The war is over.

You make a lot of good points that sadly will rub people the wrong way because the truth hurts. We have the same problem with Blair trying to be Bush's lapdog.

 

Just where do you start with such a statement? America became a world power and a dominant military nation back in the 1800's with the battle of Santiago and the Philippine war which ended in 1902. It was from that point onwards that America pumped funding & training into the professional army & naval power that it became.

WWII was evidence of just how professional, dedicated and powerful American military might had become. There are a lot of nations who are forever indebted to the American, British and allied troops for their support in WWII. A lot of America's distrust of France was that they were criticised for capitulating to the Germans. I am in two minds about that as The French Resistance are heros in my opinion.

All democratic countries made glaring errors in carving up the spoils after WWII and shaping the new Europe, which directly led to divisions down ethnic lines and ultimately many civil, ethnic and regional wars that caused suspicion of Western intervention. Many of the troubles in the middle east stem from similar misunderstandings. The middle east is often described as if one people, but it is as diverse and complex as any other region of the globe.

Vietnam was the beginning of the decline of the United States as a super power. Prior to that moment the USA was deemed to be undefeatable. Americans should be proud of their nation, but I think it is right to question various administration and review whether military intervention in the name of global expansion & trade rights has been successful?

The United Kingdom made the same mistakes and had the same arrogance, which in reviewing it is shameful. It is one reason that you often find British people critical of our actions and willing to question any actions taken on our behalf. Did you know for instance than the fall of the British empire can be boiled right down to something as simple as Britain imposing taxes on Indian goods? Salt to be exact. That was the real beginning of Gandhi's fight to free India of the shackles of British rule. Sadly, he was murdered and you then had a civil war that created India & Pakistan down religious lines. Almost like the butterfly effect. Small events cause large implications. Tampering in small details can create great issues.

During the second World War there was a great deal of blood shed before America joined the Allied troops after Pearl Harbour, which incidentally was the first time that American soil had been attacked. Prior to that the only wars waged in America were civil. Pearl Harbour still seems a thorn in the side of America as it was actually preventable. That is one reason America decided to pump so many resources into intelligence gathering. The signs were there, just not taken seriously. To the cost of over 2400 lives.

When WWII ended it seemed that immediately the free world was thrown head long into the Cold War, which was exactly the kind of battle America has specialised in. A song penned in 1917 says it all, it's title was "Over there" and conveyed the notion that America was safe as the war was quite literally "over there" far away from American soil. Throughout WWII no other attacks were conducted on American soil. It was a safe haven, a country at ease with itself as it was protected by distance from "over there".

This meant that America has always attempted to utilise the same technologies & strategies in every battle. The battle was distant, so the deployment of arms & combat types takes that into account. It is two fold. Partly because you don't want to deploy valuable troops and also that if you have a means of engaging in battle from somewhere safe, like the American continent, then so much the better. The idea being that if you go in using external resources, such as drones, missiles and the like that you can bomb people into submission using "shock & awe". It cuts down on casualties at home and is politically far safer than what might happen if your troops are coming back in body bags.

American administration simply could not tolerate another Vietnam. The fear being the political backlash.

Vietnam was a disaster and turned America on it's head. It was the first televised war. Prior to that you had delayed news reportage, newpapers & new reels. It was once removed from the realities of war. As time progressed you discover that the ability to report on live action and give people immediate footage increased. That is when you begin to see a shift in perspective, a change in opinion and the beginnings of condemnation of war.

One image in particular from the Vietnam war still strikes at the heart of that. A little girl is running naked down a farm road, burnt from head to toe from napalm dumped on her village. Captured in black & white, her scream and pain is held for all time. When such images began to appear in newspapers, as the American troops became entrenched in ground battles and the dead piled higher and higher the tide turned. Public support dwindled and then fell out. The American Government were suddenly completely on their own, trying to justify its actions to a nation who just wanted to forget Vietnam. The actions to ignore began even before the first troops were being flown home. It is a horrible thing to say, but it was quickly brushed aside.

In the end the Vietnam war became shameful. It was clear to many that America was being beaten and their boys were being slain. Film footage beamed back home showed a new face of war, the real face of the agonies and conditions their troops faced. It also showed precisely what type of confusion reigns in every war. Instead of seeing images of the good guys beating the bad guys, you saw all sides blown to pieces and blood soaked villages, burnt bodies and dead children & women. This was far removed from the military statements and reports of American success in various battles. The propaganda began to fail at home and elsewhere.

It became clear that the Vietnamese were beating almost every attempt to overpower them. By sheer weight of bodies, plus the type of terrain there was no way to cover the ground and retain the areas captured as the people the troops encountered were using tactics that controvened every free thinking notion of warfare. These were people prepared to defend their nation by ruthless & blood thirsty means. The American administration pulled the plug on their support and brought their troops back to shame & defeat. There was no fanfare, there was little welcome and if you read through the testimony of returning troops at the time they became the forgotten Vets. Many of them felt disenchanted and dumped on and rightly so. America had become obsessed with communism and its apparent threat to democracy, but as we now know communism was bound to fail. Russia simply could not afford to keep up with the arms race and was collapsing, along with its satellite states.

Since Vietnam, American military policy has always been to try and engage with inside opposition, but that in most instances has backfired. When at war with Russia over Afghanistan, it was policy to arm and train the insurgents to fight from within. That was meant to ensure that direct intervention and the loss of American lives was reduced to an absolute minimum. Unfortunately, as with the Taliban originally armed and trained by the West to fight on their behalf, things spiralled out of control. The very nature of such rebels is that they are allied to their own agenda and as long as you appear to be supporting them and possibly arming them, then fine. Pull support and what happens? There is no treaty of protocol when dealing with so-called freedom fighters.

You cannot move into their sphere, then retreat amicably. It is common knowledge that the CIA funded the Bin Laden jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan and not simply some anti-American conspiracy. It has proved a serious miscalculation in many Western miscalculations regarding involvement in the middle east (and elsewhere). How incredible that billions of American taxer payers money were pumped into the mujahideen, which eventually saw Osama Bin Laden at the top of the Wanted list in America for his al'Qaida actions?

America has always been critical of anyone who has been critical of its policies, and if you read some of the comments written on this and other forums, to say what you have said is rather surprising to me. It is clear to me from my talks with American friends that your above statement is actually becoming a more common feeling and possibly the dominant thought, but it is still shocking to see it written down. To say these things seems anti-American and critical of the current administration, but I think you are right to a certain degree.

What began with the Vietnam war is sadly being replayed today with devistating consequences.

I don't necessarily agree that immediately drafting up all young men in American and running them off to Iraq would change the course of the current situation as I think at one stage Vietnam was similarly flooded with troops and sadly they returned in body bags.

As for Tachikoma's comment. I totally agree. Your (and my) comments will probably be criticised as it is a hard lesson to learn and accepting that things are not going well is always difficult. To think that America could be subjected to another Vietnam is shocking.

I think most people are supportive of the troops, they were sent in our name. Each time a solider is killed I try and imagine his family & loved ones and I think to myself "I could not have been in his shoes". At the same time more and more people are fed up with political policy born of inept attitudes. 9/11 will never be forgotten, but is this really the answer?

 

No... some of us don't give a fuck about killing brown people... that's the problem w/ this war. It was unjustifed from day 0, and nothing has changed except 3,000 Americans (and many more innocent Iraqis) have died. The only thing the draft would do is slow down some of the trigger happy Republicans... the ones w/ sons at or about 18 years of age.

Seriously, what was the reason for invading Iraq. To take his WMD's. Okay, those didn't exist, then what was the slogan? "Defending your Freedom!". Sadam Hussein had about as much chance of taking my freedom or that of any other Americans as me having sex with my wife in the next month (none -- we're not allowed to... too soon after the arrival of our first).

It is a fact that the world is a much more dangerous place than it was 5 years ago, and that is b/c of this war.

EDIT
Speaking of trash TV, I think Donald Trump is the biggest tool bag on it. But, he said perhaps the truest statement I've heard on TV in years. "After 9/11, we had the chance to be the most popular country on the planet, and we blew it." Everyone hates America... and I can't blame them.

 

Yes!

Can I ask however what sending more people to Iraq would achieve? As far as I can see it is a barely held together country. Democracy is something that has to be achieved, not forced otherwise it is imposing the will of the West upon the nation of Iraq, which is clearly undemocratic. The issue is that several factions exist in the country some of whom do not want to be told how to run their country.

There are clearly those who do not want the West to interfere in their business, whilst others welcome the opportunity to achieve democracy as it should lead to prosperity and stability, but it is no guarantee if the nations immediately around you are not democratic, such as Iran. Iraq is far less safe now than it was before the troops arrived. The whole point of troops on the ground is to ensure civil safety, but that simply isn't occuring.

I think what shocks me more than anything else is our attitude towards other people, other nations and other cultures. We simply have no interest in learning about them or placing the same value on their lives as ours in the West. It is a hard thing to say (what, yet more truths?) but when I see that 1 or 2 solidiers have been killed and it is shown wall to wall on all the TV channels throughout the following days, it is deeply sad, but when 157 ordinary Iraq people are killed and it barely creates a mention, then I know we are wrong in our attitudes towards human life.

I think in modern warfare, because of the technologies & live TV of it, that we forget the human face of it. You can slice a house in half from space, but increasingly that accurancy and pin point precision in warfare distances us from reality. So, when you made the comment about the devistation caused by the suicide bomber it is one of shock at seeing the reality of it. When has war ever been clean?

Pile in more troops and what happens? Is that increasing the level of tension? The majority of Iraqi people want the troops out, not more in. Anyone currently on the side of western intervention may be increasingly frustrated and persuaded to attack the troops to ensure an exit strategy is brought forward.

Pull the troops out, then you create a vaccum. Britain was heavily criticised for standing back and watching as genocide and ethnic cleansing occured in Eastern Europe. The same thing could potentially happen. You cannot engage, disengage and engage again.

You cannot be governed by emotion in a moment like this, you would need to be aware of all of the facts and current tensions within the various Iraqi factions. What makes it even more insecure is that we in the UK and you, in the USA are on the route to elections. Everything has it's political basis and the Iraq war is going to be heavily politicised and used a means of engendering disenchantment with either one political process or another. A hard thing to do whilst supporting your troops!

In the meantime troops and civilians lose their lives as the politics are used as bargaining chips. I think we (all allied nations) need to be prepared to accept that things have not panned out the way it was meant to. But, remember WWI was meant to be over by Christmas! You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes, but if we cannot even admit them then why are we surprised?

 

The problem with Vietnam was that for the most part we tried to fight a defensive battle with no clear (as far as I can tell) goals other than maintaining the line. This was foolish in that it allowed the north to pick and choose it's fights and forced the fighting to take place in areas that would turn our potential allies to their cause. We wasted massive amounts of time, manpower, and resources taking insignificant and strategically unimportant locations only to withdraw and have to do it later all over again. I can't think of a more demoralizing strategy to the troops there. Had we bothered to actually confront the problem and really go on the offensive into the north things would have more than likely ended differently. Unfortunately the memories of Korea and the fear of Chinese and possibly Soviet intervention put too much fear in the policy makers to do that.

 

The war of Blood-and-Oil is not a war at all , the enemy is not a Force, a country , or a group. There is no defined enemy actually, but there is a goal. Sending troops to fight and to later 'stabilize' a country is not fighting a war, it a military campaign for resources.

Fighting a war is one thing - you can win at the end of the day.

But fighting free men is another - freedom will always prevail, and the people will react as long as they want to be free, no matter the price they pay.

It's such a shame that so many lives on both sides have to be lost to ensure dominance and resources. In my view, it's not worth the blood. The reason that the western world hasn't changed a resource-scheme, is because the individuals who benefit from the current state of things will lose their power and capital to new individuals.

If for example oil stopped being the major transportation fuel, imagine what would happen to multi-billion dollar companies such as Shell.

In my view, the world needs to evolve, and wars such as this one can be avoided - that's why we have scientists, to find new ways for a better future , instead of forcing our way through other people's countries and labeling it a 'peace process'.

We claim to live in a civilized society, yet there's nothing more barbaric than war. All the civilized politicians we vote for are potential butchers with a nice suit on.

 

GaijinPunch: No... some of us don't give a fuck about killing brown people... that's the problem w/ this war. It was unjustifed from day 0, and nothing has changed except 3,000 Americans (and many more innocent Iraqis) have died. The only thing the draft would do is slow down some of the trigger happy Republicans... the ones w/ sons at or about 18 years of age.

Well said! Being a "foreigner" I cannot comment on your individual politicians directly, especially as I personally doubt whether those we see are actually the ones responsible. The policy makers and advisors have far more control & power. Even top ranking military advisors have been making pretty compelling arguements against the war in Iraq. The sad thing in all of this is that you've had G W Bush actually "talking" about anything remotely serious. He was never more than out of his depth from the moment he sat blindly staring into the middle distance on 9/11. He couldn't even say the names of the people & places far or less make comment on them with any gravitas. I'm not sure Clinton would have been any better, he never had to face this sort of situation, but I am positive he could have persuaded people in America & overseas that he atleast knew and cared. Bush hoping around and banging drums in that camp the other day just said it all. Hopelessly out of his tree!

Was Blair any better? Please let's not go there. I have never been so disappointed in a political leader in my life. I voted this guy in and have regretted it ever since. America atleast had the opportunity to ditch Bush halfway down the road. The fact you didn't has left me (and Micheal Moore) dumb struck ever since lol

Seriously, what was the reason for invading Iraq. To take his WMD's. Okay, those didn't exist, then what was the slogan? "Defending your Freedom!". Sadam Hussein had about as much chance of taking my freedom or that of any other Americans as me having sex with my wife in the next month (none -- we're not allowed to... too soon after the arrival of our first).

It was an illegal war forced through without backing. It was "We are going in, you are either with us or against us..." You saw what happened when France queried the legality, you suddenly dropped the name French from fries and called them all cowards. The French in my opinion were one of the few to stand up and openly criticise (for possibly their own selfish reasons, who knows) the war. Anyone else thinking of being critical realised that they'd be vilified and economically screwed if they took the French stance. It is bullying really, not democratic at all!

As for Saddam Hussain. Good riddens! He was a dictator engaged in genocide. I wouldn't shed a tear over that man, but the manner he was dealt with and the mock trial were a sham! What of the victims of the genocides who wanted to see him convicted for the loss of their loved ones? Not even taken into account. He was found guilty and hung for expediency.

It is a fact that the world is a much more dangerous place than it was 5 years ago, and that is b/c of this war.

Yep, it is, but not only because of the war. It is also dangerous because we are not learning from our mistakes.

EDIT
Speaking of trash TV, I think Donald Trump is the biggest tool bag on it. But, he said perhaps the truest statement I've heard on TV in years. "After 9/11, we had the chance to be the most popular country on the planet, and we blew it." Everyone hates America... and I can't blame them.[/quote]

I disagree. Not everyone hates America and I think that is part of the American problem. You are being told that people hate you! It is easier to say that than explain to the American people the failings of your politicians & political interventions in dangerous politics, such as Afghanistan being committed in your name!

Paranoia is not a solution to the problem. Imagining enemies when there are none is exactly what Bush has been doing for years. Shooting blindly into the dark and isolationism is not an option if America is to regain credibility in the world. It would be far wiser to accept policies have failed and to engage with the world than to shut the doors, baton the hatches and think "they hate us".

It is true that there is increasing unrest at the political processes of the American administration. It doesn't appear that the policy of being the World Police is working, especially as it is too selective. The West only seems to turn up to attempt to solve things when it suits them. If that was how the real Police acted, we'd be screwed!

 

Barc0de - :clap: one of the most direct comments I think I have ever read anywhere on the issue.

However, because of the necessity to ensure the West retains links to oil we are held over a barrel (pun intended). It's a Catch-22. We are SO dependant we would grind to a halt. It's partly our own selfish fault that this is happening. I don't think it's Shell and the like who are at the back of this, it is market forces and necessity to ensure the West keeps running. If we have not however found an alternative prior to the resources running out then you can bet your bottom $ that things will get even worse as the few remaining oil fields are held to ransom. We are seeing the fight to retain control of the sensitive areas thinly disguised as some process of peace.

 

It was a quick-jab of a reply, because as always, I know you d cover all aspects in a very analytical way ;-) You're on a rampage of 5-star, world-class posts since yesterday mate :nod: :clap:

PS: i made a spelling mistake it's peace instead of piece :lol:

 

Well, I was speaking figuratively when I said "everyone", but as an American who has lived most of his professional life abroad, I think I'm allowed to comment on the "vibe" towards Americans abroad... at least in my goings on. You should see the look on peoples faces when I tell them I'm from Texas.

 

The French get a bad deal in the history books concerning WW2. Most assume they ust bent over when the Germans came knocking, but if you consider their losses in WW1 you'll understand why the French went they way they did. After Russia, France suffered the greatest losses in WW1, 1.4million people in fact mostly thanks to France fighting a war of attrition.

I would argue that the 2 world wars were the downfall of the British Empire. We are still paying for it, actually.

The problem is we sided with Russia to defeat Germany; in reality Stalin was as bad, if not worse than Hilter. However, we had to take that route - to side with one of the two. After one went down and the nuclear element was on the table warfare changed. If we hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd probably be speaking Russian by now.

The problem with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq et al is that initially you see an enemy that can be neutralised - an army, but the planning wasn't long term. You can't win a guerilla war with conventional warfare, if at all. Guerilla warfare by its very nature targets the weak points of large scale armies and is usually fought by highly motivated and determined people who are willing to die for their cause.

The problems Americans tend to have is with criticism from the outside. Internally there is often debate about foreign policy and a large portion of America is against Iraq, wants the troops to pull out, etc. If you went into America and started saying it though, people would strike you down.

Drafting soldiers to Iraq would be the worst thing America could do IMO. An army that doesn't want to fight, isn't well-trained and doesn't understand the country it is fighting in will not fight effectively. It would be worse than Vietnam.

Iraq is going to continue bleeding for a long time. There probably isn't a solution to this whole mess and in the end it will be left in chaos.

 

Taucias, you use the word chaos in order to close your sentence and dismiss the issue, but behind that very word lies death, blood, violence, and thousands of american troops living in fear and losing their life - not to mention the natives.

The solution is to pull out the troops. "No solution" is not an answer when people are dying, and over what? Dominance of a region, that's not even in the geographical proximity of America?

Even if you approve of the politics, even if you think that there is a cause, can you justify American soldiers that lose their life there everyday? Do you believe it is a fair price to pay? for their families? for their kids? for their brothers?

Moving pawns on a map, when you re a commander is easy to do. Comming face to face with death , injury and the psychological effects of war is the hard part. Those who give orders consider soldiers to be life-less tools in their hands , in accomplishing a "greater goal for the greater good".

The bullshit must stop, war is not a solution for 90% of the people. it only serves the purposes of those who don't even fight it.

 

Oh well, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen wants to his arselicker(Bushs) by the way. But other than I think I will read this thread. And well the Vietnam war wasn´t even an American war, it was a french conflict (or at least it started that way if I remember right), and ended up in a massacre of 500.000 Vietnamese people (or was it 5.000.000 Vietnamese people ?). And there are still Vietnam veterans out in American forests now adays.

 

What will happen if the troops are pulled out? Likely answer: The newly elected government will be overthrown, an islamic council (controlled from Iran) will take over and we will have another enemy on our hands who we will no doubt meet time and time again on our own turf. That threat is very real. Before that statement gets lept on, let me explain what I mean. Islam is not the enemy, extremist Islam is the problem - sects that push the word of the Koran letter by letter, word for word. The majority of muslims condemn acts of terrorism, but they aren't the kind of people to overthrow elected governments either.

The new Iraqi government, army and police cannot stand up to those threats alone. They need the support of America and the rest of the world, but in the same way it should be assistance and not leadership from those countries. Ultimately the USA and the UK caused this mess. Was it the right thing to do? That is an argument that cannot be concluded. Is it right to try to fix the mess? Absolutely.

Pulling out the troops is not the answer. America feels hard done by right now for facing the cost of the second gulf war, but it has to fix the problems it helps create. That is what a responsible world power should do. They will feel a lot more hard done by if they do pull out troops and the price of oil sky rockets again. Unfortunately that is the reality. Despite what the initial rationale for taking control of Iraq was, the Iraqi people need to be protected and that is now our responsibility.

EDIT: We haven't won in Afghanistan. Check out the news, the reason the UK pulled troops from Iraq was to support their efforts in Afghanistan.

 

Taucias: The French get a bad deal in the history books concerning WW2. Most assume they ust bent over when the Germans came knocking, but if you consider their losses in WW1 you'll understand why the French went they way they did. After Russia, France suffered the greatest losses in WW1, 1.4million people in fact mostly thanks to France fighting a war of attrition.

It could also be argued that without France having fallen to the Germans and ended up with the Vichy government that many of the intelligence gathering opportunities presented by contra French would have been lost. I take your point regarding French casulties in WW1. The treaty of Versailles was also a low point in European history and if we are looking for cause and effect, there's your starting point right there re WWII.

I would argue that the 2 world wars were the downfall of the British Empire. We are still paying for it, actually.

Hmm, okay, I can see why, especially with the decline of the class structure in the UK, but the Dandi Salt March occured in 1930 and marks the turning point in Indian attitude towards the Empire. The nail in the coffin was WWII, but perhaps you will remember that many Indians fought & died alongside British troops in both wars and it could be argued that WWII merely prolonged the downfall of the Empire. Had WWII not occured, it is clear that India would still have regained independence. The struggle for independence began in 1916, but Ghandi had been influenced not by WWI, but his time in South Africa between 1893-1914.

I think there is a lot to be argued over in that one, but it is OT and I think we are both right in a way! ;-)

The problem is we sided with Russia to defeat Germany; in reality Stalin was as bad, if not worse than Hilter. However, we had to take that route - to side with one of the two. After one went down and the nuclear element was on the table warfare changed. If we hadn't dropped the bomb, we'd probably be speaking Russian by now.

WWII ended right there and then. The atomic bomb. An incredible race to achieve the ultimate prize. Ironically, without German scientists America and the allied nations would have lost. German rocket technology was also far more advanced then people realised at the time and it was just a question of time before an atomic bomb was doodle-bugged onto London. I cannot imagine how things would have panned out, but very differently.

The problem with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq et al is that initially you see an enemy that can be neutralised - an army, but the planning wasn't long term. You can't win a guerilla war with conventional warfare, if at all. Guerilla warfare by its very nature targets the weak points of large scale armies and is usually fought by highly motivated and determined people who are willing to die for their cause.

Agreed! If you see footage of the combatants they drive up wearing the local dress, fire off a surface to air rocket from the back of an ordinary vehicle (usually a Toyota pick up) and then melt back into the farming community. Who, or what are you up against? British soldiers are in Helmund province at the moment and that is a case in point. It's running battles from mud farm walls, through fields of dust and into villages, running all the time after people who could be ordinary citizens until they pull out a battered Kalishikov and fire at you. It's a type of warfare long underestimated by the West.

To paraphrase Assembler, these people are potentially the same people that a week ago you saw smiling with friend in the village square. This week they have developed a new mind set and been brain washed into blowing up half that square and anyone around them. Why? Simply because they have nothing to lose and they are promised martrydom in death.

The problems Americans tend to have is with criticism from the outside. Internally there is often debate about foreign policy and a large portion of America is against Iraq, wants the troops to pull out, etc. If you went into America and started saying it though, people would strike you down.

It's understandable. Nobody likes to have their dreams shattered and their culture criticised. It's not the people, it's how the people have been led. Americans want to believe in their nation, in their government and systems. Otherwise, what do you have?

Drafting soldiers to Iraq would be the worst thing America could do IMO. An army that doesn't want to fight, isn't well-trained and doesn't understand the country it is fighting in will not fight effectively. It would be worse than Vietnam.

Iraq is going to continue bleeding for a long time. There probably isn't a solution to this whole mess and in the end it will be left in chaos.

I hope there IS a solution because there needs to be one and that's what we place our trust & belief in. Simply allowing our troops & their civilians to die is not an option. War changes, the battlefield develops and it is currently become entrenched in street combat. Another incredibly volatile place to be at war.

 

Couldn't agree more. I've been saying it since the start, the amount of money spent on bombs and weapons is utterly obscene.

EDIT: Parris! You're after the quote tags. Like this: [quote]whatever text[/quote]