Which Wars Work Best?

[Tez3]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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]

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]

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.

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?

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thread closed pending review

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod

 

[Lisa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.