Conversation
Notices
-
"There is a paraphrase of something Ho Chi Minh allegedly told to the French in the 1940s which I really like. It goes like this:” we kill some of you, you kill a lot of us, and then we win”. That is how a war with the DPRK would probably play out. I call this the “American curse”: Americans are very good at killing people, but they are not good at winning wars."
Monday, 13-Mar-17 07:30:51 UTC from web-
@nerthos No. We're very good at winning wars. The problem is that the Left sabotages any war effort that isn't against a European, right-wing foe. George W. Bush is ignorant of this, but then, I've discovered he is ignorant about most of American politics.
-
@somercet You used to be good at winning wars in the early XX century, then it became more of a "how can we profit from deploying soldiers" thing and it went horribly wrong.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 07:55:46 UTC from web-
-
@somercet I'm not sure how the left has anything at all to do with me.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:01:01 UTC from web-
@nerthos No, no, I'd like to hear more. What are the profit/loss statements from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Grenada, Beirut, Iraq I & II...
One little question... if War is so profitable... why do we ever stop?-
@somercet Ok, yeah, you really didn't understand what I said and took me for a leftie, which I'm not.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:07:34 UTC from web-
-
@somercet What I was going for is that for the last few decades USA's wars have been fought with monetary interests in mind, though not necessarily for the country itself. Occupations have also been too long and causes of the war really iffy, so in the end they lose more than what they win. WWII was the last war USA could justify without argument, and maybe the cold war but that never escalated to an open conflict. To win a war you need to 1) be able to justify it politically and 2) win considerably more than what you lose, whether it's in resources, power, territory or foreign threat. USA has consistently failed to meet those two conditions lately.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:16:10 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@somercet @nerthos the only thing I want to add to this is that there were time-tested military occupation standards that were completely ignored by GWB administration in Iraq 2, people repeatedly pointed this out and they did the managerial "well we think we can do it smart and lean" basically we had major urban areas with less than 1/4 of the recommended occupier to occupied ratios. this is probably the reason shinseki bailed, because he was one of the people giving them realistic numbers, but just like the evidence for iraq war 2, the admin only wanted to hear what it already decided.
I don't know if America potentially could win a war because in practice we never do what's necessary (possibly because admitting the costs up-front is politically infeasible.)-
@moonman The thing is that even if winning militarily, the USA at this point has ran it's reputation to the ground so much that they can't politically win a war that's not outright defensive, and they won't get into a defensive war because no country will try to invade them in the near future.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:10:30 UTC from web-
@nerthos yeah we didn't take the bait on Syria because of this, which really wrecked a lot of people's plans.
-
@moonman That was one of the smartest moves in recent years really.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:18:38 UTC from web-
@nerthos It possibly made things worse for Syrians since we helped create the humanitarian crises that we later would try to use as justification for action.
-
@moonman Yes, but it's a smart move for USA's interests, despite their hand in causing the problem. A reason I don't like countries is that generally what's best for a country conflicts with what's best for justice.
Monday, 13-Mar-17 08:22:57 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
Why would GWB sabotage his own war effort by shortchanging the force? 1. He was unable/unwilling to acquire the funds necessary for a full force. Did the Democrats want too much for a bigger force? Was W unwilling to present the bill for a full-size one? Iraq was peaceful until the Abu Graib photos hit the press (released by one of the soldiers' defense attorneys) and the Admin could not stop it because habeas corpus had not been suspended. (Hence Guantanamo.) By 2008, the Iraqis did not offer immunity to our forces, apparently because the price of continuing immunity was not worth only 10K US troops. 30K was more acceptable but the US was not willing to keep that many. Again, was this W? Democrats? I'd say they've both made sure it isn't talked about in the press, n'est-ce pas? We shared a culture w/ Germany in 1945; Japan was homogenous and isolated on four islands. Was Iraq that much bigger? Or was the will missing behind all the promises th…
-
-
-
