Author Topic: What War?  (Read 1274 times)

Offline KONG1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
What War?
« on: October 25, 2007, 12:08:11 PM »
What War? I've tried this line of thinking out with others, including several History Phds. I'd like to know what you guys think.

I contend the war was over quickly marked by the overthrow of the government and it being replaced. A resounding success. History supports this, and from my studies, what is happening now is historically referred to as a peacekeeping mission.

After VE in WWII there were still hardcore Nazis running around blowing things up, killing people. The overthrow of the standing government marked the end of the war. Those captured before that were POWs and eventually released. Those still fighting, captured later, were just criminals.

This isn't a semantic argument. If we are in a war then the opposition are soldiers fighting for their country. Fact is they're just terrorists fighting for no country, just fighting against us and  their own. Most are from other countries.

Every war, US Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, ancient wars, every war has required peacekeeping by the victors.

Now you can be for or against the peacekeeping efforts but they are not a "war". We bandy about the word "war" way to much. war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. History does not support this usage.

Theory is the pubs are calling it a "war" because the funding is for a "war". The dems want to call it a "war" so they can criticize the pubs. The press is calling it a "war" because they're a bunch of dumb-ass journalism majors or even dumber-assed communication majors.

War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Peacekeeping- The maintenance of international peace and security by the deployment of military forces in a particular area:

Of course all this gets muddy from a historical perspective when discussing what is an internal civil war or an illegal uprising (usually decided by the victor). I have problems trying to classify what's happening in Iraq as a civil war, not just yet....
“It’s good to be King” - Mel Brooks

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
What War?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2007, 12:11:58 PM »
War is over, this is the occupation.  I'd like to quote the late, great Col. David Hackworth:

" I do invasions, not occupations".

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
Re: What War?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2007, 12:39:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by KONG1
What War? I've tried this line of thinking out with others, including several History Phds. I'd like to know what you guys think.

I contend the war was over quickly marked by the overthrow of the government and it being replaced. A resounding success. History supports this, and from my studies, what is happening now is historically referred to as a peacekeeping mission.

After VE in WWII there were still hardcore Nazis running around blowing things up, killing people. The overthrow of the standing government marked the end of the war. Those captured before that were POWs and eventually released. Those still fighting, captured later, were just criminals.

This isn't a semantic argument. If we are in a war then the opposition are soldiers fighting for their country. Fact is they're just terrorists fighting for no country, just fighting against us and  their own. Most are from other countries.

Every war, US Civil, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, ancient wars, every war has required peacekeeping by the victors.

Now you can be for or against the peacekeeping efforts but they are not a "war". We bandy about the word "war" way to much. war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. History does not support this usage.

Theory is the pubs are calling it a "war" because the funding is for a "war". The dems want to call it a "war" so they can criticize the pubs. The press is calling it a "war" because they're a bunch of dumb-ass journalism majors or even dumber-assed communication majors.

War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Peacekeeping- The maintenance of international peace and security by the deployment of military forces in a particular area:

Of course all this gets muddy from a historical perspective when discussing what is an internal civil war or an illegal uprising (usually decided by the victor). I have problems trying to classify what's happening in Iraq as a civil war, not just yet....


No war has ever been won without the use of Total War.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline KONG1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
What War?
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2007, 12:40:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
War is over, this is the occupation.  I'd like to quote the late, great Col. David Hackworth:

" I do invasions, not occupations".


We are there under the authority of the democratically elected government and would leave if they asked. Not historically termed an occupation.
“It’s good to be King” - Mel Brooks

Offline KONG1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: Re: What War?
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2007, 12:42:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No war has ever been won without the use of Total War.

Historically the word "win/won" was applied when the opposing government surrendered or was replaced.
“It’s good to be King” - Mel Brooks

Offline sluggish

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
What War?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2007, 12:45:14 PM »
The difference between now and then is that the Germans had endured over six years of total war.  By the time Hitler shot himself they were mostly so tired of the war that they gave in to their loss.  The same could be said for Japan, which watched two of its city vaporized.  They too were shocked into capitulation.

Todays pinpoint bombing and tactics that minimize collateral damage hardly shock those who would stand against us into surrender.  The war was over so fast that they hardly think there was a war; just an occupation.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
What War?
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2007, 01:00:30 PM »
KONG1, shhhh, you will just upset the librul anti boosh gang.

Offline BigGun

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
What War?
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2007, 01:02:42 PM »
Sounds like semantics. It doesn't matter one way or the other what you call it. It is what it is.

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
What War?
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2007, 01:43:46 PM »
if one were to actually think about it...........Yes, the war was won quickly, of course...first world army beating up a 3rd world army.  The occupation has been a disaster however.

Although it looks like the steam may finally be running out for the insurgents.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Irwink!

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 583
      • http://msn.com
What War?
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2007, 02:01:54 PM »
Yeah, just semantics. Korea and Vietnam were officially called "police actions". I will agree that what's going on in Iraq today is not technically a war by definition even though getting shot/blown up/kia doesn't feel any differently under an "occupation". I believe that some would have us call the present clash of arms in Iraq a war in the context of "The War on Terror". I dispute the latter. In my view the conflict in Afghanistan could be rightfully referred to as part of the "The War on Terror" but not Iraq. You can guess my reasoning without my elaborating I'm sure (fairly). Whatever, it's still semantics based on different agendas. Getting shot is still getting shot.

Offline KONG1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
What War?
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2007, 09:12:53 PM »
If you carry a sign that that says "Stop War" what is it you want?
If you carry a sign that says "Stop Peacekeeping" what is it you want?

I'm kinda disappointed. I was hoping for at least one reasonable argument for the peacekeeping effort being called a war. It's not like just a few people call it "the war", everybody seems to call it "the war".

BC said it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, now that's a semantic argument.  Whether or not a nation is at war is hardly a matter of semantics, there are implications. For instance, when we capture a combatant.  If, as everyone says, it's "a war", then he would be a POW. At the end of "the war" he should be released, which brings up the next question. If the overthrow of the nation is not the end of "the war" then what is. If this is a "war" what exactly would happen to denote an ending? How would we know when to let him go?

Is it the case that the word "war" is so overused and inexact it has been rendered meaningless and indeterminate? What then can be the value of any discussion which uses such an undefined term?
“It’s good to be King” - Mel Brooks

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
What War?
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2007, 05:19:39 AM »
Origanally posted by KONG1

Quote
War- A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.


Kong, 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? Especially, as since at the end of the Iraq invasion, was there ever a formal armistice signed, or a peace treaty made with the government of Iraq, formally ending the conflict?

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.

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
What War?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2007, 07:42:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by sluggish
The difference between now and then is that the Germans had endured over six years of total war.  By the time Hitler shot himself they were mostly so tired of the war that they gave in to their loss.  The same could be said for Japan, which watched two of its city vaporized.  They too were shocked into capitulation.

Todays pinpoint bombing and tactics that minimize collateral damage hardly shock those who would stand against us into surrender.  The war was over so fast that they hardly think there was a war; just an occupation.


Thats not entirely true - the occupations of Germany and Japan were conducted quite differently because of the two distinct populaces different states and abilities of post war "compliance" and occupation. Japan was not a defeated nation in the same sense like Germany.

This is as distinct from initial occupation numbers alone ie.

VE day Eisenhower had 61 US divisions in Germany (1,622,000 men) which was then responsible for security -ie. patrolling and checkpoints, de-nazification, and demobing the German armed forces.
After VJ day a occupation force of 370,000 was planned, but quickly fell to 270,000 due to rapid demobilization of US forces, but were boosted by 30,000 constabularies in July 1946 a short term measure until a professional German police force could be trained. By 1947 the US occupying force  dropped to 200,000. Germany was broken down under military governors, and any remaining German bureaucracy disbanded. The military was in complete control of all facets of german civilian life.

Democratising was initially small scale. in 1946 communities of less than 20,000 were allowed elections for Lander officials which were responsible for internal affairs (not including security) under the umbrella of the military governors. This allowed the military to maintain the de-nazification process, and also foster a grass roots idea of democracy. Eventually populations of larger than 20,000 were allowed to participate, and eventually the French and British sectors followed suite.

In Japan the initial occupying estimates were 600,00 US, and 145,000 Commonwealth forces. At surrender The Japanese had mobilized 3-4 million troops to defend mainland Japan, and still had 1.6 million in China, and a further a 800,00 spread amongst the pacific and Korea.
Japan however still had a functioning govenment (the Diet) and leadership under the emperor. In the two weeks it took for the occupying forces to arrive, the Japanese had reconstituted the cabinet under the Emperor's Uncle and had begun to demobilized and disarm the Japanese army. Members of the emperor's family were dispatched to garrisons outside Japan to also begin disarmament of Japanese forces. Also the Japanese govt. began a public relations campaign to counter rumors of a violent and brutal occupation.
At the end of August the first occupation force began to arrive which eventually grew to a total of 354,000 US, and 45,000 Commonwealth soldiers. Under request of the Japanese the Army and Ministries were allowed to remain and demobilize their own troops. These ministries were disbanded in December 1945.
After occupation the Japanese govt was allowed to remain basically intact. MacArthur's SCAP (supreme commander allied powers) command communicated directly with the Japanese govt. issuing broad directives, and tasks they were to complete - and let the Diet and bureaucracy debate and devise how. The SCAP of course would intervene whenever it felt necessary. This allowed the bureaucracy to foster and grow which was beneficial because it allowed the Japanese to take responsibility for the problems they faced, and also grew more cordial and responsive to SCAP because the Japanese felt they had some influence to their future. By mid 1947 MacArthur encouraged the Japanese to assume normal govt. responsibilities for all domestic affairs except the economy. Although there was seen to be an earlier mistake when in 1946 the Japanese were purged of all proponents of militarism and aggression, which was categorical not personal based on wartime position not actions, unlike the de-nazification of Germany.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
What War?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2007, 08:10:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by KONG1
We are there under the authority of the democratically elected government and would leave if they asked. Not historically termed an occupation.


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.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline T0J0

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
What War?
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2007, 08:38:15 AM »
To the disgruntled liberals any armed conflict that lasts longer then a George Clooney movie is considered an absolute failure, but bring up the failed war on poverty in DC and ask for an exit strategy and watch the glazed look on thier face.
 This is the same crowd who's sole purpose it appears is to replace the Ten commandments anywhere its found with Muslim foot baths..

TJ