Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on September 08, 2004, 08:35:19 AM
-
This is not intended to be an anti-war or anti-Bush post. My intention is to ask a serious question, one that we will need to answer, if nowhere else, in our own minds. I am looking at this from two perspectives, a historical perspective, and a human perspective. Feel free to give your opnions, but please, LEAVE THE POLITICAL BICKERING OUT OF THIS THREAD!
Was the sacrifice worth it?
As we bounce our grandchildren on our laps, there will be thousands of children out there who won't have grandfathers and and grandmothers to do the same with them.
Was the sacrifice worth it?
Who will explain to them that it was more important for Iraqi children to grow up with grandparents than it was for THEM to grow up with grandparents?
Will that explanation matter to THEM?
And how will our generation be judged by them, as we have judged the generation before us?
These same questions seems to be asked with regularity by every other generation in the last 100 years.
Was the sacrifice worth it?
Source: Dept of Veterans' Affairs.
http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm
WWI: I'd say no, it was not worth it. As strange as this might sound, had Germany prevailed in WWI, WWII and the Holocaust may never have happened. Kaiser Wilhelm II was certainly no butcher like Hitler was, so there was no real worry about a general enslavement of the free world.
Total US Casualties: 320,518
WWII: Yes, absolutely worth it. Undoubtedly the worst tragedy in the history of the world. I personally experienced growing up with one fewer gradfather because of this war.
Total US Casualties: 1,077,245
Korean War: Probably not. Would the spread of communism with the fall of South Korea have gone out of control and spread throughout SE Asia? Maybe, maybe not.
Total US Casualties: 157,530
Vietnam War: No, not worth it at all. We wrongly got involved in a civil war, and lost. One could argue that we didn't lose the war militarily, but I think there's no arguing the fact that the cause we were fighting for was lost.
Total US Casualties: 243,501
Gulf War: Yes, it was probably worth it, for no other reason than our intervention may have prevented a [full-scale conflagration in the Gulf region, which may have ended up involving Israel.
Total US Casualties: 1,764
Iraq War: You tell me. Was it worth the sacrifice?
Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting.
-
The only one that I would say Maybe to was WW1. All the rest are a definate yes. (The threat of communism was much greater than we realized now that documents from the Soviet Union are being released).
Now that I said they were worth it, I'll say that some of them weren't fought the right way. Vietnam being at the head of that short list. Had control been given to Generals instead of politicians, we would have won easily. But we didn't and it's been 40 years.
-
Originally posted by banana
WWI: I'd say no, it was not worth it. As strange as this might sound, had Germany prevailed in WWI, WWII and the Holocaust may never have happened. Kaiser Wilhelm II was certainly no butcher like Hitler was, so there was no real worry about a general enslavement of the free world.
Total US Casualties: 320,518
Actually with or without the US intervention I don't think the German monarchy would have survived the war.
-
"Korean War: Probably not. Would the spread of communism with the fall of South Korea have gone out of control and spread throughout SE Asia? Maybe, maybe not. "
Nonsense... Have you no clue what north korea is really like..
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg)
-
banana, the unknowns are this: Had Saddam been allowed to continue to rule, how will we know that in 20 years, that nuke that goes off in Minneapolis/ST.Paul wasn't assembled in the desert of Northern Iraq while Saddam turned a blind eye to the terrorists that used his country for an outpost?
Pre-emptive still means "prevent".
-
Ok Grun, so I'll chalk that up as a "Yes, it was worth 157,000 + US casualties to end up in a 50yr stalemate."
Got it.
-
Probably not unless Iraq becomes a stable and fair country and current events will be seen as the start of the end of extremism in the Middle East with a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. If American tourists are visiting Iraq by then sailing down the Tigris, visiting Saddam's old palaces in a friendly rich country like Dubai.
Right now it could go either way.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
banana, the unknowns are this: Had Saddam been allowed to continue to rule, how will we know that in 20 years, that nuke that goes off in Minneapolis/ST.Paul wasn't assembled in the desert of Northern Iraq while Saddam turned a blind eye to the terrorists that used his country for an outpost?
Pre-emptive still means "prevent".
That's a good point, Rip. I guess the same could be said regarding the cold war. Did we prevent the Soviets from nuking us by having our deterrrent force?
I'd say, probably yes.
On the other hand, who's to say that Mpsl/St.Paul won't get nuked in 20 yrs regardless of what's going on in Iraq? Maybe Iraq has nothing to do with where the next terroist attack will come from?
-
Originally posted by banana
On the other hand, who's to say that Mpsl/St.Paul won't get nuked in 20 yrs regardless of what's going on in Iraq? Maybe Iraq has nothing to do with where the next terroist attack will come from?
Exactly. So, our job is NOT finished in Iraq. It must be eliminated from the face of the planet.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Actually with or without the US intervention I don't think the German monarchy would have survived the war.
I agree, straffo. But without US involvment, I think the Germans would've continued to fight instead of give up in November 1918. The war ended before any German soil was conquered.
-
Originally posted by banana
Ok Grun, so I'll chalk that up as a "Yes, it was worth 157,000 + US casualties to end up in a 40yr stalemate."
Got it.
You see that map and think stalemate? The only "stale" state I see on that map is North Korea... No economy, no food, no freedom, no human rights, no press rights, no free travel, no free thought. Hundreds of thousands in concentration and death camps.. The main exports of north korea are missle parts and opium.. The government forces farmers to plantr opium poppies instead of food when they have millions of people starving near to death...
So thats North Korea for you...
What is this nonsense banana, have you no clue what a hellhole North Korea is?
As for the south...
Do you even have a clue how much better the region is for having a vibrant, non agressive and productive economy in South Korea instead of the situation in the north.. They have a great economy, they export cars, electronics, they trade with the world. 25,000,000 useful and productive people...
So yea there is your "stalemate."
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You see that map and think stalemate? The only "stale" state I see on that map is North Korea... No economy, no food, no freedom, no human rights, no press rights, no free travel, no free thought. Hundreds of thousands in concentration and death camps.. The main exports of north korea are missle parts and opium.. The government forces farmers to plantr opium poppies instead of food when they have millions of people starving near to death...
So thats North Korea for you...
What is this nonsense banana, have you no clue what a hellhole North Korea is?
As for the south...
Do you even have a clue how much better the region is for having a vibrant, non agressive and productive economy in South Korea instead of the situation in the north.. They have a great economy, they export cars, electronics, they trade with the world. 25,000,000 useful and productive people...
So yea there is your "stalemate."
So you agree that there is a stalemate, then? If there were no stalemate, there would be one country called Korea, and it would either be prosperous(i.e. South Korea) or it would not(i.e. North Korea).
I'm not arguing which part of Korea has it better. Any fool can see that North Korea is living in the stone age. What I'm asking is......was it worth all the US casualties?
Is it possible for you to go beyond economics and think about the human cost of the widows and children of the US servicemen who died in the Korean War?
That's what this thread is intended to be about. But if you can't debate on that level, then I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, and you can have your way and "win".
-
Originally posted by banana
Iraq War: You tell me. Was it worth the sacrifice?
Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting.
Historically... IIRC, look to the the U.S./Philippine conflict of 1898-1914. We are going to be in Iraq for decades.
Did we the U.S. gain anything by invading Iraq? I don't believe so. Iraq was contained. Surrounded on all sides and no ability to project power. We're not any safer today because Hussein is out of power.
Israel scored big time. Hussein is gone and it has cost them nothing. Meanwhile, the U.S. costs in dollars and lives continues to tick away, day by day, week by week, year by year.
-
What made Korea and Veitnam 'not worth it' by my definition is that we did not fight to win. We should never send a serviceman into battle without the full intention of utterly eliminating our enemies. Without that moral conviction we should not engage, it is 'not worth' the lives of our best citizens.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Historically... IIRC, look to the the U.S./Philippine conflict of 1898-1914. We are going to be in Iraq for decades.
Did we the U.S. gain anything by invading Iraq? I don't believe so. Iraq was contained. Surrounded on all sides and no ability to project power. We're not any safer today because Hussein is out of power.
Israel scored big time. Hussein is gone and it has cost them nothing. Meanwhile, the U.S. costs in dollars and lives continues to tick away, day by day, week by week, year by year.
Sandman, do you think the Gulf War was worth it? I mean, Saddam did seem to have the ability to project power, at least to the south. Hard to say what the Iranians would've done eventually had he continued to attack neighboring countries.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Did we the U.S. gain anything by invading Iraq? I don't believe so. Iraq was contained. Surrounded on all sides and no ability to project power. We're not any safer today because Hussein is out of power.
Experts disagree with you, of course they're much more educated on the matter too, so its no surprise.
Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the U.N. as a member state, and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" was un-Islamic. They talked about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They were fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.
The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.
That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.
-
Originally posted by banana
So you agree that there is a stalemate, then? If there were no stalemate, there would be one country called Korea, and it would either be prosperous(i.e. South Korea) or it would not(i.e. North Korea).
I'm not arguing which part of Korea has it better. Any fool can see that North Korea is living in the stone age. What I'm asking is......was it worth all the US casualties?
Is it possible for you to go beyond economics and think about the human cost of the widows and children of the US servicemen who died in the Korean War?
That's what this thread is intended to be about. But if you can't debate on that level, then I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, and you can have your way and "win".
How about the human cost of 25,000,000 million enslaved south koreans? Actually not 25,000,000 - most of those people would never have existed due to the human rigts, food and economic polivies of the north if the north won the war...
The stunning depravity of the North Korean state all by itself is evidence enough that it was a good thing to oppose them. Then add the simple comparsion between conditions in the north and south today and its perfectly clear that the war was worth it.
All that and the fact that we have two strong and free military, economic and cultural allies, South Korea and Japan, in the region for the rest of the cold war makes me absolutly convinced that it was worth it.
But go ahead banana, tell us all it wasnt...
-
Yes, Grun, I understand your point about the effect the war had on Koreans.
My original question was, and still is....was it worth the cost in American lives and wounds and the effects on American families.
You haven't answered that question yet.
-
banana how about this question..
Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
banana how about this question..
Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine. :)
-
banana you judge all of those wars with the benefit of hindsight. Would you have been able to come to the same conclusions a year or so after each ended?
Will it be worth it? I don't know; it depends on what success at installing democracy in the Middle East there is AND upon what effect that actually has over maybe a decade or so if it does get done.
Send me your Hindsightometer and I'll take another look though.
-
It wasn't worth one brave American life.
-
Well, Scholz, if you have one of those new-fangled Hindsightometers that lets you have 20 years of instant, totally correct Hindsight on today's affairs, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you see.
Then you'll be right in line with this thread topic.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Scholz, if you have one of those new-fangled Hindsightometers that lets you have 20 years of instant, totally correct Hindsight on today's affairs, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you see.
Then you'll be right in line with this thread topic.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
No, I haven't changed my well-documented position. You'll find my posts here saying the I generally do not support the US invading sovereign nations without legitimate cause under Just War theory. I also said I'd give the Bush admin the benefit of the doubt on this one but that I would require proof of their WMD claims at some reasonable point after the invasion/removal of Saddam. That time passed without proof, therefore I can see no reason for the war that qualifies under Just War theory.
I will be voting accordingly.
-
WWI:
Prolly not worth the dead. I do not know much about this war, much like the Civil war, it just does not interest me much.
Total US Casualties: 320,518
WWII:
Yes I have no doubt this War was worth the cost.
Total US Casualties: 1,077,245
Korean War:
Yes, and it was a fight we needed to fight to show the commies in China and Russia that we would fight if pushed. Who knows were else the Sovs or Chinese would have aranged to have invaded if we had not fought here. I bet most South Koreans are very happy for our and their sacrafice. Americans died in the North Korean attack, we had to fight.
Total US Casualties: 157,530
Vietnam War:
No, we should never have gotten involved. In fact we should have given Ho Chi min his country for aiding us in WW2 agaist the Japanese, instead we caved to French presure and give them their colony back. If we had fought and won, and vietnam was a united free non commie nation, it may have been worth it.
Total US Casualties: 243,501
Gulf War:
Yeah, it was worth it.
Total US Casualties: 1,764
Iraq War:
It will be worth it if we stick around and do the job right, and by right I mean we stay untell the country is free and is holding its own real elections and is stable enough to manage itself. This will be a long time in coming.
It will not have been worth it if we pull out to soon and let those people down by letting a dictator or religous government take over.
Total US Casualties: est. 7,982 and counting. [/B][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by banana
Yes, Grun, I understand your point about the effect the war had on Koreans.
My original question was, and still is....was it worth the cost in American lives and wounds and the effects on American families.
You haven't answered that question yet.
Yes I have.
I'n my opinion it was worth it. It gave us strong allies in the region, strong trading partners, freed millions from north korean opression, it was also a clear rebuke of blatant military agression - lets not forget the north's regular army did invade the south - this was not a civil war in any traditional sense of the word.
So there thats my answer..
Also your question is basically disingenous. You ask if these wars were worth it for the families of the dead US soldiers.. You demand that I answer for millions of famlies when it involves a war you disagree with... You exculde any mention of the impact on other people...
But when you agree with the war, like you do with the Gulf War you say it was all worth it because not fighting it would have led to a bigger war that involved Israel? What does that have to do with the families of US soldiers if Israel fights? All of a sudden, when you agree with the war, the impact to foregin people matters in your question? But you say that it dioesnt matter what the result was for the Koreans..
You're full of it..
-
Originally posted by Toad
banana you judge all of those wars with the benefit of hindsight. Would you have been able to come to the same conclusions a year or so after each ended?
Will it be worth it? I don't know; it depends on what success at installing democracy in the Middle East there is AND upon what effect that actually has over maybe a decade or so if it does get done.
Send me your Hindsightometer and I'll take another look though.
I agree 100%, Toad. It was my intention to get people to think out of the box, so to speak, and think about how what appears to be a no-brainer decision today...may not seem to absolutely correct twenty years from now.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Given the title of the thread I would say that hindsight is the operative word for this thread.
Well..No..Some of us have been saying this from the beginning.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This thread is about speculation, not "totaly correct hindsight". Perhaps you should consider that when posting?
Yeah, banana gives examples/opinions of wars that, with one exception, are all more than 20 years in the past. Events that CAN be evaluated and assessed with the benefit of hindsight. ONLY with the benefit of hindsight.
This sets the stage for "speculation" on today's events as if that follows logically.
Speculate all you like; it's a waste of time. There's far too many variables to make any sort of intelligent, fact based assessment at this time. In short, it's pure guesswork.
But go ahead and pretend you can make a meaningful accounting right now.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
banana how about this question..
Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
No, not even one.
Now, if we're talking about if China tries to invade and capture Japan or the Philipines......Yes, absolutely. The gloves would need to come off.
The problem with Taiwan, is that China still thinks it is still a part of China, and not a sovereign nation. I don't know all the history involved, but from what little I have read about Taiwan, it wouldn't be worth going to war with China over Taiwan.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think you misunderstood SirLoin.
Consistent though! :D
-
banana, one word: ENTROPY. War is just the manifestation of mankind's resistance to that phenominum (sp?).
-
Originally posted by banana
I think about how what appears to be a no-brainer decision today...may not seem to absolutely correct twenty years from now.
LOL!
That's life, amigo. Everybody,everyday, everywhere makes no-brainer decisions today that may not seem to absolutely correct twenty years from now.
We call that "life", I think.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
banana, one word: ENTROPY. War is just the manifestation of mankind's resistance to that phenominum (sp?).
Slimm, you mean entropy as in chaos, disorganization or randomness? I had to look that word up at Merriam-Webster.
Please explain.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That does not mean one cannot have an intelligent discussion on what people think will happen.
Go ahead and indulge in your discussion of pure guesswork.
Try not to be too pretentious about the baseless pronouncements though.
Enjoy.
-
Interesting topic. I would like to add a few more wars to the discussion.
Ahghanistan. Spanish/American. Mexican/American. Civil War.
And for the British: The Falklands.
-
Yes
I'd say in less than 10 years most will be saying it was
-
Instead of thinking 20 years from now..Why not try and learn from the past?
War is a last resort..Pre-emptive invasion?...Europe is still suffering from that lame excuse to go to war(twice over too)..
-
I'll get back to you in 20 years. This email should still be good.
But seriously, as has been pointed out, the results of our efforts in Iraq won't be known for years to come.
-Sik
-
I would say that civilization and judiciary is a response to entropy. War is a symptom of a failure of that response, not a response itself.
-
Originally posted by banana
Slimm, you mean entropy as in chaos, disorganization or randomness? I had to look that word up at Merriam-Webster.
Please explain.
From Batleby.com: def #5: "Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society."
-
Originally posted by banana
The problem with Taiwan, is that China still thinks it is still a part of China, and not a sovereign nation. I don't know all the history involved, but from what little I have read about Taiwan, it wouldn't be worth going to war with China over Taiwan.
And Iraq claimed that Kuwait was only a province of Iraq..
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exactly. So, our job is NOT finished in Iraq. It must be eliminated from the face of the planet.
Pretty sure you didn't mean what you said here. Careful with those pesky pronouns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Pretty sure you didn't mean what you said here. Careful with those pesky pronouns.
Whoops! :rofl I meant "Terrorism" must be eliminated. But feel free to disregard the common sense approach to eliminating it! ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And Iraq claimed that Kuwait was only a province of Iraq..
U wanna talk about the Gulf War?..Start a thread and I'm in.
-
The gulf war was a part of this thread from the start..
By your tone are we to assume that you opposed the first gulf war?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
U wanna talk about the Gulf War?..Start a thread and I'm in.
I want to see where this goes, this could be good.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The gulf war was a part of this thread from the start..
By your tone are we to assume that you opposed the first gulf war?
Not at the time I didn't..but in hindsight we can see now why it happened.
-
So now you oppose the first gulf war? Do I understand that correctly?
-
Yes I do Grun.
-
Originally posted by banana
Sandman, do you think the Gulf War was worth it? I mean, Saddam did seem to have the ability to project power, at least to the south. Hard to say what the Iranians would've done eventually had he continued to attack neighboring countries.
It probably was, but I lack conviction.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Yes I do Grun.
Would you care to tell us why you belive that Saddam Hussien should have been allowed to annex Kuwait?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Will it be worth any US lives to oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
Not one, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Would you care to tell us why you belive that Saddam Hussien should have been allowed to annex Kuwait?
It was wrong for Iraq to annex Kuwait..Much like it was wrong for Grenada and Panama to be annexed by the USA.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It was wrong for Iraq to annex Kuwait..Much like it was wrong for Grenada and Panama to be annexed by the USA.
As if.
This is the kind of absolutely ludicrous comparison that people with no compunction towards honesty often trot out to make their case.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It was wrong for Iraq to annex Kuwait..Much like it was wrong for Grenada and Panama to be annexed by the USA.
Annex: To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
So you think the USA did this to Grenada and Panama in the 1980s? That doesnt make any sense, I'll just assume you did not know the definition of the word annex.
So now that you do know.
Why do you believe Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to annex Kuwait?
-
I don't get it..U use dictionary when you coulda used ur brain to think?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I don't get it..U use dictionary when you coulda used ur brain to think?
This is coming from a guy who just said the USA annexed Grenada???
-
Why did Iraq annex Kuwait?...You don't know?
-
Originally posted by banana
I don't know all the history involved, but from what little I have read about Taiwan, it wouldn't be worth going to war with China over Taiwan.
Allow me...in the words of Roger Waters...to provide a brief overview...
Her grandpa fought old Chiang Kai-shek
That no-good low-down dirty rat
Who used to order his troops to fire on the women and children
Imagine that
imagine that
And in the spring of '48
Mao Tse-tung got quite irate
And he kicked that old dictator Chiang pattern out of the state
of China
Chiang Kai-shek came down in Formosa
And they armed the island of Quemoy
And the shells were flying across the China Sea
And they turned Formosa into a shoe factory alled Taiwan
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Why did Iraq annex Kuwait?...You don't know?
Why do you think the world should have let him?
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1253848#post1253848
I don't feel like retyping so scroll to yer own delight..if u have anything to add Grun..please do.
-
In twenty years will Iraq be settled down, under their own power and military, living in peace? Somehow, doubt that will happen.
As is, Iraq is teetering on a fine line between civil war and simply agitated (as in Palestine/Israel) neighboring cultures.
This thing has a long way to go before it starts to look up.
-SW
-
Oh no! An OPEC member cheating on their qoutas... That never happends, no never.. A banker demanding their loans be paid back.. What horrors! Kill the Kuwaitis!!
And Saddam being a US ally in the 1980s gives him what right to invade anothe US ally? Some nonsense of yours that claims the USA told him so? Just so you say we buddy up with Iran, after we sponsored Saddams war against them throgh the 1980s...
Man whats wrong with you conspiracy people?