it.  crazy american hip hop music has become the gel in youth cultures from singapore to new delhi. americanized chain restaurants, movie making, TV and pop music-- folks around the world love all things american.

except George W. Bush.

him... they don't like.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 15, 2006)

I really don't know how to respond to the above couple of posts .

The export of American 'culture' largely consists of the brainwashing effects of Hollywood and MTV acting like constant advertising and so moulding the world view of impressionable people.

It is not just rightwingers who have serious doubts as to whether or not that is a good thing.  

Chopin, Shakespeare, Cezanne, Da Vinci, Van Gogh ... those are examples of culture/art.  MacDonalds, gun crime and rappers are not.

Sorry for the emotive blathering there but that touched a nerve :blush:.

I may come back and delete this later when I've had time to think about it ... then again, it might as well be me (as a newcomer) that gets a 'slap' for off-topic ranting than someone more established here.

Maybe it's a good subject for another thread tho' i.e. what is American Culture and is it's spread beneficial or baneful to the general 'level' of culture in the world?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 15, 2006)

I never said it was a good thing. I dont like the rap, hip hop culture HERE. Unfortunately, I dont see any way of really doing anything about it without trampling all over peoples freedoms.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 15, 2006)

A true conumdrum there, *Blotan*.

It certainly can appear to be a case of one mans meat being another mans poison, as the old saying goes.

Of course, the countervailing argument that applies is that just because someone has the freedom to do something doesn't mean that they should do it ... such as those people that drive around in small cars with stereos more powerful than the engine and pollute my freedom to peace and quiet.

Anyhow, we're wandering way off here ... sorry, my fault.


----------



## Kensai (Jan 12, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats easy enough to disprove, just show the balance books of American movie, music, clothing, food and television companies. Countries are buying up our "culture" at a staggering rate. Thats the problem amongst the conservatives of those nations.



There are equally many people who see it as eroding their own indigenous ways. Some hardline Islamic cultures in particular.

Me? I quite like a nice Mc-d's when I've got 20 minutes for lunch. Although for whatever reason, I'm always hungry again about half an hour later.

Sukerkin, whereabouts in Staffs are you? Roughly speaking.


----------

