Perfect War?

[meesterperfect]

I thought I addressed your post as to why is this war being held to such a (unfair) higher standard. That was your question. I guess I really didnt understand afterall.
I didnt use phrases like shear stupidity,complete incompetence, and the whole foundation for the war to be false.
Because yes Saddam wasnt a threat, didnt have chemical and biological weapons, and never used them before.He wasnt a threat, to anyone.
And yes, The administration should have known that after taking out Saddam that thousands of religious fanatics were going to flock to Bagdad to **** as many civilians and soldiers as they could.
But once that did start happening they should have ran like hell, or maybe used diplomacy.
It don't matter anyway, soon Bush will be gone,The Clintons will be in charge again, and the people who have vowed to **** the infedel, the non believers, and have the resources and motivation to do so will have the freedom to do just that. After all who's gonna stop them.

And who knows, If the Country under the incompitent and stupid Bush administration didn't go on the offense, instead of just waiting for the next ****** and captured or shut down many top terrorist leaders as they did, then maybe we couldnt even be talking about this now.Maybe we'd be dead.
No more war posts for me, I get too depressed.

 

[KittyKat]

I don't usually get involved in these kind of threads, but...

Even World War II, which may have had the most justified reasons of any war, was far from flawless.

War is called HELL for a reason. If war were fun, if war were a picnic, then it wouldn't be something to be avoided.

I agree with you 100%.

World War II was definitely not flawless. Politicians made glaring blunders. One of the biggest being Neville Chamberlain claiming Hitler was absolutely no threat. How about the irony in that? But I digress.

There has never been and never will be a perfect war. War is messy. War is unpredictable and war evolves.

I too get pissed off with the criticisms of the war in Iraq. That is not to say I agree unwaveringly with the policies and tactics employed.

But there have always been criticisms of war. I agree with Roguewolf why is this one so different? All the blunders have been broadcast on tv. That's why. War is fought not only on the battlegrounds but also in the media. Just another sign of war evolving...

and now I'm bordering on a rant lol:o

To the question, I agree with Roguewolf once again, there can never be a 'perfect war', there can only be a 'Just war'.

 

[Roughneck]

ckjedi: That quote is actually Erwin Rommel's. It is often misatributed to Patton.

back in those days i bet they were not bashing the president. the people were behind him for the most part.

Yes IAF is correct, most of it is the Media. They know bad news sells, doom and gloom sells. Conspiracy theories sell.

Bull.

Obviously you lot have never read news papers after battles like Betio and Iwo Jima. The graphic photographs of slaughtered Marines enraged America.

Or how about the lurid headlines after climatic battles such as Sharpsburg or Bull Run during the War Between the States (aka Civil War)? Why do you think Lincoln had a hard time during his second run at Presidency and how if Grant hadn't captured Atlanta, he was sure to have lost?


The media has never changed.
Peoples perception of what they expect - has.

As our republic ages, people are losing their stomach for sustaining casualties in wars which serve no one but the State.

This to me - a staunch adherent to the non-aggression principle - can only mean good!


cheers,

 

[meesterperfect]

Yes Roughneck I bet that did enrage America, no doubt about that.
But I think the rage was towards the Japanese, who attacked us and did sick things to our soldiers. Not towards Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower.
The media hasnt changed? This is one of the few times I gotta disagree with you. cheers also.

 

[meesterperfect]

World War II was definitely not flawless. Politicians made glaring blunders. One of the biggest being Neville Chamberlain claiming Hitler was absolutely no threat. How about the irony in that? But I digress..

That is true, that supports my feeling. Although that happened before Germany attacked Britian. But what if instead Britian and the U.S. invaded Germany in 38 or 39?.Took out Hitler before most of the carnage. Perhaps it would have prevented alot of suffering and death.

 

[Legzman]

Yes Roughneck I bet that did enrage America, no doubt about that.
But I think the rage was towards the Japanese, who attacked us and did sick things to our soldiers. Not towards Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower.
The media hasnt changed? This is one of the few times I gotta disagree with you. cheers also.

Yea things are a lot different when your pissed at the president for being so fuckin stupid as well! Premium Link Upgrade

Lewis Black sums up my feelings about the whole thing perfectly!

 

[Roughneck]

Not towards Roosevelt or Truman or Eisenhower.

Sorry, you're very much mistaken.

For example: Just ask Robert Sherrod (or read his books).

The media hasnt changed? This is one of the few times I gotta disagree with you. cheers also.

Read up on the Copperheads and George Brinton McClellan during the so called "Civil War". Or read how the "Spanish American War" was "sold" to the US public. There are examples legion throughout US history.

You might change your opinion.


cheers,

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I may regret starting this thread...but here goes.

(Maybe I'll be like some of my gym teachers from grade school, just throw a few balls out there, then just sit back and watch) :o


All this being said, I don't condone everything about this war. I have questions and concerns about any armed conflict. And the longer it goes on, the more questions and concerns I have. But why is this war being held to such a (unfair) higher standard?

I've had all of this on my mind a lot lately, and all of you get to hear me rant about it.

Only difference between other wars and this particular war you are refering to, IMHO, is: "No war in the past was started with a falsehood." Not even 2nd world war. Pretense was present but not "out and out lie".

 

[dick van cock]

edit* bs

 

[tunsty]

I suppose if you mean 'perfect' as in no deaths, then the cold war surely was up there.
The term was more analagous than actual...
yes, I know people did die as a result of the 'cold war', but it was more through covert espionage and assassinations etc.

Bear in mind that there was never actually a war (ie: exchange of missles etc...although the Cuban missle crisis was a close one)

 

[Roughneck]

Bear in mind that there was never actually a war (ie: exchange of missles etc...although the Cuban missle crisis was a close one)

Uhhh, I beg to differ.

The "Korean War" (entire regiments of the PLA fought in that war) and the "Vietnam War" (company sized units of Soviet troops fought as "observers") was very much a part and parcel of the "Cold War".

If you thought Soviet troops didn't fight American troops - think again.


cheers,

 

[D-rock]

That is true, that supports my feeling. Although that happened before Germany attacked Britian. But what if instead Britian and the U.S. invaded Germany in 38 or 39?.Took out Hitler before most of the carnage. Perhaps it would have prevented alot of suffering and death.

That's seems to be a pretty dangerous strategy. By that reasoning we should already be invading North Korea, China, and Iran for what they might do in the future. Unless there is absolute pristine evidence of an incredible and imminent harm to your country, launching a preemptive strike probably has as great of a chance of putting you in a stupid situation like what we have in Iraq, when really there wasn't any significant danger to warrant it. It isn't realistic to just go out and take on every evil dictator or totalitarian nation in the world. The Iraq situation is even worse. The evidence for the reasoning for going to battle with them was pretty chincy. Like I said this wasn't a good strategy and plan that was absolutely needed that just went wrong. This is an incident where we are hemorrhaging lives because of a handful of peoples' that are in charge stupidly.

 

[ThatRedWing]

Premium Link Upgrade
The liberal media and the democrats continually say that nothing was ever found. But I have friends that were over there and a couple who came back in caskets and the ones who came back alive assure me that weapons were found. Bush had the balls to go in there he just doesn't have the brains to plan anything more complicated than a Lincoln Log cabin (and he would probably forget the door). If Clinton would have done it the media would have been kissing his ass telling him how smart he was. It all depends on personal agendas.

 

[meesterperfect]

Yes D I hear ya and understand your points, At this point I want the ****** out of Iraq also. Because it seems like its never gonna work out in an optimistic "everythings gonna be ok" end result, and its sad, and scary. Because now the consequences may be much worse than ever.
I'm gonna use the word if a few times.
If, and its a big if,after we got rid of Saddam, which literally only took a few days, the country, the people of Iraq took control of its destiny, formed a functioning goverment that worked with a good economic and military defense structure and maintaned it without much help from the U.S. and Britain. Well then it would have been a great thing, for the people of Iraq and the whole world. I mean Saddam was a totalitarian mass ********* dictator.
But it didnt go so smooth to say the least.At least We tried, Bush tried, and our soldiers tried.
I'm not gonna joined the mob and call him stupid or incompitent, because I feel the administration did all it could to make it work, but we cant go on trying forever I know.
I mean the Bush administration did shut down and slow down many terrorist groups or cels or whatever name is correct. It did capture or **** many top dogs, And I'm sure these things did prevent another ****** thus far. Not many acknowledge that.
1 more If. "It isn't realistic to just go out and take on every evil dictator or totalitarian nation in the world". Very true. The U.S. is not that strong. It can't stop aggression or probable future aggression everywhere by itself.
But IF the countries of the world united, and the U.N did what it was intended to do and worked together to get rid of aggressive dictators it would be a good thing,the people of the world would be safer,To me this just seems logical. but again, it aint gonna happen.

I **** to sound like Grim Jim, but I wish the citizens of earth would realize its not a question of if its gonna happen, Its where and when, and then what.Yes In am worried.

 

[KittyKat]

Uhhh, I beg to differ.

The "Korean War" (entire regiments of the PLA fought in that war) and the "Vietnam War" (company sized units of Soviet troops fought as "observers") was very much a part and parcel of the "Cold War".

If you thought Soviet troops didn't fight American troops - think again.


cheers,

I agree.

As for...I think it was Pussy and Dick Denice's post (sorry, I haven't figured out how to mutiple quote!:o )...about no war was started with a falsehood.

There were many reasons why everyone went to war in 1939, and they were not PURELY altruistic. Coming from the other side, Hitler didn't go to war purely because he was a madman with an ego complex. Although he may have CLAIMED the war was ideological. There are tons of pressing economic factors that pushed Germany forward.

Most wars start with a lie if you look close enough.

 

[Red Spyder]

That is true, that supports my feeling. Although that happened before Germany attacked Britian. But what if instead Britian and the U.S. invaded Germany in 38 or 39?.Took out Hitler before most of the carnage. Perhaps it would have prevented alot of suffering and death.

I think if the U.S. and the U.K. had invaded Germany in 38 or 39 they would have been demonized as starting an ******* war of aggression.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I agree.

As for...I think it was Pussy and Dick Denice's post (sorry, I haven't figured out how to mutiple quote!:o )...about no war was started with a falsehood.

There were many reasons why everyone went to war in 1939, and they were not PURELY altruistic. Coming from the other side, Hitler didn't go to war purely because he was a madman with an ego complex. Although he may have CLAIMED the war was ideological. There are tons of pressing economic factors that pushed Germany forward.

Most wars start with a lie if you look close enough.

I did say 'pretense', Kitty. As you rightly said, economic factors were camouflaged with pretenses, but those were not lies. Skirmishes were started and then the blame game. Then escalation to war.

In the present case both the leading personalities "agreed" that they went ahead on " Premium Link Upgrade Premium Link Upgrade "

A direct Quote from the book:

"In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.

It is an expert's opinion. And there was the final report of CIA on WMD at Iraq. Do I have to say more?

I think if the U.S. and the U.K. had invaded Germany in 38 or 39 they would have been demonized as starting an ******* war of aggression.

You are right. Actually, IMO, the unprovoked aggression is a dictatorial tendency.

Yes D I hear ya and understand your points, At this point I want the ****** out of Iraq also. Because it seems like its never gonna work out in an optimistic "everythings gonna be ok" end result, and its sad, and scary. Because now the consequences may be much worse than ever.
I'm gonna use the word if a few times.
If, and its a big if,after we got rid of Saddam, which literally only took a few days, the country, the people of Iraq took control of its destiny, formed a functioning goverment that worked with a good economic and military defense structure and maintaned it without much help from the U.S. and Britain. Well then it would have been a great thing, for the people of Iraq and the whole world. I mean Saddam was a totalitarian mass ********* dictator.
But it didnt go so smooth to say the least.At least We tried, Bush tried, and our soldiers tried.
I'm not gonna joined the mob and call him stupid or incompitent, because I feel the administration did all it could to make it work, but we cant go on trying forever I know.
I mean the Bush administration did shut down and slow down many terrorist groups or cels or whatever name is correct. It did capture or **** many top dogs, And I'm sure these things did prevent another ****** thus far. Not many acknowledge that.
1 more If. "It isn't realistic to just go out and take on every evil dictator or totalitarian nation in the world". Very true. The U.S. is not that strong. It can't stop aggression or probable future aggression everywhere by itself.
But IF the countries of the world united, and the U.N did what it was intended to do and worked together to get rid of aggressive dictators it would be a good thing,the people of the world would be safer,To me this just seems logical. but again, it aint gonna happen.

I **** to sound like Grim Jim, but I wish the citizens of earth would realize its not a question of if its gonna happen, Its where and when, and then what.Yes In am worried.

UN can not do it, and, you must be knowing Premium Link Upgrade .


PS: By the way Kitty, select the multi-quote button at the extreme right button of the post. When you have selected the buttons then press the 'quote' button of the last post that you want to choose. It will give you all the posts on your post. :thumbsup: Hope you are well.

 

[Roughneck]

I think if the U.S. and the U.K. had invaded Germany in 38 or 39 they would have been demonized as starting an ******* war of aggression.

As they should be.

Morality doesn't change "depending on the perpetrator".


cheers,

 

[meesterperfect]

Yes but wasn't Germany in ********* a the Treaty of Versailles? Especially the military clauses, as far back as say 1933 but surely by 38.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Yes but wasn't Germany in ********* a the Treaty of Versailles? Especially the military clauses, as far back as say 1933 but surely by 38.

Premium Link Upgrade

As I understand, this particular answer will take the thread away from its main point of discussion.

I hope this link gives a glimpse of the reason, why I said;

I did say 'pretense', Kitty. As you rightly said, economic factors were camouflaged with pretenses, but those were not lies. Skirmishes were started and then the blame game. Then escalation to war.

The war on discussion deviated from pretense to lie. The war was pre-planned, as usual, and out & out lie was used to invade a country. It was for oil, no doubt, Saddam was an excuse, WMD a lie.

I'm not saying Saddam was good. But others involved are perhaps worse, as they control a massive cache of WMD themselves and they don't restrict their area of control within their country.

IMO, a ******** should not try to judge a thief.