Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Two things I'm sick of
Author Message
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
 
A few points here, briefly:

First of all, the Abu Ghraib photos did not cause Berg's murder any more than it caused those to kill the Americans several weeks ago only to mutilate their dead bodies and string them up from a bridge.

Berg may have been killed anyway, and what the heck was he doing in such a dangerous place anyway? Berg was an autonomous human, who is responsible for his actions. He should have arranged for a job in Iraq before he went over there. To just show up is irresponsible on his part.

The manner of his death and the filming of it is brutal and nasty, distasteful and despicable. If a foreign nation invaded us, I'm sure some of that nations' captives would likely see the same fate. Brutality, as has been pointed out, is an aspect of war--that is why so many disagreed with this war before it began.

Secondly, comparisons to the Iraq war and the Vietnam conflict are inevitable given the rhetoric, the circumstances for invasion and the guerilla resisters of the occupying force.

While there are thousands of good comparisons, there are also thousands of dis-similarities. Any thinking individual can clearly see this.

What ticks me off, Swagger, are comparing the current war with WW2. There aren't many comparisons there.

First of all, we were not attacked by a nation that led us to a declaration of war on that nation. We were attacked in 2001, but that attack has really nothing to do with why we are now fighting in Iraq.

Second, in WW2 the war was already going on, between nations, and we entered upon attack from the Japanese. We entered in with the allies, who were fighting long before our entry. By the time the U.S. entered WW2, the allies had already lost 100s of thousands of servicemen and civilians. Only the Brits have lost an almost equal number of their servicepeople in the current conflict.
This current war was more a unilateral action on the part of the U.S. gov. The Brits and Aussies, the Spaniards and Romanians have accepted pay-offs for their support, and their support has been token compared to the sacrifices of U.S. fighters and taxpayers.

Third, WW2 had a draft in this nation. This current war is fought more by National Guard, reservists and other military personnel who voluntarily signed up. During WW2, the draft was instituted because the wave of vols leveled off six months after Dec. 7, 1941.

Fourth, WW2 killed nearly 135,000 U.S. servicemen in the first full year of that war. To date, only about 700+ have died in the current war.

Fifth, WW2 had several superpowers involved, the USSR, Britain, the U.S., Germany, Japan, Australia--these were superpowers at the time (noticed who all I left out?).

Sixth, that war, WW2 that is, was led by two Democrat presidents. Republican opposition to the war was minimal.

Seventh, the French actually did greet us with flowers and kisses. The French did not start blowing up U.S. servicemen and beheading folks after the liberation of their nation.

Eighth, the American people sacrificed on the homefront by rationing and tax increases.

Ninth, the military at the time was segregated, for the most part (I don't think the Navy and Marines were, but the Navy's ethnic populations were usually cooks).

I could go on, but I'll stop.

There are comparisons to the current war and WW2, but they have not been conveyed by those usually making the comparisons. Maybe later I'll post the obvious comparisons to WW2, but I'd like to see what you all think these might be.
05-20-2004 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Galt Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 13
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
 
MAKO Wrote:Amateurs just don't get it.  War is a nasty, dirty, ugly, dehumanizing business.  Always has been.  Always will be.  The conservative amateurs react with anger at the media for actually showing the public just what the hell war really means.  The liberal amateurs react with stupid shock that war is nasty, dirty, ugly and dehumanizing.
Could you please define "amateur?" And though I appreciate the forcefulness of photos, have you seen the things you reference up close, and smelled them too? The smell always effected me more than the visual did.
05-20-2004 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
 
Swag,

The 9/11 issue and your take on it disturbs me. What's so wrong about the victims wanting the truth? Haven't we learned anything by the study of our own past (i.e., the government always covers its arse first and then lets the truth seep out twenty years later, when no one cares)?

I think they ought to blame everyone who was responsible. Isn't that only fair?

Secondly, Iraq and Vietnam have their similarities and differences, as Dio noted. However, I'd say the most telling similarity is the fact that we tried vainly to impose our will upon an entire nation in Vietnam and failed.

What's that definition of insanity, again? Anytime you keep trying the same thing, expecting different results?

Thirdly, Neal (Neil?) Boortz is as biased and off-his-rocker as any other partisan shill on the radio right now. Wah wah. Notice, though, how the host you despise has the attention of .000000001 percent of the markets in this country? What harm could she possibly pose against the monolithic RWAM?

Censorship is the dirtiest word you can utter, comrade.
05-20-2004 08:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #24
 
joebordenrebel Wrote:Swag,

The 9/11 issue and your take on it disturbs me. What's so wrong about the victims wanting the truth? Haven't we learned anything by the study of our own past (i.e., the government always covers its arse first and then lets the truth seep out twenty years later, when no one cares)?

I think they ought to blame everyone who was responsible. Isn't that only fair?
That's just it -- they don't want to accept the truth. They (general speaking) one person or one small group of people (preferrably of high governmental standing) to be the scapegoat. Some specific entity to point at and go "YOU'RE WHY (insert name here) DIED!" Truth is, blame is spread over multiple administrations and multiple governmental agencies.

I think you misread my post?
05-20-2004 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MAKO Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
 
Quote:Censorship is the dirtiest word you can utter, comrade.
Folks, I self-identify as a political liberal and a social libertarian but let's be clear that "censorship" is a term properly restricted to governmental activities. A private entity cannot, by definition, "censor" anyone's viewpoint. They may not provide you with a forum in which to advocate it but that's a far cry from threatening you with prison for publishing that viewpoint. Indeed, it is quite arguable that forcing a private entity to provide someone with a forum in which to advocate thier viewpoint violates the First Amendment rights of the entity being forced to provide the platform.
05-20-2004 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MAKO Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #26
 
Somehow I missed where anyone had compared the Iraq War to WWII Klutz but, if they did, they have missed a real, fundamental difference between the two.

Iraq posed, at worst, a minimal threat to the United States. Terrorists pose, at worst, a minimal threat to the United States. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to prevent terrorist attacks - obviously, we should. But, all the terrorists in the world and Sadaam Hussein combined don't even begin to come close to the threat that was ultimately posed to the United States by Japan and Germany.

World wide, the total estimated dead in WWII, to include military and civilian deaths, is around 50 million. That's a slaughter on an incomprehensible scale today. The loss in the Soviet Union alone has been estimated at somewhere between 15 - 20 million.
05-20-2004 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #27
 
MAKO Wrote:Somehow I missed where anyone had compared the Iraq War to WWII Klutz but, if they did, they have missed a real, fundamental difference between the two.

Iraq posed, at worst, a minimal threat to the United States. Terrorists pose, at worst, a minimal threat to the United States. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to prevent terrorist attacks - obviously, we should. But, all the terrorists in the world and Sadaam Hussein combined don't even begin to come close to the threat that was ultimately posed to the United States by Japan and Germany.

World wide, the total estimated dead in WWII, to include military and civilian deaths, is around 50 million. That's a slaughter on an incomprehensible scale today. The loss in the Soviet Union alone has been estimated at somewhere between 15 - 20 million.
Mako,

I constantly here, and have heard, especially when we were on the verge of invasion, that the war on Iraq would be akin to Americans liberating France and Belgium during WW2.

Today on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a think-tank representative said the current war and the invasion of Iraq is the modern era's invasion of Normandy.

Politicians like Santorum and Bush, for example, have said repeatedly over the past year that we invaded Iraq and launched into this war much the way Americans launched into WW2. They specifically have said, on occasion, that the 9/11 attacks were this generation's Pearl Habor, and by invading Iraq we are making the world safe for democracy, ending tyranny, much the way another generation of Americans did when they beat the crud outta Hitler and Tojo!

After reading your post, I guess you have not heard these comparisons. How so? These comparisons are everywhere and daily some common, rank-and-file citizen expresses the same.

I've heard 27 million in the USSR and its satellites like the Ukraine, lost during WW2.

I've also read some compelling arguments that suggest the Soviets beared more of a total-war burden in fighting WW2. The nation moved all of its manufacturing plants into the hinterland, rebuilt its army and air force while the enemy was at the gates of Moscow, and then drove the best German divisions back all the way to Berlin. The Soviets also repelled six German counter-offensives from 1943-44 in which tremendous casualties resulted, probably because political commisars were machine gunning an Soviet soldier who dared to retreat.
05-21-2004 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MAKO Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #28
 
The comparisons between WWII and the invasion of Iraq are either laughable or pathetic. I can't decide which.

In Germany, we faced a foe that was, at least at the beginning of the war, more technologically advanced than American forces. We faced a foe whose land warfare doctrine would not be equalled by American land forces for another 40 years. (We basically adopted the doctrine of "blitzkreig" with our "Air-Land Battle Doctrine" in the early 80's). We faced a foe whose junior leaders (Captain and below) and soldiers were much better trained than American junior leaders. Although some of our most senior leadership was as well versed in theory as were German senior leaders, that only applied down to about the level of a two star General. Get below that level and the Germans were better trained in theory as well as in execution of that theory.

In Japan, we faced an enemy that was not quite as technologically advanced as American forces but was close enough to put up a real fight. Their senior leadership was at least as well trained as American senior leadership and their soldiers were at least as well trained as American soldiers. (Their junior leadership was not particularly well trained). Moreover, they were fanatical and every single one was willing to fight to the death.

With terrorists, we face a threat that is admittedly global in nature but not one that has the overt backing of an entire national infrastructure. It is possible that some terrorists will some day get their hands on chemical weapons (see the An-Shin-Rikyo (sp?) cult in Japan). However, without the knowledge of proper employment, a chemical weapon bomb could, at the absolute worst, kill a few hundred people. The biological threat is more troubling but, weaponizing biological agents requires a great deal of technological sophistication. It is doubtful they could kill more than a few dozen before the threat was detected and neutralized. There is absolutely no way they will ever be able to produce a nuclear weapon. The theory of building a nuclear weapon is relatively well known these days. The engineering to actually put one together is another matter entirely. (I'll give details if you really want them and it's all stuff you can find in books in the local library. I certainly don't have access to any classified information).

Iraq was, at worst, a minor regional threat. They had no well trained military after Gulf War I (a war I strongly supported BTW just as I supported the use of force in Afghanistan). Other than the Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard, the bulk of the Iraqi Army was no more than civilians who had been given a weapon and a uniform. (I'm reminded of the "instructions" Russian soldiers received in "Enemy at the Gate." The were loaded off a boat. One soldier was given a rifle with 5 rounds of ammunition in it and another was given 5 rounds of ammunition. As they were being handed out, someone barked the following instructions: "The one with the rifle shoots. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the other one picks up the rifle and shoots"). If you want to see the difference between ill-equipped but decently trained folks and folks with the same poor equipment and no training, look at the difference between the fighting around Faluja and the fighting around Karbala. Muktada Al-Sadr's forces are basically civilians with weapons and they have inflicted very minimal casualties on U.S. forces while those in Faluja who were primarily remnants of the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard managed to kill and injure quite a number of Marines.

If you look hard enough you can find similarities between any two events. The question is not whether there are any similarities. There are. The question is whether the similarties outweigh the differences and if the similarities reflect similarity at a fundamental level or whether they are just coincidental similarities.

My guess Klutz, and I could be wrong, is that those arguing for parallells between WWII and the War in Iraq have no military experience or, if they do, they certainly haven't attended schools such as Command and General Staff College or one of the War Colleges. Hell, I'm only through Phase I (of 4 phases) of Command and General Staff College (now called Command and General Staff Officer's Course) and I can easily see that the parallells between WWII and the War in Iraq are tangential at best.
05-21-2004 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
 
MAKO,

Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, I had to deal with X-mas and New Year's 2003 in the company of my uncle, retired Marine Light Col., bombadier and navigator (A-6), who enjoyed a 20-year career, bombed Lybia and planned sorties during Gulf War I, has an Ed.D, Ph.D, two M.A's, an M.S. and an M.A.E, and he's a royal pain in the arse!!

The two consecutive holidays I spent with him and his family, he continually went on and on about how this inevitable war is just like WW2, except that it would be short, sweet and American G.I.'s would get boo-coo kisses (and a little more) from sweet Iraqi vixens.

He went on and on with Saddam-Hitler comparisons, but mentioned Saddam's Stalinesque apparatus in the same breath. He gushed at rhetorical claims of 'freedom of the world depends on us' and the 'world wants us to do this because no one can be free until Saddam is gone' and 'Americans' freedom depends on a world with no Saddam like Americans' freedom depended on defeating Hitler and Tojo.'

He went on and on and never really responded to any of my arguments, it was as if he was talking to the air. After a few hours of this on New Year's Day 2003, my aunt finally shut him up.

This is coming from a guy who still works for the military, at the time was working for General Dynamics, but now is working for some other gov. contractor, apperently he writes software, but he's really vague about what he actually does at work. I think he's a spy, or coordinates spy activities from Langley.

He's a big freakin' gasbag with alot of credentials but he's terribly unable to think critically. When confronted with his contradictions, he either ignores it or admits defeat and takes the radical position of 'kill em all, let God sort em out.'

Once recently he was telling me about terrorists' best chances of striking America again with commerical airliners. He explained flight patterns and routes from Chile, Argentina, Columbia, etc. and an attack on the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was evident. He concluded his sermon by saying "well...that's not a total loss though. Such an event would only kill a bunch of California and Michigan liberals and we'd be better off without 'em anyway!"
05-21-2004 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.