# 70 Years Ago Today



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)




----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

War(s) by nature is(are) inhumane, a fact most acutely and frequently remembered by the innocents touched by it(them) and by the soldiers, sailors and airmen charged with fighting it(them), but alas, far too quickly forgotten by so many others and hence, we continue to have to fight them!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Thanks for reminding us. In Fog Of War, a most excellent documentary film, Robert McNamara, one of the architects of the Tokyo fire bombings, said that if the U.S. had lost the war, he and others who were responsible likely would have been tried as war criminals. He said it, as I recall, in a somewhat matter-of-fact tone, neither hinting guilt nor any sense of glory. His evaluation of what happened deserves, I think, to be quoted at length: 

McNamara: Well, I was part of a mechanism that in a sense recommended it. I analyzed bombing operations, and how to make them more efficient. i.e. Not more efficient in the sense of killing more, but more efficient in weakening the adversary.

I wrote one report analyzing the efficiency of the B-29 operations. The B-29 could get above the fighter aircraft and above the air defense, so the loss rate would be much less. The problem was the accuracy was also much less.

Now I don't want to suggest that it was my report that led to, I'll call it, the firebombing. It isn't that I'm trying to absolve myself of blame. I don't want to suggest that it was I who put in LeMay's mind that his operations were totally inefficient and had to be drastically changed. But, anyhow, that's what he did. He took the B-29s down to 5,000 feet and he decided to bomb with firebombs.

I participated in the interrogation of the B-29 bomber crews that came back that night. A room full of crewmen and intelligence interrogators. A captain got up, a young captain said: "Goddammit, I'd like to know who the son of a ***** was that took this magnificent airplane, designed to bomb from 23,000 feet and he took it down to 5,000 feet and I lost my wingman. He was shot and killed."

LeMay spoke in monosyllables. I never heard him say more than two words in sequence. It was basically "Yes," "No," "Yup," or "The hell with it." That was all he said. And LeMay was totally intolerant of criticism. He never engaged in discussion with anybody.

He stood up. "Why are we here? Why are we here? You lost your wingman; it hurts me as much as it does you. I sent him there. And I've been there, I know what it is. But, you lost one wingman, and we destroyed Tokyo."

50 square miles of Tokyo were burned. Tokyo was a wooden city, and when we dropped these firebombs, it just burned it.

Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

EM: The choice of incendiary bombs, where did that come from?

McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."

"McNamara, do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in that one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?"

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.

Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Rule 1. War has no ethical or moral rules.
Rule 2. Man loses sight of morals and ethics once he starts or partakes in a war, so rule 1 always applies.

The US should have bombed the fugg out of the Japanese from Day 1 and more often and maybe the Pacific War might have ended in 42 or 43 and saved millions of lives: British, Chinese, Irish, Burmese, Indian, Filipino, US, Australian and so on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I've never understood the notion of proportionality in war. By that calculus, once started it would continue forever. 

Just a word on McNmara and "Fog of War", it's hardly an unbiased view and it drones on with the ridiculous Phillip Glass background noise and the self flagellation of a man trying in every way to exercise his own sins so that on his death bed the Specter of Viet Nam isn't the defining epitaph. 

Would the U.S. have been tried for war crimes? Sure, but we won and that's all that matters. I'm sure the Russians committed plenty of war crimes as well but they too were on the winning side. The victors get to determine how the peace is structured and how the history will be written. The victors also get to assign the blame to the losers. 

Fair? Probably not. Perhaps nations should think twice before starting, or trying to start, a limited war against an industrial giant. The idea of a limited war makes sense when reading Clausewitz, but once the genie is released, it takes on a life of its own.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've never understood the notion of proportionality in war. By that calculus, once started it would continue forever.


Can you remind us who started it??



> McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."


Lemay had other issues, but he knew how to win.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've never understood the notion of proportionality in war. By that calculus, once started it would continue forever.
> 
> Just a word on McNmara and "Fog of War", it's hardly an unbiased view and it drones on with the ridiculous Phillip Glass background noise and *the self flagellation of a man trying in every way to exercise his own sins so that on his death bed the Specter of Viet Nam isn't the defining epitaph. *
> 
> ...


And therein lies the film's allure. Of course the film had a bias. Great films most always do.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've never understood the notion of proportionality in war. By that calculus, once started it would continue forever.
> 
> Just a word on McNmara and "Fog of War", it's hardly an unbiased view and it drones on with the ridiculous Phillip Glass background noise and the self flagellation of a man trying in every way to exercise his own sins so that on his death bed the Specter of Viet Nam isn't the defining epitaph.
> 
> ...


Had Japan won a lot worse would have happened than the prosecution of McNamara and Le May. We should all be grateful Japan lost.

I, too, am skeptical about the concept of proportionality, although I do think that before doing something like deliberately killing large numbers of civilians one should have a serious conversation about the value of it all. McNamara et Cie. I guess were convinced that it would help, although it's hard for me to see the logic.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Rule 1. War has no ethical or moral rules.
> Rule 2. Man loses sight of morals and ethics once he starts or partakes in a war, so rule 1 always applies.
> 
> *The US should have bombed the fugg out of the Japanese from Day 1* and more often and maybe the Pacific War might have ended in 42 or 43 and saved millions of lives: British, Chinese, Irish, Burmese, Indian, Filipino, US, Australian and so on.


We would have if we could have. There was this little matter of lack of airbases within striking distance of Japan. There was also this other little matter called the European theater, which we decided, and rightly, had first priority.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> We would have if we could have. There was this little matter of lack of airbases within striking distance of Japan. There was also this other little matter called the European theater, which we decided, and rightly, had first priority.


Yes, true enough.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I, too, am skeptical about the concept of proportionality, although I do think that before doing something like deliberately killing large numbers of civilians one should have a serious conversation about the value of it all. McNamara et Cie. I guess were convinced that it would help, although it's hard for me to see the logic.


The German people were not convinced they lost WWI because they were spared the destruction of France and Belgium.

So they were quickly convinced that they were cheated out of their fare share by you know who.

WWII left no doubt who lost and Japan still plays American baseball and emulates our style, culture and entertainment.

THAT is how you win a war.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The German people were not convinced they lost WWI because they were spared the destruction of France and Belgium.
> 
> So they were quickly convinced that they were cheated out of their fare share by you know who.
> 
> ...


By genocide? What the United States did in firebombing cities would meet the definition, at least according to some people.

Your concept of how to win a war is, frankly, out-dated. We will likely never have another mass conflict such as World War II again, at least in our lifetimes. Figure out how to win wars in Afghanistan and the like and you'll be onto something.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> By genocide? What the United States did in firebombing cities would meet the definition, at least according to some people.
> 
> Your concept of how to win a war is, frankly, out-dated. We will likely never have another mass conflict such as World War II again, at least in our lifetimes. Figure out how to win wars in Afghanistan and the like and you'll be onto something.


The first sentence answers the second.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> By genocide? What the United States did in firebombing cities would meet the definition, at least according to some people.
> 
> Your concept of how to win a war is, frankly, out-dated. We will likely never have another mass conflict such as World War II again, at least in our lifetimes. Figure out how to win wars in Afghanistan and the like and you'll be onto something.


We firebombed white people too.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> We firebombed white people too.


In Tokyo--and other Japanese cities that were so devastated that there was nothing left for the A-bomb--in 1945?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The first sentence answers the second.


Really? You think that it's a good idea to go to Muslim nations and bomb them into the Stone Age? Honestly? That's what this sounds like, but I might be mis-reading your meaning.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> In Tokyo--and other Japanese cities that were so devastated that there was nothing left for the A-bomb--in 1945?


Last I checked we didn't just fight Japan.

And you might want to research the selection process that went in to where to drop the abomb. If we had been intent only only killing Japanese, we would have hit the larger cities.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> *By genocide?* What the United States did in firebombing cities would meet the definition, at least according to some people.
> 
> Your concept of how to win a war is, frankly, out-dated. We will likely never have another mass conflict such as World War II again, at least in our lifetimes. Figure out how to win wars in Afghanistan and the like and you'll be onto something.


Please tell me you're being purposely hyperbolic.

As for warfare, you're absolutely convinced of this? Are you willing to bet your freedom on this?

By they way, one way to at least ward off the possibility of another global war is to have one absolutely dominant hegemon; _Pax Americana_.

Wars occur due to the presence, or the perceived presence, of a power vacuum. States exist within a chaotic framework and the natural inclination for a state is to develop its strategic interests in order to preserve itself.

You may find what I'm saying silly, but the U.S. is a relatively benign super power. If we were to wither or pull away, who would fill the vacuum?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Really? You think that it's a good idea to go to Muslim nations and bomb them into the Stone Age? Honestly? That's what this sounds like, but I might be mis-reading your meaning.


Since some have barely gotten past the Bronze Age it really isn't that far a journey to bomb them into!!

Obama has the right idea, he just hasn't done it big enough.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Please tell me you're being purposely hyperbolic.
> 
> As for warfare, you're absolutely convinced of this? Are you willing to bet your freedom on this?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you get the rather extreme view from that leads you to ask whether one should bet one's freedom! You appear to believe that devastating Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Syria, somehow preserves America's freedom. As 32rollandrock says, the methods that won WW2 won't win in this current conflict anymore than they won in Vietnam. "They make a desert and call it peace". Is that what you want?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Please tell me you're being purposely hyperbolic.
> 
> As for warfare, you're absolutely convinced of this? Are you willing to bet your freedom on this?
> 
> ...


You are correct in that that is one way to ward off a global war. It is also entirely irrelevant. The threat today is fundamentally different, and I would argue more acute, than it ever was during the Cold War. We have not been able to figure out how to counter that threat. Throughout history, the problem always--always--has been that the general in charge today thinks that he will be fighting the last war, and that is, almost without exception, wrong. This is no different.

I think that your statement, wars occur due to power vaccums, is debatable. Certainly, that is true to some extent, but did the Civil War start due to a perceived power vacuum? I think not. Similarly, the presence of super powers didn't convince Ho Chi Minh of anything. There are many other examples. You paint, I think, with a brush too broad.

We just got our butts kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan--you can call it anything you like, but it is difficult to reach any other conclusion when you consider that both countries are in chaos, or the edge of chaos, and the situation continues to deteriorate throughout the Middle East. Certainly, we did not accomplish any goal that I can think of. Indeed, we haven't won any wars since the Gulf War, and even that can be seen as a mere time-out, given that we were right back in the thick of it in Iraq within a decade or so. OTOH, we sure showed Grenada and Panama that we mean business.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> ... the methods that won WW2 won't win in this current conflict anymore than they won in Vietnam.


No, it just worked out for the bad guys in Vietnam.

The North fought a total war for victory and reunification.

The South fought to repel invasion from the North, NOT for total victory and that's not how to win.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> We just got our butts kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan--
> 
> Indeed, we haven't won any wars since the Gulf War, and even that can be seen as a mere time-out, given that we were right back in the thick of it in Iraq within a decade or so. OTOH, we sure showed Grenada and Panama that we mean business.


1) No buts got kicked. Obama just left.

2) Are you trying to prove my point now??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) No buts got kicked. Obama just left.
> 
> 2) Are you trying to prove my point now??


First, I would never try to prove any of your points. Secondly, when you cannot win, the smart move is to leave. And, when you accomplish nothing--indeed, arguably make the situation worse--at the cost of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (we can run the totals for Afghanistan if you like, but you grasp the point, I hope), I would define that as getting your butt kicked. What would you call it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> First, I would never try to prove any of your points. Secondly, when you cannot win, the smart move is to leave. And, when you accomplish nothing--indeed, arguably make the situation worse--at the cost of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (we can run the totals for Afghanistan if you like, but you grasp the point, I hope), I would define that as getting your butt kicked. What would you call it?


But you did. IraqI was half assed and Saddam stayed in power. Within 25 years we went back for IraqII. Military victory was achieved, an SOF agreement needed to be reached to maintain a significant presence there for the next 50 or so years.

Instead of a friendly, stable regime, and a base, we got ISIS.

Thanks Obama.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, it just worked out for the bad guys in Vietnam.


A euphemism for "they won"! It also suggests a rather monochromatic view that there are good guys and bad guys. Are you suggesting that the corrupt gangsters that the US were propping up were the good guys?



WouldaShoulda said:


> The North fought a total war for victory and reunification.


Indeed, having already fought off the French.



WouldaShoulda said:


> The South fought to repel invasion from the North, NOT for total victory and that's not how to win.


Did they? Or did they fight, or rather sometimes fight, for a corrupt undemocratic regime, under corrupt officers, because they had little choice? That also supposes that the Viet Cong were all from the North, whereas they were actually insurgents from the South itself, who hated the corrupt regime. In any case the massive firepower and logistical support that the South had *still* couldn't make them win.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> A euphemism for "they won"! It also suggests a rather monochromatic view that there are good guys and bad guys. Are you suggesting that the corrupt gangsters that the US were propping up were the good guys?
> 
> Indeed, having already fought off the French.
> 
> Did they? Or did they fight, or rather sometimes fight, for a corrupt undemocratic regime, under corrupt officers, because they had little choice? That also supposes that the Viet Cong were all from the North, whereas they were actually insurgents from the South itself, who hated the corrupt regime. In any case the massive firepower and logistical support that the South had *still* couldn't make them win.


You really need to brush up on your bright lines. Everything in this world is black-and-white. There are no shades of grey whatsoever. Simplistic answers to complicated questions are always best.

Carry on.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> A euphemism for "they won"! It also suggests a rather monochromatic view that there are good guys and bad guys. Are you suggesting that the corrupt gangsters that the US were propping up were the good guys?


OK. How about better guys??


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> But you did. IraqI was half assed and Saddam stayed in power. Within 25 years we went back for IraqII. Military victory was achieved, an SOF agreement needed to be reached to maintain a significant presence there for the next 50 or so years.
> 
> Instead of a friendly, stable regime, and a base, we got ISIS.
> 
> Thanks Obama.


You're really going to blame this on Obama?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> You're really going to blame this on Obama?


I already did!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> You're really going to blame this on Obama?


Of course.

It rained today--that's Obama's fault.

The Grateful Dead did not start out their 8/30/88 show in Eugene with "Hell In A Bucket"-- also Obama's fault

My pug had an accident in the living room this afternoon--Obama strikes again.

The heartbreak of psoriasis has hit home--if this keeps up, someone's going to get impeached...

The stock market is at an all-time high--good thing that congress is controlled by Republicans


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> My pug had an accident in the living room this afternoon--Obama strikes again.


The Obama administration was negotiating a Status Of Feces agreement with your dog??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK. How about better guys??


You think that a corrupt regime run by gangsters was better? Well, I suppose that there's consistency in that. Batista's Cuba was a corrupt regime run by gangsters too, and various US administrations thought that was better than the Cuba run by Castro....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You think that a corrupt regime run by gangsters was better? Well, I suppose that there's consistency in that. Batista's Cuba was a corrupt regime run by gangsters too, and various US administrations thought that was better than the Cuba run by Castro....


Was is Johnson or Nixon who said, "he may be an SOB, but he's our SOB."


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> First, I would never try to prove any of your points. Secondly, when you cannot win, the smart move is to leave. And, when you accomplish nothing--indeed, arguably make the situation worse--at the cost of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (we can run the totals for Afghanistan if you like, but you grasp the point, I hope), I would define that as getting your butt kicked. What would you call it?


I would call it misinformed on your part. We didn't get our butts kicked. I was went to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. I think we instead did the butt kicking.

On a separate note, where is Justonemore with his anti-american postings? This is a post that would wake him in the middle of the night with itchy fingers.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I already did!!


As much as I would like to blame Obama on this, it is the fault of the media and possibly the public for not wanting us in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore regardless of what we knew what would happen if we just up and left.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> I would call it misinformed on your part. We didn't get our butts kicked. I was went to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. I think we instead did the butt kicking.
> 
> On a separate note, where is Justonemore with his anti-american postings? This is a post that would wake him in the middle of the night with itchy fingers.


OK, I'll bite--what did you accomplish?

And I say this while noting that we should all be thankful for your service. Your country called, and you answered. My quibble is not with anything that you did.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> As much as I would like to blame Obama on this, it is the fault of the media and possibly the public for not wanting us in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore regardless of what we knew what would happen if we just up and left.


There are still people who say, with all sincerity, that we actually won the Vietnam War, but the media snatched the victory away. I think that is profoundly wrong.

Again, your service should be appreciated. But, it seems to me, that we accomplished our goals in Afghanistan no better than the Soviets accomplished theirs way back when. Some conflicts are unwinnable, no matter what, and I think that our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq bear this out. The public will not tolerate an endless military presence in a far-off land absent a clear, definable objective. That was the case in Vietnam, and that was, is, the case in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a very good reason that most of the rest of the world declined when we invited them to become allies.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Was is Johnson or Nixon who said, "he may be an SOB, but he's our SOB."


It may have been Truman, or indeed any of many presidents, the principle is always the same. I think it was said about Somoza in Nicaragua. There does seem to be a pattern of corrupt regimes run by gangsters being propped up by the US, generally in order for US commercial interests continuing in their commercial success. One could argue that there's nothing wrong with pursuing what might be seen as national interests at the expense of the powerless local inhabitants who are being oppressed by the corrupt regime run by gangsters, but then to dress up the gangsters as somehow being the "good guys" is pushing things too far!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I don't think we're the only country that does it.

I'll say this for the U.S., of all the countries that do it, we seem to be the only one that has some sense of conscience about it. Consider the Leahy Act. 

I don't think China and Russia really care who they support and what those countries do with the weapons they provide.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I don't think we're the only country that does it.
> 
> I'll say this for the U.S., of all the countries that do it, we seem to be the only one that has some sense of conscience about it. Consider the Leahy Act.
> 
> ...


Indeed, and I agree with both points. However, to imagine, or pretend that Cuba under Batista, or Nicaragua under the Somozas, or S.Vietnam under whichever gangster/dictator was running it at the time were the "good guys", is stretching things a bit!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, and I agree with both points. However, to imagine, or pretend that Cuba under Batista, or Nicaragua under the Somozas, or S.Vietnam under whichever gangster/dictator was running it at the time were the "good guys", is stretching things a bit!


Every Vietnamese refugee I've met in the US (And that is a lot in the Mid-Atlantic and DC region) whos family were murdered or their businesses and properties confiscated by the Commies think the Gangsters running the South were the better guys.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> As much as I would like to blame Obama on this, it is the fault of the media and possibly the public for not wanting us in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore regardless of what we knew what would happen if we just up and left.


A real leader would explain why the media and the public they influence are wrong.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Every Vietnamese refugee I've met in the US (And that is a lot in the Mid-Atlantic and DC region) whos family were murdered or their businesses and properties confiscated by the Commies think the Gangsters running the South were the better guys.


Could it not be that they were rather biased in their view? Rather like the exiled Cubans in Miami? The peasant farmers in Cuba seem to believe that they have been much better off under Castro than they ever had a hope to be under Batista. Until the effects of the fall of the USSR got to Cuba, the Cuban health service was one of the best in the world. Loss of trade with the USSR and the US trade embargo seriously eroded that though. The ordinary Vietnamese urban and agricultural working classes, and villagers in general in South Vietnam are much better off, in every respect, than they were under the gangsters, but you're unlikely to have met any of them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, and I agree with both points. However, to imagine, or pretend that Cuba under Batista, or Nicaragua under the Somozas, or S.Vietnam under whichever gangster/dictator was running it at the time were the "good guys", is stretching things a bit!


There's no good guys or bad guys. There are people we agree with and find common ground with and those that we don't.

Certainly some acts by states cross the line when we consider genocide. But the disappearance of political enemies and the imprisoning of dissidents? Yes it's not good but sometimes the world is an ugly place and not everyone is fortunate enough to live under a civilized government.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> A real leader would explain why the media and the public they influence are wrong.


This is a very valid point and one that goes to the heart of BHO's overall incompetence for the office he holds. Being POTUS is more than just being a bureaucrat in chief. It's being a leader and being able to influence events. It's also being able to work with people to get the things you want.

He's really failed on both counts. He's pretty much resorted to executive action to get what he wants. And yes, the congress is opposed to him but this has happened before and people can get together and work through things and compromise. The action needs to start with him however.

As for being influential, he's hardly that. There is absolutely no leadership quality that oozes from him. His administrations pronouncements are incoherent at best, absurd and contradictory at worst. He seems to learn more from the press regarding potential scandals than he does from his own appointed cronies, which suggests that there's no grown up at the helm.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> There are still people who say, with all sincerity, that we actually won the Vietnam War, but the media snatched the victory away. I think that is profoundly wrong.


As we get further away from the events themselves and people with a vested interest in propping up the myths of the day, this is becoming more and more accurate. The war was not waged to take over Vietnam and make it the next Korea - it was fought to stop the expansion of communism in SE Asia, and to that end it most definitely achieved its goals.

We Americans also have a tendency to wrap up all of the other social change at the time with Vietnam, which is not really the most accurate way to do things.

It isn't much different than the way that most people think that all Confederates were slave owning racists fighting to preserve slavery or that the South started the Civil War.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Could it not be that they were rather biased in their view? Rather like the exiled Cubans in Miami? The peasant farmers in Cuba seem to believe that they have been much better off under Castro than they ever had a hope to be under Batista. Until the effects of the fall of the USSR got to Cuba, the Cuban health service was one of the best in the world. Loss of trade with the USSR and the US trade embargo seriously eroded that though. The ordinary Vietnamese urban and agricultural working classes, and villagers in general in South Vietnam are much better off, in every respect, than they were under the gangsters, but you're unlikely to have met any of them.


And by every respect, you mean no longer harassed and terrorized by the Viet Cong after the VC took over, ridded the population of any opposition and graciously allowed the rest to live.

Exactly.

Bless them!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> And by every respect, you mean no longer harassed and terrorized by the Viet Cong after the VC took over, ridded the population of any opposition and graciously allowed the rest to live.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Bless them!!


Or harassed by the corrupt gangster regime's armed enforcers (usually described as "soldiers"), killing any people suspected as being opponents of the gangster regime, or those who wouldn't pay the protection money, and graciously allowing the rest, having taken their protection money and a quota of younger people as hostages, slaves etc, to live. Supported of course by the US, which, I assume, made all the difference.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Or harassed by the corrupt gangster regime's armed enforcers (usually described as "soldiers"), killing any people suspected as being opponents of the gangster regime, or those who wouldn't pay the protection money, and graciously allowing the rest, having taken their protection money and a quota of younger people as hostages, slaves etc, to live. Supported of course by the US, which, I assume, made all the difference.


Perhaps. We can only guess at the horrors that could have faced the South today without the VC victory and subsequent purge.

They could be suffering like the South Koreans!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> As we get further away from the events themselves and people with a vested interest in propping up the myths of the day, this is becoming more and more accurate. The war was not waged to take over Vietnam and make it the next Korea -* it was fought to stop the expansion of communism in SE Asia, and to that end it most definitely achieved its goals.*
> 
> We Americans also have a tendency to wrap up all of the other social change at the time with Vietnam, which is not really the most accurate way to do things.
> 
> It isn't much different than the way that most people think that all Confederates were slave owning racists fighting to preserve slavery or that the South started the Civil War.


Disagree. While it's true that the war was fought to to stop communist expansion, the fact that communism didn't expand to the extent feared does not mean that the war was successful. It merely means that communism did not expand--I'm not convinced of a cause-effect relationship here. Also, when you look at the cost of American lives, loss of prestige in the world, loss of trust in the government and economic cost, it is impossible, I think, to say anything other than we lost. And lost badly. Fifty years on, we're still haunted by our failures in Vietnam.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> OK, I'll bite--what did you accomplish?
> 
> And I say this while noting that we should all be thankful for your service. Your country called, and you answered. My quibble is not with anything that you did.


We took Saddam and family out of power in Iraq and took the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. I would consider that pretty successful. Now trying to help the new regime establish a new and/or improved government is what took so long. Not to mention having to deal with everybody from around the region who hated Westerners and came to try and kill us.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

What we did and what the Soviets did were two separate things. Were the conflicts handled the best way? Not even close. But is throwing away all the work we had done because the public is getting tired of us being there the answer? Not even close. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan were very complexed. I think the public didn't want to hear that though. They just wanted results.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Disagree. While it's true that the war was fought to to stop communist expansion, the fact that communism didn't expand to the extent feared does not mean that the war was successful. It merely means that communism did not expand--I'm not convinced of a cause-effect relationship here. Also, when you look at the cost of American lives, loss of prestige in the world, loss of trust in the government and economic cost, it is impossible, I think, to say anything other than we lost. And lost badly. Fifty years on, we're still haunted by our failures in Vietnam.


Well, that's the thing. It is hard to say what might have happened had we not fought. But given your lengthy set of disclaimers and prerequisites, the US Civil War was a failure as well.

And the reason that we are still "haunted by our failures" is that there is a large group of people with a very vested interest in propagating that POV.

This is why I firmly believe that you can't write history of anything until a couple of generations have died.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

immanuelrx said:


> What we did and what the Soviets did were two separate things. Were the conflicts handled the best way? Not even close. But is throwing away all the work we had done because the public is getting tired of us being there the answer? Not even close. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan were very complexed. I think the public didn't want to hear that though. They just wanted results.


And the results need to come before the next commercial break, and are preferably sponsored by someone so we know who to blame if the results are not 100% what we want.

And no one gets hurt, and everyone gets free healthcare, and trophies all around......


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> We took Saddam and family out of power in Iraq and took the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. I would consider that pretty successful. Now trying to help the new regime establish a new and/or improved government is what took so long. Not to mention having to deal with everybody from around the region who hated Westerners and came to try and kill us.


We took Saddam out of power, yes, but we used a lie--WMD--to justify going in in the first place. A lot of folks, including myself, would call that war mongering, but that is a matter of opinion. The real question is, did we leave either place better than we found it, and I would argue that the answer to that question is no. If you cannot improve a situation, then you should stay home--changing a situation, swapping Bad Situation A for Bad Situation B, is, I think, a fool's mission.

The question is, always should be: Is there a vital U.S. security interest at stake? In the case of Iraq, I would say that the answer to that question is, or was, a resounding no. No ties to 9/11, no ties to terrorism of any kind, no bona fide evidence of WMD except the stuff we cooked up, which was universally rejected by third-party experts who knew what they were talking about. I would argue that Iraq today is more of a threat to U.S. security interests than when we invaded. Now, if we would like to engage in nation building and fighting for truth and justice and depose dictators and despots, perhaps we should liberate Tibet. Good luck with that--and you know why we won't do that. We'd get our ever-loving butts kicked.

As for Afghanistan, there was an argument for use of force, but I'm not convinced that it extended beyond hunting down terrorists and those responsible for 9/11. If there are a few bad apples in the barrel, you don't blow up the whole barrel, you pick out the bad apples, which is what I think we should have done in Afghanistan, with drones, special op forces and the like. Are the Taliban nice folks? No. But I don't pretend to know enough about Afghanistan to know how to install a government that would work, and since I don't know, I'll let them figure it out for themselves.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I wish that we had known what would replace Saddam before we replaced him. 

Hindsight is 20/20 now.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Well, that's the thing. It is hard to say what might have happened had we not fought. But given your lengthy set of disclaimers and prerequisites, the *US Civil War was a failure as well*.
> 
> And the reason that we are still "haunted by our failures" is that there is a large group of people with a very vested interest in propagating that POV.
> 
> This is why I firmly believe that you can't write history of anything until a couple of generations have died.


Not sure how you're getting that. It was very clear when the war started that this was going to be a conflict to decide the question of slavery, and if it wasn't clear at the start, it certainly was when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. You also can't ignore the en masse freeing of slaves when the South surrendered. Or perhaps I'm missing something.

The reason why we are haunted by the failures in Vietnam is that we'd never lost before. It, rightfully and understandably, forced a reexamination of our place in the world and the legitimate/wise use of force. Do you think that we should have gone on playing world policeman the way we had done in the past after getting our butts kicked and losing nearly 60,000 American lives?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> What we did and what the Soviets did were two separate things. Were the conflicts handled the best way? Not even close. But is throwing away all the work we had done because the public is getting tired of us being there the answer? Not even close. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan were very complexed. I think the public didn't want to hear that though. They just wanted results.


The problem was, we went in without defining "victory." If you can't do that, you'd better think twice. Dubya's silly "let's establish democracy in the Middle East" sounds even dumber today than it did then, at least, in my opinion.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The problem was, we went in without defining "victory." If you can't do that, you'd better think twice. Dubya's silly "let's establish democracy in the Middle East" sounds even dumber today than it did then, at least, in my opinion.


You prefer "Arab Spring" maybe??


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> We took Saddam out of power, yes, but we used a lie--WMD--to justify going in in the first place. A lot of folks, including myself, would call that war mongering, but that is a matter of opinion. The real question is, did we leave either place better than we found it, and I would argue that the answer to that question is no. If you cannot improve a situation, then you should stay home--changing a situation, swapping Bad Situation A for Bad Situation B, is, I think, a fool's mission.
> 
> The question is, always should be: Is there a vital U.S. security interest at stake? In the case of Iraq, I would say that the answer to that question is, or was, a resounding no. No ties to 9/11, no ties to terrorism of any kind, no bona fide evidence of WMD except the stuff we cooked up, which was universally rejected by third-party experts who knew what they were talking about. I would argue that Iraq today is more of a threat to U.S. security interests than when we invaded. Now, if we would like to engage in nation building and fighting for truth and justice and depose dictators and despots, perhaps we should liberate Tibet. Good luck with that--and you know why we won't do that. We'd get our ever-loving butts kicked.
> 
> As for Afghanistan, there was an argument for use of force, but I'm not convinced that it extended beyond hunting down terrorists and those responsible for 9/11. If there are a few bad apples in the barrel, you don't blow up the whole barrel, you pick out the bad apples, which is what I think we should have done in Afghanistan, with drones, special op forces and the like. Are the Taliban nice folks? No. But I don't pretend to know enough about Afghanistan to know how to install a government that would work, and since I don't know, I'll let them figure it out for themselves.


Our mistake in Iraq was trusting an informant who lied about WMDs being in Iraq. There is a book about it called "Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War." Now it was a very bad decision to trust this individual. I am also not saying there were other reasons why we went into Iraq, but to say we lied about WMDs to go into Iraq is incorrect. Now, understanding that we went into Iraq under false information, nobody is complaining that Saddam and family are no longer running Iraq. With Afghanistan, the Taliban was running the country so there was no option for taking out a few bad apples. Nobody is saying we handled everything in the best manner, but it had to be done.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> The problem was, we went in without defining "victory." If you can't do that, you'd better think twice. Dubya's silly "let's establish democracy in the Middle East" sounds even dumber today than it did then, at least, in my opinion.


There is no way we went into Iraq and Afghanistan without defining victory. Now that is silly.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> Our mistake in Iraq was trusting an informant who lied about WMDs being in Iraq.


Hillary voted for invasion too.

But you know what??

Wait for it...

What difference, at this point, does it make??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> We took Saddam and family out of power in Iraq and *took the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan.* I would consider that pretty successful. Now trying to help the new regime establish a new and/or improved government is what took so long. Not to mention having to deal with everybody from around the region who hated Westerners and came to try and kill us.


Did we? They're still there and when all the Western troops have left Afghanistan they'll still be there.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> There is no way we went into Iraq and Afghanistan without defining victory. Now that is silly.


So what was the definition of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Perhaps. We can only guess at the horrors that could have faced the South today without the VC victory and subsequent purge.
> 
> They could be suffering like the South Koreans!!


How many South Koreans died under Syngman Rees's dictatorship? Saying that S.Korea is stable and successful now, after his purges, is rather like saying that the USSR was fine by the 1950's, so Stalin wasn't all that bad....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> There is no way we went into Iraq and Afghanistan without defining victory. Now that is silly.


You're right. I suppose that we did define victory as deposing Saddam, which would explain the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Of course, the notion that getting rid of Saddam accomplished anything to further our security interests was silly, and Dubya was warned about what would happen once Saddam was gone. Those warnings proved prophetic. Once it became clear that getting rid of Saddam was only the start, that is the point where we could not define victory--the goal posts moved, as it were. That's when Dubya really started cranking up this establish-a-democracy balderdash. What good is occupying an entire country when you know that it's going to descend into chaos the moment you leave, no matter what you do? When victory leaves you in a worse place than where you started, when you spend more than $800 billion, when more than 4,000 Americans die, well, it wasn't such a good idea. And the whole freakin' world told us it wasn't a good idea before we did it.

In Afghanistan, congress authorized military force against the 9/11 terrorists and those who harbored them, i.e., the Taliban. OK. But what does that mean except war without a defined end game?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> *Our mistake in Iraq was trusting an informant who lied about WMDs being in Iraq. *There is a book about it called "Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War." Now it was a very bad decision to trust this individual. I am also not saying there were other reasons why we went into Iraq, but to say we lied about WMDs to go into Iraq is incorrect. Now, understanding that we went into Iraq under false information, nobody is complaining that Saddam and family are no longer running Iraq.* With Afghanistan, the Taliban was running the country so there was no option for taking out a few bad apples.* Nobody is saying we handled everything in the best manner, but it had to be done.


No, our mistake was not trusting weapons inspectors who had been on the ground and knew what they were talking about. We absolutely, positively, without question lied about WMD's prior to the Iraq invasion--the Center For Public Integrity counted more than 900 false statements leading up to the invasion (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18319248). The Bush administration played Judith Miller like a cheap violin, among other things. Yes, there was an informant who lied, but he was far and away outnumbered by experts who knew what they were talking about and were ignored by a president hell bent on going to Baghdad.

As for bad apples, ever heard of a drone? Familiar with Seal Team Six? Both seem quite effective in taking out bad apples. And, in fact, that's exactly what we are doing now: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/...els-a-surge-in-us-raids-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

I would suggest that this is the sort of thing we should have done from the beginning.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Did we? They're still there and when all the Western troops have left Afghanistan they'll still be there.


Yes the US did take the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. They actually ran the country. They don't anymore. I would call that taking them out of power.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Chouan said:


> So what was the definition of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?


Let's see, in Iraq it was to remove Saddam and family from power and help them establish a new government. In Afghanistan it was to remove the Taliban from power and help them establish a new government.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> You're right. I suppose that we did define victory as deposing Saddam, which would explain the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Of course, the notion that getting rid of Saddam accomplished anything to further our security interests was silly, and Dubya was warned about what would happen once Saddam was gone. Those warnings proved prophetic. Once it became clear that getting rid of Saddam was only the start, that is the point where we could not define victory--the goal posts moved, as it were. That's when Dubya really started cranking up this establish-a-democracy balderdash. What good is occupying an entire country when you know that it's going to descend into chaos the moment you leave, no matter what you do? When victory leaves you in a worse place than where you started, when you spend more than $800 billion, when more than 4,000 Americans die, well, it wasn't such a good idea. And the whole freakin' world told us it wasn't a good idea before we did it.
> 
> In Afghanistan, congress authorized military force against the 9/11 terrorists and those who harbored them, i.e., the Taliban. OK. But what does that mean except war without a defined end game?


So what you are saying is the decision to go into Iraq went like this:

"The decision to invade Iraq has been made. Advise the troops of the Warning Order."
"But sir, what do we do after we remove Saddam from power?"
"We will figure that out after the fact, it's not important."

Highly unlikely. Again, victory will always be defined in situations like this. They were. It descended into chaos because we left due to the public wanting us out before the job was done. Even then, it sounds a little Monday morning QB of you to say it would descend into chaos no matter what. We also didn't leave the place off worse then when we started. I don't even know what to say to that because of how untrue that is. I also wonder why a lot of the countries aided and participated the conflict in Iraq (and Afghanistan more so) if the whole freakin world was against us going into Iraq.

And yes, the war on terrorists is a never ending battle. So are you suggesting to not fight terrorism since it is without a defined end game?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> No, our mistake was not trusting weapons inspectors who had been on the ground and knew what they were talking about. We absolutely, positively, without question lied about WMD's prior to the Iraq invasion--the Center For Public Integrity counted more than 900 false statements leading up to the invasion (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18319248). The Bush administration played Judith Miller like a cheap violin, among other things. Yes, there was an informant who lied, but he was far and away outnumbered by experts who knew what they were talking about and were ignored by a president hell bent on going to Baghdad.
> 
> As for bad apples, ever heard of a drone? Familiar with Seal Team Six? Both seem quite effective in taking out bad apples. And, in fact, that's exactly what we are doing now: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/...els-a-surge-in-us-raids-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0
> 
> I would suggest that this is the sort of thing we should have done from the beginning.


You are not understanding me. Afghanistan was *run by the Taliban*. There are no drone strikes for that type of issue. Seal Team Six? Are you serious? Are you familiar with them? You might have misunderstood what their mission is if you think STS will just waltz into Afghanistan and take care of a "few bad apples" as you have decided to call the Taliban.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> *So what you are saying is the decision to go into Iraq went like this*:
> 
> "The decision to invade Iraq has been made. Advise the troops of the Warning Order."
> "But sir, what do we do after we remove Saddam from power?"
> ...


Yes, I think that is pretty much how it went. It gives every appearance of happening that way.

Keep in mind, there were no terrorists in Iraq, or WMD for that matter. Dubya knew that. He had to have known that. If he didn't know that, he is even dumber than I think that he is, which is really, really dumb.

How would you propose "fixing" Iraq, after removing Saddam, so that it wouldn't descend into chaos? Are you suggesting endless occupation? That's about the only thing I can fathom that would have worked, which would have been no solution at all. How much longer should we have stayed? A year? Two? Five? Ten? Or the open-ended "as long as it takes."

I do appreciate your service. I really do. However, I wish that our commander in chief had used you and your comrades for something better than Iraq. It caused much harm to U.S. strategic interests and prestige with zero up side that I can see.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Yes, I think that is pretty much how it went. It gives every appearance of happening that way.
> 
> Keep in mind, there were no terrorists in Iraq, or WMD for that matter. Dubya knew that. He had to have known that. If he didn't know that, he is even dumber than I think that he is, which is really, really dumb.
> 
> ...


I think it was a mistake to take on Iraq while dealing with the Taliban at the same time. Saddam was a tyrant. What he did to his people and the people of Kuwait were horrible. I think there would have come a point in time where we would have invaded Iraq. It should have waited though. By moving resources and efforts to Iraq, the campaign in Afghanistan was unnecessarily lengthened. You are absolutely right in your last statement. Iraq had a negative effect on what should have been our main focus, the Taliban.

I appreciate your support of the military service members as you have shown in multiple posts. That is one thing that today's military never had a lack of. I am grieved at the lack of support my brethren received in past conflicts. To me those men and women are the true heroes. Our hardships during Iraq and Afghanistan don't compare to the hardships suffered in WW I & II, Korea, Vietnam. I thank them every chance I get.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> Yes the US did take the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. They actually ran the country. They don't anymore. I would call that taking them out of power.


Now they merely run *most* of the country. After all this time, all the casualties suffered, they still run most of the country. Hardly a victory.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Now they merely run *most* of the country. After all this time, all the casualties suffered, they still run most of the country. Hardly a victory.


I really hope that you are not serious in your belief of this.

Before the US invaded, terrorists in Afghanistan trained without any difficulty at all. This is most definitely not the case now. I think that anyone would consider that a victory.

The US certainly made mistakes in its invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, so it always amazes me when people overreach and make hyperbolic statements like the one quoted.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Not sure how you're getting that. It was very clear when the war started that this was going to be a conflict to decide the question of slavery, and if it wasn't clear at the start, it certainly was when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. You also can't ignore the en masse freeing of slaves when the South surrendered. Or perhaps I'm missing something.


First of, the war was fought to reunite the Union. Lincoln was willing to let the South back in with slaves, even after the EP.

But you referenced the cost of the Vietnam War, in terms of lives, prestige (not really sure what in the world that means), etc. making Vietnam a failure even though it served its stated purpose. When viewed through that lens with the caveats you put in place, then the Civil War would be a failure too.



> The reason why we are haunted by the failures in Vietnam is that we'd never lost before. It, rightfully and understandably, forced a reexamination of our place in the world and the legitimate/wise use of force. Do you think that we should have gone on playing world policeman the way we had done in the past after getting our butts kicked and losing nearly 60,000 American lives?


True enough - and you can certainly debate the reasons why we left. By all unbiased measures, we were positioned to win easily. Tet had wrecked the the Viet Cong as an effective tool. Tet also had the effect of forcing the South to realize that the North was not going to treat unification kindly. The North was having to move some of its operations across borders because our bombing had halted much of its operational ability. So, basically we quit while we were far ahead. In rough equivalent, it would have been about the same as if we had decided to walk away from WW2 right at the German border.

I am not debating whether all of these causes were valid or not - simply that they occurred.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Now they merely run *most* of the country. After all this time, all the casualties suffered, they still run most of the country. Hardly a victory.


And I am sure you know this because you have been there and have seen it for yourself. Probably not, so don't make comments about stuff you don't know about.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> And I am sure you know this because you have been there and have seen it for yourself. Probably not, so don't make comments about stuff you don't know about.


Are you making the pathetic assumption that only a person who has been to a place can understand the whole picture? Really?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Are you making the pathetic assumption that only a person who has been to a place can understand the whole picture? Really?


No, but I sure do know the state of Afghanistan way better than you. Don't make comments about stuff know nothing about.

Why does it seem like I could fly you over to Afghanistan to show you around but you would argue that I didn't show you every single place and the Taliban were running Afghanistan still from those places? Im done with this. You seem not able to handle ideas and comments that you don't make yourself.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> No, but I sure do know the state of Afghanistan way better than you. Don't make comments about stuff know nothing about.
> 
> Why does it seem like I could fly you over to Afghanistan to show you around but you would argue that I didn't show you every single place and the Taliban were running Afghanistan still from those places? Im done with this. You seem not able to handle ideas and comments that you don't make yourself.


On what basis do you make this assumption? On what basis do you make the assumption that I know nothing about Afghanistan? Jingoistic pride pricked?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> I think it was a mistake to take on Iraq while dealing with the Taliban at the same time. *Saddam was a tyrant. What he did to his people and the people of Kuwait were horrible.* I think there would have come a point in time where we would have invaded Iraq. It should have waited though. By moving resources and efforts to Iraq, the campaign in Afghanistan was unnecessarily lengthened. You are absolutely right in your last statement. Iraq had a negative effect on what should have been our main focus, the Taliban.
> 
> I appreciate your support of the military service members as you have shown in multiple posts. That is one thing that today's military never had a lack of. I am grieved at the lack of support my brethren received in past conflicts. To me those men and women are the true heroes. Our hardships during Iraq and Afghanistan don't compare to the hardships suffered in WW I & II, Korea, Vietnam. I thank them every chance I get.


No argument, but this is true of many, many countries, and we leave well enough alone. The Sudan, Tibet--the list goes on and on. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this, but if you don't like Saddam, then have a plan for something better. We did not, and so we should have left well enough alone, as we do most everywhere else.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> True enough - and you can certainly debate the reasons why we left. By all unbiased measures, we were positioned to win easily. Tet had wrecked the the Viet Cong as an effective tool.


Whether US military experts and planners thought so, or not, and by conventional reasoning they had, did the North think so? If they didn't, then Tet hadn't failed, for them.



vpkozel said:


> Tet also had the effect of forcing the South to realize that the North was not going to treat unification kindly. The North was having to move some of its operations across borders because our bombing had halted much of its operational ability. So, basically we quit while we were far ahead. In rough equivalent, it would have been about the same as if we had decided to walk away from WW2 right at the German border.


Whatever the reasoning and justification and excuse making, the US lost in Vietnam. The fact was that the US, after Tet, lacked the political will to continue the war. Whatever the situation in Vietnam was at that point, that the US weren't willing to continue meant that the North had won. If the purpose of the US involvement was to prop up the South, then they failed. If the purpose of the US was to prevent the expansion of communism, then they failed. Dress it up however you like, the US lost in Vietnam. They did not succeed in their objectives.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> No argument, but this is true of many, many countries, and we leave well enough alone. The Sudan, Tibet--the list goes on and on. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this, but if you don't like Saddam, then have a plan for something better. We did not, and so we should have left well enough alone, as we do most everywhere else.


I agree, we should have just left Saddam alone. You are right that there are others that fell or still fall under the category that Iraq was in during Saddam's regime. I do get tired of the US playing world police though. Unless we are dealing with another hitler, I would like to stay out of another country's business. It probably won't happen but it would be nice.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Please keep in mind that:
1) We didn't know we were dealing with "a Hitler" then either.

2) Between 1939 and Dec. 7, 1941 the U.S. pretty much stayed out of the war with the exception of materiel. There was a pretty strong anti-war sentiment which of course gave way after Japan attacked in the Pacific and Hitler declared war on us. 

It's not about being the world's police force. Chaos occurs when there is a vacuum. Would you be more comfortable if the Russians and/or Chinese fill this vacuum? Or ISIS or Islamic extremists?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> *First of, the war was fought to reunite the Union. Lincoln was willing to let the South back in with slaves, even after the EP.
> *
> But you referenced the cost of the Vietnam War, in terms of lives, prestige (not really sure what in the world that means), etc. making Vietnam a failure even though it served its stated purpose. When viewed through that lens with the caveats you put in place, then the Civil War would be a failure too.
> 
> ...


This is true. Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the union--he said that explicitly. But it is something of a chicken-or-egg question. Given the preceding decades, he, and anyone with half a noggin, realized that it had to be all or nothing--there was no way that we could go back to slavery in some states and not others. If it was not a war to free slaves (and preserve the Union), he would never have issued the Emancipation Proclamation, nor pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment prior to the cessation of hostilities.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> This is true. Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the union--he said that explicitly. But it is something of a chicken-or-egg question. Given the preceding decades, he, and anyone with half a noggin, realized that it had to be all or nothing--there was no way that we could go back to slavery in some states and not others. If it was not a war to free slaves (and preserve the Union), he would never have issued the Emancipation Proclamation, nor pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment prior to the cessation of hostilities.


If that was the case, then, when he thought he was going to lose the 1864 election, he would not have offered to let the South keep its slaves if it rejoined the Union.

In fact, the Civil War has a lot more similarities to both Vietnam and Iraq that you would probably care to admit.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> If that was the case, then, when he thought he was going to lose the 1864 election, he would not have offered to let the South keep its slaves if it rejoined the Union.
> 
> In fact, the Civil War has a lot more similarities to both Vietnam and Iraq that you would probably care to admit.


Politicians say lots of things. Watch what they do, not what they say. That was as true in 1864 as it is today.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Now they merely run *most* of the country. After all this time, all the casualties suffered, they still run most of the country. Hardly a victory.


Your understanding of the country is woefully misinformed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Your understanding of the country is woefully misinformed.


Who actually runs Helmand, for example? The Afghan government or the Taliban? Who is *really* in charge in that province? It's like saying that the British government in Dublin ran County Galway in 1920!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Politicians say lots of things. Watch what they do, not what they say. That was as true in 1864 as it is today.


Exactly. And everything he did showed he was willing to go back on slavery if need be.

Honestly, this is not even a historical debate to anyone who has spent any time researching the subject even just a little bit.

I know it interferes with the simple and clean historical narrative that we Americans often require, but life is rarely clean or simple.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The Afghan Army has been in full control of ALL of Helmand for about a year now. I spoke to xxxxxxxxx xxxx instructors over a year ago, who had been training Afghan xxxxxxxxxx units, as well as my Agencys xxx officers, all said the same thing, that Afghan military and police were now very much in control in Helmand. And they had a very calm time while there.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Exactly. And everything he did showed he was willing to go back on slavery if need be.
> 
> Honestly, this is not even a historical debate to anyone who has spent any time researching the subject even just a little bit.
> 
> I know it interferes with the simple and clean historical narrative that we Americans often require, but life is rarely clean or simple.


He issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He pushed the 13th Amendment through Congress.

You are right: There is not a historical debate.

Here is one book on the subject authored by one of the nation's preeminent Lincoln scholars--there are many more: https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Abraham-Slavery-Companion-Spielberg/dp/0062265113


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> He issued the Emancipation Proclamation.


He did. And it didn't free all the slaves. Care to reconcile that little conundrum?



> He pushed the 13th Amendment through Congress.


After the fate of the nation was secure. When it was in doubt, he was willing to do whatever it took to reunite the country.



> You are right: There is not a historical debate.
> 
> Here is one book on the subject authored by one of the nation's preeminent Lincoln scholars--there are many more: https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Abraham-Slavery-Companion-Spielberg/dp/0062265113


Perhaps you should stop getting your history from books written for children.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Who actually runs Helmand, for example? The Afghan government or the Taliban? Who is *really* in charge in that province? It's like saying that the British government in Dublin ran County Galway in 1920!


Why don't you tell us the answers? Please make sure you cite your sources if it is not firsthand knowledge.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> He did. And it didn't free all the slaves. Care to reconcile that little conundrum?
> 
> After the fate of the nation was secure. When it was in doubt, he was willing to do whatever it took to reunite the country.
> 
> Perhaps you should stop getting your history from books written for children.


If you would like me to cite more books, I would be happy to do so. My intent was to hammer home the point: This is not even a debatable point, on any level.

You are hanging your hat, it seems, on a remark that Lincoln made in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862, when he said that preservation of the Union was uppermost--if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do so, if he could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, he would do so, if he could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves but not all, he would do so. Everyone who subscribes to the myth that it wasn't about slavery clings to this letter. It's weak evidence at best. For one thing, it ignores the historical context. The Dred Scott decision, the Missouri Compromise--events leading up to the Civil War made it clear that the United States could not continue to exist as it had existed regarding slavery. Viewed in the historical context, Lincoln's statement to Greeley is akin to saying "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

You are right in that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in the Confederacy, which meant, of course, that no slaves at all were freed. Why'd he write it that way? He didn't want Missouri and Kentucky to secede, which they might well have done if the Emancipation Proclamation applied to states loyal to the Union. It was a matter of political expediency.

You sound like you really could use a brushing up on the Civil War and Lincoln. We've got a pretty good museum here in Springfield called the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum that you ought to visit when you get the chance. It does a very good job of dispelling myths about Lincoln and the Civil War, one of them being that it wasn't really a war about slavery.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> If you would like me to cite more books, I would be happy to do so. My intent was to hammer home the point: This is not even a debatable point, on any level.
> 
> You are hanging your hat, it seems, on a remark that Lincoln made in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862, when he said that preservation of the Union was uppermost--if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do so, if he could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, he would do so, if he could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves but not all, he would do so. Everyone who subscribes to the myth that it wasn't about slavery clings to this letter. It's weak evidence at best. For one thing, it ignores the historical context. The Dred Scott decision, the Missouri Compromise--events leading up to the Civil War made it clear that the United States could not continue to exist as it had existed regarding slavery. Viewed in the historical context, Lincoln's statement to Greeley is akin to saying "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
> 
> ...


That was a very long winded way of saying that when required to choose between preserving the Union and slavery, ole Abe chose preserving the Union.

You might want to stop by that museum and after they tell you how wrong you are on the point of slavery, you can ask them why it was that Lincoln chose to initiate hostilities at Fort Sumter......


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Afghan Army has been in full control of ALL of Helmand for about a year now. I spoke to xxxxxxxxx xxxx instructors over a year ago, who had been training Afghan xxxxxxxxxx units, as well as my Agencys xxx officers, all said the same thing, that Afghan military and police were now very much in control in Helmand. And they had a very calm time while there.


Not that they're biased at all.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> That was a very long winded way of saying that when required to choose between preserving the Union and slavery, ole Abe chose preserving the Union.
> 
> You might want to stop by that museum and after they tell you how wrong you are on the point of slavery, you can ask them why it was that Lincoln chose to initiate hostilities at Fort Sumter......


OK, I can be brief: You are completely wrong and any serious scholar of Lincoln and/or the Civil War would agree. How's that?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> OK, I can be brief: You are completely wrong and any serious scholar of Lincoln and/or the Civil War would agree. How's that?


Brief, yes. But still wrong


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Not that they're biased at all.


 Who?

My sources are individual officers from non-aligned nations far from the Middle East who are not biased either way, and would have no reason to be anyway.

But please, carry on making comments about a situation you clearly know very little about other than what the media has told you and the conclusions and opinons that YOUR own political and rabid anti-American bias has led you to!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well, the way I read it nowadays, if various historical journals and books and various BBC and National Geographic documentaries in recent years are anything to go by is that it wasn't a war about slavery at all. But I always thought it was, that's what I was taught in school and that's what I read in history books when I was younger.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Slavery was certainly a source of tension between the north and the south dating back to the founding of the nation. 

The issue of spacers was compromised so that the southern colonies with their agricultural interests could join in the union. The north's economy was partially agricultural but mostly industrial and trade. 

The issue of slavery was the major under current of the issues that have rise to the south being at odds with the north and the final decision to secede from the union. 

Much ink has been spilled on Lincoln and his views on slavery and his reasoning for doing what he did so I won't go into that.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well, the way I read it nowadays, if various historical journals and books and various BBC and National Geographic documentaries in recent years are anything to go by is that it wasn't a war about slavery at all. But I always thought it was, that's what I was taught in school and that's what I read in history books when I was younger.


OK, if it wasn't about slavery, what was it about?

The thing is, historians and lots of other folks tend to over-complicate lots of things. SG has it right: Slavery was the undercurrent that moved the tide, so to speak. If there had not been slavery, there would not have been a Civil War. It really is that simple.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> How many South Koreans died under Syngman Rees's dictatorship? Saying that S.Korea is stable and successful now, after his purges, is rather like saying that the USSR was fine by the 1950's, so Stalin wasn't all that bad....


Your analogy is flawed.

1950's USSR is more dissimilar to modern S Korea than similar.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> OK, if it wasn't about slavery, what was it about?


I didn't say it wasn't about slavery. You need to read my post again.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> Why does it seem like I could fly you over to Afghanistan to show you around but* you would argue that I didn't show you every single place and the Taliban were running Afghanistan still from those places?* Im done with this. *You seem not able to handle ideas and comments that you don't make yourself*.


+1...

Hear, hear!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> OK, if it wasn't about slavery, what was it about?
> 
> The thing is, historians and lots of other folks tend to over-complicate lots of things. SG has it right: Slavery was the undercurrent that moved the tide, so to speak. If there had not been slavery, there would not have been a Civil War. It really is that simple.


Just to be clear, are you saying that the only issue that would have ever lead to a potential secession was slavery?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying that the only issue that would have ever lead to a potential secession was slavery?


What I am saying is, when you boil it down, there really was no issue save slavery that explains that war. Lincoln's anti-slavery views were well-known when he was elected. I'm not interested in "potential secession," I am interested in what really happened, and what really happened was, slavery divided the nation, with fractures spreading every which way, to such an extent that the question had to be decided. The South's solution was secession. The North's solution was to reel the South back into the Union and ban slavery so that the same issue that led to the Civil War wouldn't continue to divide the country. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for so many people to grasp, but it is.

This said, I believe that the ball is in your court. I asked: If it wasn't slavery that sparked the Civil War, what was it?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Who?
> 
> My sources are individual officers from non-aligned nations far from the Middle East who are not biased either way, and would have no reason to be anyway.
> 
> But please, carry on making comments about a situation you clearly know very little about other than what the media has told you and the conclusions and opinons that YOUR own political and rabid anti-American bias has led you to!


Why would my contention that the Western allies in Afghanistan haven't won be anti-American? Britain lost in excess of 500 people, trying to keep a province under control. (As far as personal experience or knowledge is concerned, I have two cousins who've served there, one as a soldier the other as a mercenary. Not that it makes any difference to my view. They, as serving personnel, knew only about the area they were in, and knew nothing of the bigger picture). The Americans and then their allies came into Afghanistan to support a group of warlords that were opposing the loose confederation of tribal leaders referred to, conventionally, as the Taliban. I'm sure that somebody could give me an explanation why, but I couldn't see the logic! The rest of the forces of the West were there to prop up the tribal leaders who they saw as being on "their side", under the pretence that it was a legitimate government. The Taliban, the loose confederation of tribal leaders are still there. The countryside is still under the control of the tribal leaders, as it always has been, to whom their tribal members, army, police, whatever, are loyal. If they switch allegiance to their previous allies, then the Taliban are back in control, in as much as anybody is in control of Afghanistan. If a tribal leader currently supports the "government", it doesn't mean that the government is in control of that tribal area, yet that impression will be gained if one wants to see the Afghan adventure as a success. It doesn't mean that it's true.
Britain, in 1838, did very much the same thing when they replaced Shah Shujah on the throne. They thought that Shah Shujah was in control as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, as they'd defeated the tribal leaders who were the supporters of his rival Dost Mohammed. The tribal leaders came over to Shah Shujah, apparently, but as soon as the main army left, leaving Elphy Bey's Brigade in Kabul to prop up Shah Shujah, the tribal leaders rallied again to Dost Mohammed. The brigade was wiped out during the withdrawal, Shah Shujah was assassinated and Dost Mohammed became king again, and the tribal leaders continued in their control of their tribal regions, whilst acknowledging Dost Mohammed. Everything went back to how it was before. In Afghanistan it pretty much always goes back to how it was before.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> What I am saying is, when you boil it down, there really was no issue save slavery that explains that war. Lincoln's anti-slavery views were well-known when he was elected. I'm not interested in "potential secession," I am interested in what really happened, and what really happened was, slavery divided the nation, with fractures spreading every which way, to such an extent that the question had to be decided. The South's solution was secession. The North's solution was to reel the South back into the Union and ban slavery so that the same issue that led to the Civil War wouldn't continue to divide the country. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for so many people to grasp, but it is.
> 
> This said, I believe that the ball is in your court. I asked: If it wasn't slavery that sparked the Civil War, what was it?


As I have said many times already in this thread. The cause of the Civil War was a desire to preserve the Union.

But I didn't ask about the Civil War, I asked about secession. Because the Civil War was not the first time it had cropped up.

Obviously slavery was the elephant in the room as it relates to the Civil War - it had been a bone of contention since pretty much the day after the Constitution had been ratified. No one is trying to say otherwise. But you - as so many people do - are trying to take that as the cause, when all of the facts dispute it. The EP was not first and foremost a humanitarian act - while that was an obvious benefit - it was a military strategy to strengthen the North while at the same time weakening the South.


----------

