How Many Wars Like This Have Been Won?

[PornoDoggy]

You advocate an outright imperialistic approach to Iraq. You want us in there to ensure the supply of oil and provide a base of operations (for military troops to be obtained later [and paid for by our Great Great Grandchildren], I suppose) for future operations.

Can you provide me any example of a victory in such a war by any power? Can you supply an example of victory in a war comprable to Iraq by ANY power?

The only thing I'd ask is that the telephone should have been invented before the commencement of the war you use as an example.

[Winetalk.com]

I'd have to say NONE.....Falkland war won by Britain is not in the ball park
;-)))

I beelive that Israel is on the right track-
building the wall and withdrawing from Gaza and letting them having their own state, where population will figure out rather fast,
it's no longer Israel fault their poverty but rather their govedrnment/ arab nations fault.

Gomulko proved that beyond the reasonable doubts in Poland, after he expelled 30,000 Jews who were respoincible for all the ills of Polish people....4 years later Polish people replaced Gomulko

[PornoDoggy]

No, I don't think the Fauklands quite applies.

[Mike AI]

Depends on how you define victory. You have to be a little more clear with your question.

I just got moving around, and have some errands to run. As far as similiar victories for the US, I would consider the Phillipines, another similair war.

I know you are still strained by the Vietnam experience.... It is ashame a whole section of this country is so cursed by it, that it has become a albatrose hanging around this countries neck.

[Mike AI]

PD, it is funny you brought up this subject, one of the best books I have read in the past year was tThe Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046500721X/qid=1082384011/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-2502696-0419212?v=glance&s=books)

It is a good read. Of course all of these wars were pre-vietnam, so the stain had not effected the weak kneed cowards that prevail and scream that every conflict we get into is another Vietnam. It might help you understand a litle more.

[PornoDoggy]

Mike - my question is pretty simple.

Find me an example of an imperialist power who was successful in maintaining control over a native population during the twentieth century.

Now, I've bookmarked the URL you posted above - always willing to read a variety of opinions. I don't think that Iraq quaifies as a "small" war, particularly since you have stated on a number of occassions that you regard it as merely a base from which to conduct other/additional operations against other countries.

I was hardly suprised to read this in one of the reviews of a book you would recommend:
Mr. Boot's analysis and conclusions as to why these wars were fought is at best naive; indicating an infantile patriotic myopia that severely clouds his judgment as a historian.

BTW ... about your comment that
the stain had not [a]ffected the weak kneed cowards that prevail and scream that every conflict we get into is another Vietnam

Funny you should continue the recitiation of the catechism you started in the Stratfor thread. There are a number of reasons that I think the Bush policy in Iraq is tremendously damaging to the long term interests of the United States. Believe it or not, weak kneed cowardice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Just to use one example - when Nixon sent U.S. troops into Cambodia in 1970, the country exploded. While it may be easier on the brain to conclude that was all the response of "weak kneed cowards", you are forgetting that many of the people outraged DIDN'T BELIEVE A FUCKING WORD that came out of Washington regarding the war, because there had been a steady stream of lies for six years from two successive Administrations.

The lies this administration has told to get us into this war threaten the credibility of the government - and that could come back to haunt us in the very real war with terror that we will have to fight.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 19 2004, 10:23 AM

[Mike AI]

Can you come up with any examples that do not include S.E. Asia during the late 60s - early 70s??

I do not think the war is being run that well right now, I see some problems developing on the way things are being prosecuted. A lot of mistakes were made - many of them have to do with the lack of human intel. ( the sad thing is we continue to ignore this and are not doing much to solve this problem )

Dispanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. We could be using some of the hardcore guys to put down these rebellions inside Iraq.

While I think it was a good move to go into Iraq, and think the initial plan of attack was solid, the occupation has been very poorly run. Some things have been outside our control, but we have dropped the ball a lot. Hopefully we can get some better solutions, and soon.

[Buff]

PD, what do you mean by "maintaining control over?"

If you look at the crime and riots here at home, a very good argument could be made that even our indiginous population cannot be controlled.

[PornoDoggy]

Buff ... get real. :rolleyes:

Mike - the invasion of Iraq does not fall into the category of Gulf War I, the invasion of Panama, the multiple invasions of Nicaraqua (the Army had three different Nicaraqua campaign medals in the records before the talk of invasion in the 80s), et al.

The fallacy of the Administration's overall plan is that they regarded it as a "small" war. This is a war similar in scope to Vietnam or Korea, not an invasion of Panama, not an invasion of [insert Central American nation here] in order to secure an apppropriate ROI for United Fruit - not even Gulf War I.

You don't need to limit yourself to America in finding an example of a successful imperialstic war in the 20th century - you're welcome to use another power. Any other power will do.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 19 2004, 11:29 AM
Buff ... get real. :rolleyes:

Mike - the invasion of Iraq does not fall into the category of Gulf War I, the invasion of Panama, the multiple invasions of Nicaraqua (the Army had three different Nicaraqua campaign medals in the records before the talk of invasion in the 80s), et al.

The fallacy of the Administration's overall plan is that they regarded it as a "small" war. This is a war similar in scope to Vietnam or Korea, not an invasion of Panama, not an invasion of [insert Central American nation here] in order to secure an apppropriate ROI for United Fruit - not even Gulf War I.

You don't need to limit yourself to America in finding an example of a successful imperialstic war in the 20th century - you're welcome to use another power. Any other power will do.


There are countless examples, the English controled most of the world at one time. European powers split most of the world at one time.

The difference and what makes this war unique is that we are trying to improve the situation, not just going in to take what we want.

You change defitions as you see fit, the US lost many more soldiers in the Phillipenes during our occupation that we have in Iraq. If you compare it to the % of soldiers station in country, the death % was much higher back then.

Fortunately this was before the "vietnam experience" so we did not have all the people like you protesting and crying all the time.

Wars, occupation, foreign policy are all dirty things. How many Americans died in a 48 hour period during the Normandy Invasion? How many died during Battle of the Buldge? What about Marines in Guadacanal, Iwo Jima?

I fear it is too late for you and those of your generation who have been scared by Vietnma to grow a backbone....

The experiences in Vietnman have about as much relevency in Iraq as all the wars and battles I mentioned above. Iraq is something new.

[PornoDoggy]

I have not changed the question I posed one bit. I have asked you to point to an example in modern times where a war like Iraq has been successful.

I think you are dead wrong when you assert that Iraq is something new. The war on terror - a "war" with an essentially stateless enemy - might be considered new.

The tactics and policies being pursued in Iraq are in no way new. The are tactics and policies that have failed repeatedly throughout the 20th century, regardless of the "backbone" of the government that pursued them.

You persist in responding to me as if the only thing I took away from Vietnam was an emotional horror at the ugliness of war. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that, while I don't take the idea of war lightly, I understand that it will be necessary from time to time. The draftees that died in the European and Asian theatrers of WWII were no more valiant or heroic than the ones who died at Pusan or Hue. They just had a much clearer objective that they were fighting for.

The FIRST lesson (before you get to tactics, manpower requirements, etc.) that should have been learned from Vietnam, it was "don't lie to the American people about a war." It not only makes fighting the war in question more difficult - it could encumber future situations when conflict really is in the best interests of the United States.

[Winetalk.com]

removed by Serge

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 18 2004, 10:38 PM


Can you provide me any example of a victory in such a war by any power? Can you supply an example of victory in a war comprable to Iraq by ANY power?


actually,
PD, I take back about you getting MikeAI...

1) Coalition winning the war and occupying Germany

changed German history DESPITE the will of German people,
for good

2) US Occupation of Japan with the same consequnces.

point made, you lost
;-)

[Nickatilynx]

PD, I take back about you getting MikeAI...

1) Coalition winning the war and occupying Germany

changed German history DESPITE the will of German people,
for good

2) US Occupation of Japan with the same consequnces.


I would not agree on that until I could find figures on deaths of occupying Allied forces during the occupation.

I think , and without figures it is only a belief , that the Germans were at that point agreeable to the occupation



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Apr 19 2004, 11:29 AM

[Nickatilynx]

According to ""America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq"", a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany — and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases — was zero.


Interesting read..... (http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2087768/)



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Apr 19 2004, 11:30 AM

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Apr 19 2004, 02:23 PM
PD, I take back about you getting MikeAI...

1) Coalition winning the war and occupying Germany

changed German history DESPITE the will of German people,
for good

2) US Occupation of Japan with the same consequnces.


I would not agree onb that until I could find figures on deaths of occupying Allied forces during the occupation.

I think , and without figures it is only a belief , that the Germans were at that point agreeable to the occupation
Nick,
they were agreable to occupation as much as cat agreable to eat mustard!

if you don't beleive that cats love mustard,
put some on cat's dick and see how vigorously cat licks it off
;-)))

[Winetalk.com]

another example for PD:
Soviet occupation of Baltic republics....
(search lithuanian resistance on google)

it worked....'till USSR imploded.

[Nickatilynx]

Serge,

Why spin , when facts are available :)

Note the url :

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch19.htm

Werwolf threat to one military government officer in the Western Military District, and a protest against denazification from the Evangelical Church of Wuerttemberg.38 Patrols occasionally found decapitation wires stretched across roads, ineptly it would seem, since no deaths or injuries resulted from them. Military government public safety officers from scattered locations reported various anti-occupation leaflets and posters, some threats against German girls who associated with US soldiers, and isolated attacks on soldiers. Although not a single case was confirmed, possibly the most talked about crimes against the occupation were the alleged castrations of US soldiers by German civilians. When the commanding officer of Detachment E3B2, in Erbach, Hesse, was asked to investigate one such rumor, he reported that not only had there been no castration but that there had not been a single attack on US military personnel in over four months of occupation.39 The most pressing concern of public safety officers was often with getting the German police out of their traditional nineteenth century Prussian drill sergeant uniforms and into American styles, usually modeled on the uniforms of the New York City police. Wherever troops were stationed, especially in towns and smaller cities, prostitutes and camp followers were a moral problem, placed added strain on food supplies, housing, and medical facilities (frequently also on jails), and raised mixed feelings of disgust and jealousy among the other civilians. In quarrels with other civilians and with the police, the prostitutes did not hesitate to call on their soldier friends.


Obviously the Iraqis are a different sort of cat ;-)))



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Apr 19 2004, 11:39 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 19 2004, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 19 2004, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Apr 18 2004, 10:38 PM


Can you provide me any example of a victory in such a war by any power? Can you supply an example of victory in a war comprable to Iraq by ANY power?


actually,
PD, I take back about you getting MikeAI...

1) Coalition winning the war and occupying Germany

changed German history DESPITE the will of German people,
for good

2) US Occupation of Japan with the same consequnces.

point made, you lost
;-)[/b][/quote]
Sorry, but your answer is not at all on point. Both Germany and Japan began wars of aggression against the victors.

The last time I checked, there was no effort to turn over power to either the Germans or Japanese on an arbitrary date in 1946. Talk of using bases in Germany or Japan as a base for future operations may have evolved as post-war splits in the alliance developed, but they were not an objective of the war from the start.

To the best of my knowlege, MILLIONS of American (and allied) troops were employed in the post-war occupation of a completely defeated enemy (the notable exception being Okinowa for the Americans; the Soviets also enountered some resistance, but they were mostly domestic [both in former Soviet Republics and in other occupied areas], not unrepentant Nazis).

I don't think your analogy applies at all.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 19 2004, 02:41 PM

[Winetalk.com]

and Nick, do you also beleive the same sources investigating autrocities of US Army personel against civilians in Vietnam and finding...NONE?

c'mon,
don't spin the spinner or trust the spinners
;-)))

[wig]

PD's question is too broad.

What does "won" mean and for whom?

If war never produced anything for the prosecutor, there would be no war.

Somebody, somewhere is winning something!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 19 2004, 02:40 PM


I don't think your analogy applies at all.
Germany...maybe, Japan..perhaps,
but locals fighting soviets in Baltic republics are the fact of life, my parents were there when it was happening,
2 young doc's out of college.
My father is alive and can confirm my point as eye witness

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 19 2004, 02:32 PM
another example for PD:
Soviet occupation of Baltic republics....
(search lithuanian resistance on google)

it worked....'till USSR imploded.
That may in fact be more on point than your earlier attempt.

The reason that doesn't really apply, however, is that whole annoying democratic republic thing. Stalin, Krushchev, et al. had the option of using tactics that no American Administration would ever be able to get away with, particularly when Abulah Abulah Cameljockey is equipped with a satellite phone that sends pictures.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Apr 19 2004, 02:43 PM
PD's question is too broad.

What does "won" mean and for whom?

If war never produced anything for the prosecutor, there would be no war.

Somebody, somewhere is winning something!
I really don't think so, Wig. Mike has stated that what he believes the objectives are in Iraq to be are securing the supply of oil and establishing a base for future operations against other states that may support terror.

Mike is advocating an old-fashioned imperialsitic war, and wrapping it up in the war on terror to describe it as something new doesn't change that fact. I am simply asking him to provide an example in the 20th century where an imperialistic war was successful.

The folks who were defeated in World War II were the imperialists - so that can't be used as an example anyway.

[Nickatilynx]

Serge, You evade the point like ...an evadey thing , living in Evasion! ;-)))

Germany and Iraq , are factually , incomparable.

This is not a debate my friend , this is about lives , American lives , being wasted , not only today ,but , the deaths these actions have caused now will be like a grain of sand , as future generation of Muslims worldwide grow up detesting the United States as a result of the fraudulent actions of one man.

JMHO

;-))))


:)



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Apr 19 2004, 11:59 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 19 2004, 02:41 PM
and Nick, do you also beleive the same sources investigating autrocities of US Army personel against civilians in Vietnam and finding...NONE?

c'mon,
don't spin the spinner or trust the spinners
;-)))
Nice try, but if there had been significant post-war resistance to Allied occupation in Germany that was "covered up" by military authorities at the time, it would have come out by now.

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 19 2004, 02:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Apr 19 2004, 02:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Apr 19 2004, 02:43 PM
PD's question is too broad.

What does "won" mean and for whom?

If war never produced anything for the prosecutor, there would be no war.

Somebody, somewhere is winning something!
I really don't think so, Wig. Mike has stated that what he believes the objectives are in Iraq to be are securing the supply of oil and establishing a base for future operations against other states that may support terror.

Mike is advocating an old-fashioned imperialsitic war, and wrapping it up in the war on terror to describe it as something new doesn't change that fact. I am simply asking him to provide an example in the 20th century where an imperialistic war was successful.

The folks who were defeated in World War II were the imperialists - so that can't be used as an example anyway.[/b][/quote]
PD, don't get me wrong. I am not picking sides, just making an observation.

For instance, Halliburton seems to be "winning" this war, while some of the French oil companies probably lost because of it.

I mean, how do you define a successful war? In whose terms?

[Nickatilynx]

I mean, how do you define a successful war?

We won't , history will :)

[wig]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Apr 19 2004, 03:22 PM
I mean, how do you define a successful war?

We won't , history will :)
Agreed!