The US is powerful but not omnipotent. Vietnam showed that very clearly.
By "losing the war" I mean not meeting political/economic objectives. If you look at WWII, the big winner was the US - essentially getting to organize the post war world in it's own interests.
Contrast that with the war in Iraq. It could hardly be said that it has enabled the US to organize the middle east in a way favoring the US. If anything, it has strengthened Iran.
It is very hard to put a positive spin on the fact that the US can't even get to have it's corporations run the oil industry in a country it occupies. Surely this is not part of the grand plan? Wasn't the neocons grand plan to have Iraq's oil wealth pay for the cost of the US war on Iraq?
.....what flowers....?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,779
- Likes
- 3,981
British soldiers 'died averting Afghan market bombing'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8417964.stm
Why are we using our limited troops guarding markets? Shouldn't Afghans be guarding these places.
I fail to see what our contribution here is? Training Afghans on how to stand on guard?
Never ending stupidity of our elite...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8417964.stm
Why are we using our limited troops guarding markets? Shouldn't Afghans be guarding these places.
I fail to see what our contribution here is? Training Afghans on how to stand on guard?
Never ending stupidity of our elite...
Please read posts before commenting upon them.
None of what you said affects the outcome of the war, which the Americans won with contemptuous ease. It is simply ludicrous to say that they lost - the enemy army was crushed into dust with astonishingly little cost to the victors. The enemy surrendered with alacrity and unable to insist on any terms of any description. That is total victory for the Americans.
The fact that WMD were not found indicates (assuming that they were not there when the war began) that the Americans were either mistaken or lying about this reason for going to war.
The deaths, displacements and other negative consequences are deplorable. They have occurred largely as a result of an inability to bring peace and stability to Iraq, the perpetrators and victims overwhelmingly Muslims. One can certainly argue convincingly that these consequences were entirely foreseeable, and that neither Iraqi or American would receive much benefit from the war. This does not however alter the fact of the crushing and absolute military victory achieved by the Americans.
Finally, you ask: what did the Americans win? Quite possibly nothing other than the military conflict (or "war"). I think that you are confusing military victory with benefits in the aftermath of the conflict. It is not necesary for the victors to obtain benefit from a war for them to have been victorious - the two situations are totally separate.
King Pyrrhus of Epirus might be worth googling as an example of how victory in war may not necessarily be of benefit. Pryrrhus lost a great deal from his campaigns, but no-one disputes who was the victor of Asculum.
No, I don't expect them to control or manage the country. However, they certainly have the ability to distribute oil contracts as they see fit. Competence has nothing to do with it.
As for freedom, I have not mentioned it. The Iraqis are far from free, although who their oppressors might be I leave to wiser heads to fathom.
The Iraqi government, on the other hand, appears (at least) to have the ability to distribute oil contracts to the bidders who make the most attractive offers. I do not confuse the ability of the state to act as it pleases with the freedom of the citizens of that state, nor I believe did I make any statement that suggests that I do.
Well, I think that I have covered this, but I've thought of a fairly neat analogy that may illustrate the difference between winning a conflict and deriving a benefit from the victory.
Consider a boxing match between two opponenets, one rich and feted, the other poor and little known. The rich boxer wins the bout, the poor boxer loses, but puts up a very good fight and takes his defeat gallantly.
As a result of injuries sustained during the bout, the rich boxer dies shortly afterwards. The poor boxer is much in demand for media appearences (for which he is well remunerated in both money and exposure) due to his behaviour during and after the fight.
He is consumed with genuine remorse at the results of the fight, and calls upon the rich boxer's very rich widow. The widow is, by the by, 21 and provided with a good quantity of blonde hair and Big Naturals, and is also possessed of a keen intellect and a sweet and loving nature.
A friendship born of grief arises between the losing boxer and the widow. Friendship blossoms into love, love leads to marriage, the union is a fruitful one, and they live happily ever after, having all that man or woman could desire.
The rich boxer still won the fight.
I have not tried to put any spin on it at all - merely to point out that foreign competitors are there with the permission of America, who are the dominant military force in that region. As for the neocons, I have no idea what their grand plan was - events suggest that there was not so much as a mean plan, much less a grand one. However, they are now out of office.
Once again, I fail to see anything that suggests that the Americans lost the war. Thoughtful people do not enter wars lightly, as the aftermath can be a much greater struggle than the conflict itself. That has no bearing on the identity of the victor.
..Good story....but your real answer is...?
The answer is clear - victory in war is not dependent upon gaining advantage from the victory.
Cows are four-legged animals but not all four-legged...oh sod it, I give up
.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Pity Bush, poodle Blair ( I see he got another £k60 for lecturing in Asia recently ) etc. didn't pay attention in their history lessons. It's all happened before and will happen again.
Starting a war somewhere, beats the hell out of doing nothing.
Starting a war somewhere, beats the hell out of doing nothing.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,779
- Likes
- 3,981
Maiden,
You are a smart guy but limited in your perspective.
Like the Americans you try to determine the rules of engagement and outcomes on which the war will be judged.
If you wish to state the US can nuke any country and thus win the war you may well be right. However, in years to come other people and nations will not wait for a first strike and subsequently nuke the US. So when you talking about war I suppose the terms of judgement and period of time are all very complex. As in your boking match you are mixing up the past with the present.
Your statements...
1. The Americans would have to try very hard to lose a war against anybody (or indeed everybody).
2. Perhaps they should not have been there in the first place, certainly the aftermath is going badly, and personally I would imagine that they will leave having accomplished nothing of value.
3. If indeed the Americans did not get things as they wanted them, it is only because they allowed that to happen.
4. Possibly the new administration has no interest in this matter. If, however, it did, the Americans would order matters according to their liking.
5. the Americans don't interfere but instead respect the decision.
But lose the war they most certainly did not!
1. Really? How many people would deem Vietnam or Iraq a successful war? You can stand out like big ???? and be proud.
2. Perhaps they should not have been there??? It is like saying hey guys do we want this victory or not? If they were victorious surely yes! No?
3. You can't argue about this. It has a touch of God syndrome about it. You an arab or something. It was fate - destiny - Gods will. Hey no, it was because Americans wanted it that way. Well if you say so who am I to think otherwise.
4. Possibly they may try and close this Chapter as quickly as possible. But it seems not.
Some say the troops surge is propoganda. Who knows? Why do you say the current administration may not have interest... Or rather why is that the case. You'd think one would wish to consolidate on victory and take the booty... Spoils of war.
5. This line of yours cracks me up. They go in and destroy a country and then you come out with some bull **** like this. You perspective is indeed demented... :cheesy: Let me guess... Hey they didn't interfere with the contract going to China... ???
This war and US foreign policy and strategy is far more complex than winning and losing wars or symantecs as you like to play it.
US has ****ed up its self interests for the next 20-50 years. It is following the regular pattern of an empire extinguishing it self from within...
Here is a little pic for your to frame and hang up on your wall. :cheesy:
You are a smart guy but limited in your perspective.
Like the Americans you try to determine the rules of engagement and outcomes on which the war will be judged.
If you wish to state the US can nuke any country and thus win the war you may well be right. However, in years to come other people and nations will not wait for a first strike and subsequently nuke the US. So when you talking about war I suppose the terms of judgement and period of time are all very complex. As in your boking match you are mixing up the past with the present.
Your statements...
1. The Americans would have to try very hard to lose a war against anybody (or indeed everybody).
2. Perhaps they should not have been there in the first place, certainly the aftermath is going badly, and personally I would imagine that they will leave having accomplished nothing of value.
3. If indeed the Americans did not get things as they wanted them, it is only because they allowed that to happen.
4. Possibly the new administration has no interest in this matter. If, however, it did, the Americans would order matters according to their liking.
5. the Americans don't interfere but instead respect the decision.
But lose the war they most certainly did not!
1. Really? How many people would deem Vietnam or Iraq a successful war? You can stand out like big ???? and be proud.
2. Perhaps they should not have been there??? It is like saying hey guys do we want this victory or not? If they were victorious surely yes! No?
3. You can't argue about this. It has a touch of God syndrome about it. You an arab or something. It was fate - destiny - Gods will. Hey no, it was because Americans wanted it that way. Well if you say so who am I to think otherwise.
4. Possibly they may try and close this Chapter as quickly as possible. But it seems not.
Some say the troops surge is propoganda. Who knows? Why do you say the current administration may not have interest... Or rather why is that the case. You'd think one would wish to consolidate on victory and take the booty... Spoils of war.
5. This line of yours cracks me up. They go in and destroy a country and then you come out with some bull **** like this. You perspective is indeed demented... :cheesy: Let me guess... Hey they didn't interfere with the contract going to China... ???
This war and US foreign policy and strategy is far more complex than winning and losing wars or symantecs as you like to play it.
US has ****ed up its self interests for the next 20-50 years. It is following the regular pattern of an empire extinguishing it self from within...
Here is a little pic for your to frame and hang up on your wall. :cheesy:
Attachments
I cannot believe that I'm getting into this. I should just declare victory, US-style
.Anyway...
1. I would not deem these to be successful. The US had to pull out of Vietnam without achieving victory. The US won with astonishing ease in Iraq, but as I have repeatedly stated this is not the same as a successful overall enterprise or gaining benefit from the conflict.
2. This statement merely acknowledges the fact that some people think that there was a legitimate reason for invading Iraq. It does not mean I agree with that view.
3. It is beyond belief to think that the Iraqi government, which is little more than a puppet and entirely dependent upon the American military for its survival, could have acted in this matter without America's acquiescence. It is also beyond belief to imagine that foreign oil companies could operate in a country ravaged by conflict and controlled (to the extent that there is any control) by the American military.
4. I have no idea about the motivations of the current administration. I merely point out that they have the ability to order the Iraqi government about if they choose. They also have the ability to obliterate every country on the planet if they choose.
5. The two things (oil contracts and the war) are entirely unrelated in this context. Certainly the Americans have done great damage in Iraq, as have the relentless stream of suicide bombers and terrorists targeting Iraqi civilians as a matter of deliberate policy. The damage done by the Americans during the war does not, however, alter the fact that they have clearly allowed the Iraqi government to distribute oil contracts as it sees fit. Yes, they have respected this decision. This is not bull**** at all, but a simple statement of fact, assuming the article that was linked earlier is reporting the truth.
Obviously foreign policy, national interest and so on is far more complex than winning wars. Again though, it is simply foolish to state that the Americans lost the war, and cite the distribution of oil contracts as evidence. The Americans won the war as comprehensively as any war has been won in modern times. As for semantics, well regrettably words have meanings.
I'm not sure what the point of your picture is. Perhaps (inexplicably from anything that I have written) you imagine that I am an admirer of George Bush, or a supporter of either war? Going back to those semantics that you despise so heartily, George Bush looks foolish in front of that banner, because military victory (which the US had accomplished) was not the mission (which the US had not accomplished).
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,779
- Likes
- 3,981
Not really it was as an example.
Nuclear weapons are deterrents.
However, any country that uses one in our modern era should expect a response sooner or later in kind.
I doubt in this age and era any country can win any war outright.
Any country that fights any war loses imo.
It is all the other countries sitting on the sidelines that supply and pick off the economic contracts that win.
There are no longer military empires. Only economic. The elite are yet to learn this fact but over confidence over comes most egos... Sadly...
I agree with this to some extent - certainly it is the dominant theme of our age, and has been I suppose since the end of the Cold War. Even then, America's dominance in military terms was heavily dependent upon her dominance in economic terms.
And certainly also the major powers have rather less enthusiam for knocking three bags out of one another than they used to.
I wonder though whether this will remain the case, especially if the balance of military power shifts too far away from its current position. The heart of man, after all, changes very little, whatever progress may be made in other areas.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
I think you will find that since ballistic missiles put the politicians in the front line, they have shown some reluctance to die for their country, beliefs or anything else.
They prefer the gullible suicide bombers and military to do the painful bit on their behalf.
Well you wouldn't want to die if you had cartloads of dosh to spend, now would you ? be honest !!
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,779
- Likes
- 3,981
Moreover, to think the horrendous ways the trench wars were conducted and 100 years down the line you can go and live in Germany and vice er versa and be paid for doing a good job.
Is there really any reason to invade any country these days?
This is certainly true these days, although in the past many politicians had seen action and would know what war was. Or think of where the highest casualty rates were during the Great War - the politicians, drawn largely from the upper and upper-middle classes, were sending their own sons to their deaths.
There can be some reasons for attacking another country (legitimate ones I mean, not the ones favoured by African maniacs).
Slightly out of date, but if one of your neighbours is run by Nasser and it's 1967, a good reason would be self-preservation.
Or more topical, if one of your near neighbours is run by lunatics who are developing nuclear weapons, and has publicly called for you to be wiped off the map, then an airstrike or two might be in order - again for self-preservation.
