Question for Iraq war supporters

[RetiredGySgt]

1. I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his. I did not suggest or imply any superiority.

2. I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.

3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.

Cold War ring any bells? In the 70's we still faced a Soviet Union we believed capable and determined to conquer Europe by force or threat of force. So yes we should have maintained our Army and Marine Corps in fighting shape.

 

[maineman]

that, of course, is not what I asked you.

 

[Gunny]

Grrr... I was listening to the debate. I heard it first hand you idiot.

Well, Mr Firsthand, feel free to start a separate thread with a link to the transcripts.

It you want to go the namecalling route I'll be more than fucking happy to oblige you. Comprende?

 

[MasterChief]

And thanks for reminding me about the goofy anchorage in Piraeus.... it brings back fond memories.

No problem. Now back to the thread--it appears that we are so far off track, we'd do better to abandon this thread and start another. And yes, I read your post just fine and your point is just plain silly. Had the United States placed the proper military equipment in Korea the whole war could have been avoided--having infantry facing tanks without anti-tank weapons is not only suicide but it invites a stronger force to take advantage of a weaker one. Historians have written about how United States military draw downs invited military action against the United States. Are you forgetting that the Soviet Union fell while United States military was on a build up--not a draw down?

 

[maineman]

No problem. Now back to the thread--it appears that we are so far off track, we'd do better to abandon this thread and start another. And yes, I read your post just fine and your point is just plain silly. Had the United States placed the proper military equipment in Korea the whole war could have been avoided--having infantry facing tanks without anti-tank weapons is not only suicide but it invites a stronger force to take advantage of a weaker one. Historians have written about how United States military draw downs invited military action against the United States. Are you forgetting that the Soviet Union fell while United States military was on a build up--not a draw down?

I am not questioning the fact that an enormous military, always ready, always armed to the teeth with the latest and greatest military hardware, always trained to a sharp battle ready edge is a great deterrent. Wouldn't it be great if we could always afford to have such a military - fully staffed and equipped to levels well beyond what even the most prescient military planners could possible foresee...just in case?

I question the practicality of such a military in the wake of WWII or Vietnam. I suggest that the guns or butter question was clearly answered by the voices of the people in both instances, and that hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[MasterChief]

I question the practicality of such a military in the wake of WWII or Vietnam. I suggest that the guns or butter question was clearly answered by the voices of the people in both instances...

Okay, I hear you--after a war, the people's desire for peace is often coupled with a rejection of all things military. However, it is the responsibility of those who study such things to remind "the people" that this path has been followed before and usually results in costing more lives and treasure than any short term gains. Carter's loss of the presidency is what happens when "the people" finally realize what military down sizing actually means. The anti-war crowd got four years under Carter but those who believe in a strong military stance and did not like the rise of Islamic radicalism got twelve years under Reagan-Bush. So in the scope of political/military trends, who actually won?

 

[maineman]

Okay, I hear you--after a war, the people's desire for peace is often coupled with a rejection of all things military. However, it is the responsibility of those who study such things to remind "the people" that this path has been followed before and usually results in costing more lives and treasure than any short term gains. Carter's loss of the presidency is what happens when "the people" finally realize what military down sizing actually means. The anti-war crowd got four years under Carter but those who believe in a strong military stance and did not like the rise of Islamic radicalism got twelve years under Reagan-Bush. So in the scope of political/military trends, who actually won?

the people always win. We get who we deserve...and we get what we deserve.

 

[Doug]

The problem is that everything is always changing, but that we necessarily try to predict the future based on our experience of the past.

Until the 20th Century, the geographic position of the United States meant that we were secure, without a large standing army. Plus we had the historical luck that after 1815, Europe was largely at peace for a century.

The 20th Century was different. Europe's evolution towards an ever-more-democratic, ever-more-peaceful society -- which we can see today -- was radically disrupted by the First World War, which destoyed three empires and gave birth to a powerful Communist, and then a powerful Fascist, presence in the world. We spent the rest of the 20th Century trying to recover from their destructive effects.

The United States had a close call with respect to WWII. Our President then knew we had to get involved in it, but had a very unwilling nation behind him. Thank God we were able to maneuvre the Japanese into firing the first shot, so that the nation could be rallied for war, and additional thanks for the fact that Hitler was mad enough to declare war on us, which he did not have to.

Then we had to fight the Third World War ... a Cold one, mostly. Close calls there, too, as in Korea. And the Cuban Missile Crisis could have gotten very nasty, as we now know. Fortunately, socialism is a terribly inefficient system, so the USSR finally collapsed under its own weight.

Now we face new challenges -- radical Islam, Russia, China. How tempting to think we could go back to the 19th Century situation, and just let the rest of the world fight it out.

But we can't. Not only that, but the nature of modern weapons means we have to do our feeble best, in a very murky situation, which we don't understand well and which is changing all the time, to nudge the world towards becoming the sort of stable liberal democracies which generally do not go to war against each other.

No one really knows how to do this, or if it is even possible. In any case, we had better remain militarily strong.

It is a paradox, in a way. I think Maineman sees -- as I do -- that, looking at human history in the long run -- our species may be entering a new epoch, in which the whole world gradually becomes like Europe, with war a thing of the past. But if this is becoming true, it is only doing so very slowly -- the rest of this century is not going to be a peaceful one -- at best an armed truce.

So we have to keep our powder dry, and keep a lot of powder handy. Butter isn't all that good for you anyway.

 

[MasterChief]

It is a paradox, in a way. I think Maineman sees -- as I do -- that, looking at human history in the long run -- our species may be entering a new epoch, in which the whole world gradually becomes like Europe, with war a thing of the past. But if this is becoming true, it is only doing so very slowly -- the rest of this century is not going to be a peaceful one -- at best an armed truce.

A wise man once said "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

 

[midcan5]

The 20th Century was different. Europe's evolution towards an ever-more-democratic, ever-more-peaceful society -- which we can see today -- was radically disrupted by the First World War, which destoyed three empires and gave birth to a powerful Communist, and then a powerful Fascist, presence in the world. We spent the rest of the 20th Century trying to recover from their destructive effects.

Doug, where you been hiding? I agree with some of that but communism grew out of the economic inequity and the instability of governments in the late 19th and early 20th century. Political solutions are tough in societies that do not have the values of our own nor its tradition. Nation building doesn't work easily, think Bush said that before he fell on his head.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that, of course, is not what I asked you.

Twist it and turn it any way you want, the US Military was poorly funded and poorly equipped during Carter's Presidency. It was his watch and he did nothing to fix it. Ya that sure is irrelevent to this discussion.

 

[Doug]

MasterChief: You may be right, but ... note that the Europeans used to regularly bash hell out of each other. But since the end of WWII, they seem to have decided that they would rather make money out of each other. An extraordinary development, but a hopeful one. And one we can take a lot of the credit for, I think. Not that they'll give it to us.

MidCan: I think it is too mechanical to say that Communism "grew out of" inequity and instability. Of course, it, like fascism, required various bad social conditions to flourish. But there were non-totalitarian competitors to both communists and fascists, who also addressed these bad social conditions. There were democrats, both socialist and conservative, in both Russia and Germany -- but they were out-manuevered and defeated politically, and then suppressed militarily. Neither the Russian communists, nor the German fascists, ever got a democratic majority vote in their favor. But you don't need a majority of the votes, if you have a majority of the guns.

In retrospect, is it not clear that the democratic forces in the world -- of which we are the leading, but not the only, one -- had a crucial stake in the victory of the democrats in those countries? Because the victory of the bad guys was not something that concerned those countries only, as it turned out -- these terrible ideologies are not content to sit on their conquests, but inevitably turn outwards.

How much bloodshed would have been avoided, if we could have influenced events then to prevent the totalitarians from achieving power!

Now, maybe there was nothing we could have done. But that if there was something we could have done, it seems to me obvious that we should have done it. Almost any other outcome in either country would have been preferable to the victory of a determined gang of fanatics, ready to sacrifice themselves and others to turn the world upside down. (Note: this is not a backhanded argument for attacking Iran or nuking North Korea or invading China. Strategy and tactics are two separate realms. But if our strategy is wrong we might as well forget about tactics altogether.)

 

[maineman]

Twist it and turn it any way you want, the US Military was poorly funded and poorly equipped during Carter's Presidency. It was his watch and he did nothing to fix it. Ya that sure is irrelevent to this discussion.

the point is: you hide from questions that are uncomfortable to you. pussy.

 

[midcan5]

How much bloodshed would have been avoided, if we could have influenced events then to prevent the totalitarians from achieving power!

True, but given our track record is this really doable. We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the point is: you hide from questions that are uncomfortable to you. pussy.

No I answered you, your just too stupid to read the answer you don't want. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE CUT THE MILITARY AS MUCH AS WE DID, not after Vietnam and not after the Soviet Union collapsed, which is what I ALREADY TOLD YOU twice now. You just don't like the answer. Nor should we have cut it as much as we did after WW2. In every case it lead to an attack on the US. Or our interests which is the same thing, in all 3 cases it was because we were viewed as weak.

 

[MasterChief]

We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.

Yes, we did, but why--why did we support Saddam? We supported him because the Ayatollah was holding Americans hostage and had violated international law by not providing security for our embassy. Saddam hated the Ayatollah, the United States hated the Ayatollah--common enemy, common interests. So we sold Saddam weapons and intel to beat up on our common enemy. The Ayatollah came to see the hostages as a liability so he released them. Iran finances Hezbollah, and has financed the PLO and Al Qaeda. The Iranians are far more responsible for terror than anything GWB has done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, we did, but why--why did we support Saddam? We supported him because the Ayatollah was holding Americans hostage and had violated international law by not providing security for our embassy. Saddam hated the Ayatollah, the United States hated the Ayatollah--common enemy, common interests. So we sold Saddam weapons and intel to beat up on our common enemy. The Ayatollah came to see the hostages as a liability so he released them. Iran finances Hezbollah, and has financed the PLO and Al Qaeda. The Iranians are far more responsible for terror than anything GWB has done.

Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.

 

[Annie]

Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.

which goes to show the threat Iran really is. Both the US and the USSR were helping Saddam, yet Iran held its own. Please pass along to Ron Paul that Iran has both an Army and Navy.

 

[MasterChief]

Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters.

GySgT,
That is not exactly correct. We did provide some weapons through a third party and some chem and bio weapons that Donald Rumsfled helped provide. In fact, that is how we knew that he did have WMD's at one time. However, what we provided was not enough to give Saddam a clear victory but enough to keep him in the fight. But did we provide weapons in clearly marked United States crates on United States ships--no. That would have been stupid. We had to be able to maintain plausible deniability and that's what we did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

GySgT,
That is not exactly correct. We did provide some weapons through a third party and some chem and bio weapons that Donald Rumsfled helped provide. In fact, that is how we knew that he did have WMD's at one time. However, what we provided was not enough to give Saddam a clear victory but enough to keep him in the fight. But did we provide weapons in clearly marked United States crates on United States ships--no. That would have been stupid. We had to be able to maintain plausible deniability and that's what we did.

Wrong, we sold legally allowed chemical and medical supplies under existing laws. If you can prove otherwise do so. We did however at one point allow a third party to sell weapons and parts to IRAN.

His weapons did not need nor use American ammo or American arms. It was all Russian French and Belgian. We provided some unarmed helicopters is all. check the lists of what was sold. If we had sold chemical weapons or other weapons it would be a well known fact by now and would not be a nod nod wink wink, we know they did it, but can't prove it claim.