Which Wars Work Best?

[elder999]

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

History is supposed to teach us the lessons of wars past so we won’t blunder into stupid wars in the present. Since I have mixed feelings about our War against Terrorism and our war in Iraq, I thought I’d review the wars America has fought in or close to my lifetime, as well as the ones we avoided. Maybe it will paint a path for America to follow now.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the wars we didn’t fight in my lifetime:

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

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

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

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

All the real wars had disappointing results. Even World War II, which I don’t think America could have avoided, ended up empowering the communists for half a century.

Our current wars don’t look promising in light of history. Sure, we can defeat any enemy in the short-term, but history says that for success in the long-term we need to convert the enemy to American-style capitalism so they, too, can prosper. I don’t know how we are going to do that. I don’t think anyone does. But just as it did with communism, I think it will make Islamic jihadism a moot point.

 

[Sapper6]

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

Well said...and I am an American.

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[Kensai]

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

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

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

 

[bushi jon]

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

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

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

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

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

Where do you get this information from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

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

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

 

[Kensai]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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


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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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

 

[elder999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Viet Nam a total of 6,032 Australians were listed as killed or MIA, again versus 50,000 some odd Americans. As for why we were there in the first place, it kind of supports the original point of my post (which you seemed to have missed) that the wars that have worked best have been the ones we didn’t fight

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

Actually, they were spectacularly successful, militarily. Each achieved its military objective in short order. The aftermath, of course, has been less than successful, in fact, the whole thing has been a downright disaster, that I haven’t supported in the least. Again, though, this supports my initial point.

More in a bit.....

 

[elder999]

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

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

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

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

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

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