An objective view of the war on terrorism

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

chemist RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism 4/8/2004 9:49:34 PM

care to elaborate on the idealism/realism angle final?

Quote Reply

dudley RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism 4/8/2004 10:21:10 PM

bubbas point of view.idealism is a liberals way of f*****G THE WORLD UP.realism is a conservatives pont of view,facts and reality.

Quote Reply

Rubicon RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism 4/8/2004 11:58:18 PM

"He is thinking that the US is following the realists at the moment, when in fact Iraq was more of an idealist position. " What does idealism have to do with misrepresenting the facts?

Quote Reply

celebrim RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism 4/9/2004 12:18:13 AM

"In 1945-46-47 we had occupation (stabilization ?) troops in our country (italy), mainly US and GB troops and their logistic tail of support included some civilians administrators. We certainly didn't ever think of burning some Americans or British in their car and then to hang them on a light pole!" No, but some of you did think of stringing wire across the road so that troops in Jeeps and Motorcycles coming down the road would be beheaded. "...because the italians, the germans and even the japanese I would say, even if humiliated by the defeat felt that the new order was not opposed to their future plans." I'm going to try to answer that with a straight face, but its really really hard. I take it you weren't alive then. Have you talked to many people that were? I think you are totally mistake the main reason that the Italians and the Germans and the Japanese didn't for the most part resist occupation. It wasn't that they had great faith in the Americans. Faith in the Americans was earned by the Americans after the occupation began. But the requisite mental state for trusting in the Americans was achieved because the Italians, Germans, and Japanese had been so utterly and completely defeated. They were tired. They were scared. They were demoralized. There cities were rubble. Thier factories were ashes. Thier armies were crushed. Everyone had experienced death personally. They knew that further resistance only meant more death and suffering. And even if you were inclined to resist, there was scarely anything left to resist with. Every resource was spent. The germans had lost so many men they were arming thier children. The Japanese were down to arming thier reserve with bamboo spears. So of course they were willing to trust in the Americans. What other choice did they actually have? Contrast this to Iraq. There cities are largely intact. Most citizens never saw the war. Most do not know anyone who died in it. There was no period of deprivation. There was no spirit crushing time of internable defeat. There was no resignation and no commitment. And worse yet, for the most part there is no sign of overwhelming American strength. For the most part, average Iraqi's have only seen are gloved, often seemingly disinterested, hand. As many as one third of all Iraqi's have never seen a coallition soldier. It's not like thier are check points on every road, soldiers on every block,

Quote Reply

dudley RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism 4/9/2004 12:33:47 AM

"contrast this to Iraq. There cities are largely intact. Most citizens never saw the war. Most do not know anyone who died in it. There was no period of deprivation. There was no spirit crushing time of internable defeat. There was no resignation and no commitment"...........are you serious after 30 years of saddam?what planet or better yet what are you smokin bubba?

Quote Reply

Rubicon RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism, dudley 4/9/2004 1:18:29 PM

Yeah, that's why they where happy about Saddam overthrow, but were and are largely ignorant of Amwericans, what they stand for and their capabilities. And since they see Americans not using Saddam approach, most of what these guys know anyways, they consider coalition weak. Hence the grab for power.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism, dudley 4/9/2004 2:21:53 PM

Celebrim has a point. Germany and Japan had nothing left to fight with, and looked around themselves and saw nothing but complete devastation. (Even so, the Japanese were ready, willing, and able to fight to the last man.) They didn't have much choice but to go along with the Allies' view of the future, because they had no future left. Times have changed since 1945. Back then, we would have sent in a fleet of B-17s and B-29s and utterly wiped every major city in Iraq out. Our invasion would have found a numbed populace. We would have set up an Army of Occupation and not been afraid to call it one. There would have been continued bloodshed for several years, but the American populace would have accepted it as the price of victory. It's a good thing today that we don't have to completely annihilate a country to beat it, though we have that potential. But I think the hotheads see our soft-pedal approach as a weakness. They are greatly aided by our media hyping up everything that goes wrong, and al-Jazeera (and others) making sure that every bomb attack is blamed on Israel or the US. Continuing the WWII analogy, it would be like occupying Germany, but allowing Goebbels to move operations to Sweden, and having Edward R. Murrow reporting that Germans overwhelmingly remain hostile to Americans. Saddam and his thugs waged a smaller-scale version of the Holocaust ON HIS OWN PEOPLE for the last 30 years, but we don't hear about that on BBC, CNN, or al-Jazeera. We only hear about how evil the occupiers are. Maybe there is something to this autarky thing.

Quote Reply

celebrim RE: Dudley 4/9/2004 2:22:47 PM

"what planet or better yet what are you smokin bubba?" Are you sure you want to get into this with me? No one but an idiot can possibly construe that I was referring to the experience of the Iraqi people under Saddam. Thirty years of tyranny and brutality under Saddam might well explain both why the Iraqi people were resigned to his rule and unable to revolt, and why they did little to assist his regime when it was overthrown. But America cannot possibly be thought to inherit the fear that Saddam had instilled in his people. In no way can anyone but a fool suggest that because Saddam and crushed and defeated the spirit and will of the Iraqi's, that somehow the 'rewards' of that defeat will be transfered over to the Americans. It is completely obvious that I was referring to the pyschological experience of the Iraqi people during the comparitively short period of the American invasion/liberation, and contrasting it to the pyschological experience of the Italian people during the American invasion/liberation. It should be completely obvious to anyone with any understanding of history that there is simply no direct comparison. I though I explained fully why Italians, Japanese, and Germans did not resist thier American occupiers/liberators, and point by point the same case cannot be made for the Iraqi's. 1) "Their cities are largely intact.": We did not firebomb Iraq the way we bombed Dresden or Toyko. We certainly did drop any nukes on Iraq. Damage to Iraqi cities was almost exclusively confined to relatively small government controlled area. It didn't touch average Iraqi's. It was a war which the only sign of defeat seen by the average Iraqi is purely symbolic. Unless you were in the way of the hammer, an Iraqi can be forgiven for thinking that the Americans appeared in Bagdad almost by magic. It's a situation that leaves the average Iraqi confused, ashamed, and angry but without the accompaning since of resolution and defeat. They are happy to have Saddam gone, sure, but they don't see the conquerers as having earned thier conquest and they aren't afraid of them. 2) "Most citizens never saw the war. Most do not know anyone who died in it." Everyone in Iraq knows someone who Saddam Hussein killed, but casualties suffered by the Iraqi people are historically low. By comparison the Japanese and German people had taken 20% or 30% casualties. Death had become a real thing, and not merely an abstraction. People in Fallujah can go around chanting nonsense like 'Fallujah will become a graveyard for the Americans' because they haven't buried enough of thier own people for such phrases to acquire the bitterness that they should be all rights have. Dancing around in Fallujah chanting 'Death to the Americans' is an entirely differently thing than dancing around in the ruins of Berlin (or Nagasaki!) on the eve of the arrival of the American armies (and Russian) armies shouting 'We will make this city a graveyard for the invaders!'. One is stupid. The other is just insane. 3) "There was no spirit crushing time of internable defeat." The war was over in less than a month. During that time, there were none of the signs which normally are associated with military defeat. There was no mass migration of refugees from the combat zones. Quite the contrary, during the same periods literally hundreds of thousands of refugees returned to the contrary (along with thousands of would be Jihadists). There wasn't a long period of near starvation, deprivation, and struggle to survive. In a certain sense, it would be like the Allies entering Berlin in 1939. The conquest would have happened, but the enemies culture would not have failed. Yes, Saddam Hussein's model had failed utterly, and you won't see the Baathists come back, but on the other hand neither has there been anything which might resign the average Iraqi to the American model, and so thier will be a time in which various visions of the future of the country can compete because some of them haven't been proven bankrupt. It's easy to get people to change if you expose them to a trauma. We didn't (nor will we I hope) traumatize the Iraqi people. But this act of mercy carries consequences.

Quote Reply

Final Historian Realism vs Idealism 4/9/2004 6:00:11 PM

Chemist, the realists would be like Machiavelli. They would base things on what is best for them, and use practical, tried and true methods to accomplish them. The Idealists are like Wilson, they put their long term goals as more important than the available means to achieve them, in the sense that the idealists will take larger risks because they value their ideals over what is necessarily best for them. A realist would not have invaded Iraq and attempt to set up a democratic government. The neo-cons are idealists, while the paleo-conservatives are realists.