Author Topic: What War? (Read 1271 times)

KONG1 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:43:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I'd say that if insurgents' qualify as a force of arms, and if they are inside Iraq, then technically, the occupation of Iraq fits the definition of war as you gave it?

So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.

Quote

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Personally, I say call it a war, and give the men and women who had to serve in it the full VA benefits, and the right to wear a campaign ribbon and come home and join the local VFW. Cheapening it does them a dishonor.

I have to disagree. A peacekeeping mission is equally as heroic, honorable, and admirable as war. What they're doing is in no way cheapened by calling it peacekeeping.

KONG1 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:54:04 PM »

I'd like to thank tronski for a very informative post. I think it demonstrates that transitions from war to peace are never quick or easy. Since Iraq also suffers from extraordinary interference from outside forces, the job the military and the administration are doing in Iraq is nothing short of outstanding.

KONG1 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:58:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MORAY37
That is an interesting thought. Would we leave if asked? I happen to think that the current admin would not leave, whether they were asked to or not.

Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.

MORAY37 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 26, 2007, 01:43:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by KONG1
Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.

Kinda like there's "no way" we wanted the French to leave after they played a pivotal role in helping us oust the British in our little shebang 231 years ago. Hmmmmmmm......

Forget not, as well, Malacki, the elected representative of Iraq, already told us to leave not once, but twice.... and he's the puppet of Bush.

I think we all have serious misgivings if we think there would be a pullout if we were forcefully asked to leave. They would more than likely declare the government part of the insurrection.

I'm a little on the fence here... but I don't trust the lying we've been fed the past few years.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 26, 2007, 03:21:01 PM »

Origanally posted by KONG1

Quote

So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.

Perhaps you could-However, the victors' write the history books. And as this country (and sadly, many Vietnam vets) found out in SE asia, this country does not take questionable military and political actions well.

I would quote the Argentine army after the Falklands' war as an example, though, as it better fits the description of your example.

john9001 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2007, 04:30:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by KONG1
So if me and few thousand of my buddies went to Canada. And, let's say we stayed within the bounds of "civilized war" (unlike Iraq), but let's just say. We attacked military installations and shoot up a bunch of soldiers and blow up their base. We are then practicing "war" we could drop our weapons put up our hands, surrender. They would be obliged to take us into custody as POW's, hold us until they they're sure our little "war" was over, then release us. We could leave as unvictorious but honorable wariors.

be careful, you might win the war, then what will you do?

crockett · « **Reply #21 on:** October 26, 2007, 04:48:21 PM »

Call the war something else? Sounds like a cop out to me and probably would likely insult the troops on the ground.

The fact is, our Military did a great job fighting the Iraqi Army. In reality it wasn't much of a fight anyway. Our Military has done a great job with what they have been asked to do.

The failures in Iraq to date lay solely on the hands of the political machine that failed to do proper planning for the occupation after the initial invasion. Call it what ever you like the failures of policy at the top of the food chain will continue to plague us in Iraq.

Quote

Originally posted by KONG1
Bush has stated publicly that we would. Of course we'll never know, no way they want us to leave.

Considering Iraq has formally asked Black Water to leave, yet we are still fighting it. Well in short I'd have to guess Bush's commit lacks much punch.

I'm sure Black Water will likely end up at the very least being scaled back, if not removed all together. It wont be because Bush and Co act on what's right. It will be because of political pressure becomes too strong to continue supporting them.

To this day the White house still tries to portray Black Water as being used only for protection of US govt officials. I know for a fact that our tax dollars are paying BW to guard oil executives in Iraq among others.

AWMac · « **Reply #22 on:** October 26, 2007, 05:14:19 PM »

If we won the war in Germany and Japan why are we driving BMWs and Toyotas?

Shouldn't Germany and Japan be driving Chevys and Fords?

Mac

MotorOil1 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 26, 2007, 05:23:59 PM »

The term war is a reflection of the curent state of politics today. If it's going to win votes in the net election, it's a war. If it's going to cost you votes then it's anything but war.

KONG1 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 26, 2007, 06:52:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
Call the war something else? Sounds like a cop out to me and probably would likely insult the troops on the ground.

The fact is, our Military did a great job fighting the Iraqi Army. In reality it wasn't much of a fight anyway. Our Military has done a great job with what they have been asked to do.

The failures in Iraq to date lay solely on the hands of the political machine that failed to do proper planning for the occupation after the initial invasion. Call it what ever you like the failures of policy at the top of the food chain will continue to plague us in Iraq.

You can use the word fail and failure as many time as you like. Considering the circumstances and relative to historical examples things seem to be going fairly well and getting better. I hope you won't be disappointed if the effort doesn't fail. The truly amazing thing is that the administration has accomplished this while the dems try to tear down the efforts of our troops for the sake of political gain.

As to it "would likely insult the troops". Your statement would likely insult the troops that have given their lives to save others in many peacekeeping missions around the world. Still not sure why you would think peacekeeping is a less than heroic undertaking.

I don't see a single argument in your post as to why this is a war and not peacekeeping. I can't take the "it sounds like a cop out to me" reasoning to the panel. I'm supposed to bring back some sort of tangible argument. Anybody help me out here?

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #25 on:** October 26, 2007, 07:05:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigGun
Sounds like semantics. It doesn't matter one way or the other what you call it. It is what it is.

Yep. The high school I went to, all of the staff were either current or ex-military. When my history teacher was talking about his service in World War II and Korea, I made the comment that he was in one war and one conflict. He quickly corrected me when he said, "anytime someone is trying to kill you, it's war not a conflict."

ack-ack

KONG1 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:23:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
"anytime someone is trying to kill you, it's war not a conflict."

Using that reasoning, Reagan was shot in a war because Hinckley was trying to kill him. Kennedy was killed in a war and 50cent deserves a purple heart. Right. Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.

In Korea and Vietnam we treated the combatants like POW's. We called our captured soldiers POWs. In Iraq we don't consider the terrorists POWs and we call our captured guys hostages.

FBBone · « **Reply #27 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:44:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MORAY37
That is an interesting thought. Would we leave if asked? I happen to think that the current admin would not leave, whether they were asked to or not.

Would we? We haven't been asked, yet you assume we wouldn't. How do you know? Simply put, you don't know either way, so why assume? Political leaning I'd wager, but you're a scientist so you shouldn't give in to such emotions. Please elaborate on why you think Bush wouldn't leave. Thank you in advance.

crockett · « **Reply #28 on:** October 27, 2007, 12:34:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by KONG1
You can use the word fail and failure as many time as you like. Considering the circumstances and relative to historical examples things seem to be going fairly well and getting better. I hope you won't be disappointed if the effort doesn't fail. The truly amazing thing is that the administration has accomplished this while the dems try to tear down the efforts of our troops for the sake of political gain.

As to it "would likely insult the troops". Your statement would likely insult the troops that have given their lives to save others in many peacekeeping missions around the world. Still not sure why you would think peacekeeping is a less than heroic undertaking.

I don't see a single argument in your post as to why this is a war and not peacekeeping. I can't take the "it sounds like a cop out to me" reasoning to the panel. I'm supposed to bring back some sort of tangible argument. Anybody help me out here?

First off it's not peace keeping if you started the war. I think that should be simple enough to figure out.

Yea we are doing great in Iraq. Anything wrong has to be the democrats fault...

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 27, 2007, 12:58:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by KONG1
Using that reasoning, Reagan was shot in a war because Hinckley was trying to kill him. Kennedy was killed in a war and 50cent deserves a purple heart. Right. Someone should have called him on such a gross generalization.

In Korea and Vietnam we treated the combatants like POW's. We called our captured soldiers POWs. In Iraq we don't consider the terrorists POWs and we call our captured guys hostages.

Kong, I do believe we tread waters that we should not swim, here, or anywhere else...I think we should leave it as a fact that if a fella has to face the hell of shot and shell, he earns the right to call it whatever he wants. The rest of us are REMF's at best. It's not our place to say, if we respect vets' as we claim.