US War History
-
Tim Craig wrote: showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. like the english, spanish, dutch and french imperialists? What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
brianwelsch wrote: What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges. Yes, things are considerably different today. But there's a saying that goes "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Things may be different in many ways today, but human nature is pretty much constant. An idiot looking to overrun his neighbors is going to be a pain in the ass sooner or later. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
John Carson wrote: Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. But the US did join the war and because it joined, the allies won. (Karl's point earlier that it really wouldn't have made a difference anyhow is valid. Even by 1941 the US was as unprepared for war as it's eventual allies.) You also misunderstand the political situation at the time. Despite it's involvement in WWI two decades previous, the US was not a world power and did not have significant ties to Europe, even England. (It actually had stronger ties to the Phillipines than any European country.) Your analysis also trivializes the European appeasement of Hitler's Germany. It also misunderstands, and understates the importance of, England's treaty with Poland which obligated it to declare war on an aggressor it if was invaded. The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) You fail to understand the significance of Iraq's debt to France, Germany and Russia and that all three have pointedly refused to do anything about it. France, in particular, continues to act as obstructionists. While they may be an economic and political ally in most areas, they are decidedly not so vis-a-vis Iraq. To put them on the US payroll without any cooperation on other issues would be just plain stupid. Russia is receiving quite a lot of US aid and has it's hands full with domestic matters. It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Indeed. You give a long list of things that I "don't understand". My purpose has never been to provide a detailed analysis of WWII and to apportion credit and blame for each behaviour. I simply wished to make a limited point that the US was not well placed to criticize others who had not jumped to support it. In saying this, I never meant to suggest or imply that there were not good reasons for criticising the behaviour of other countries in WWII and at other times. The fact that the US was not the power in WWII that it is today is irrelevant. The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. You emphasise the limited US-European relationships; you ignore the vast difference between, on the one hand, a German military that had already conquered half a dozen European countries and was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and, on the other hand, an "effectively contained" Iraq military that got its arse kicked when it last attempted to attack another country. Joe Woodbury wrote: The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I don't think it is similar. I think it is vastly more difficult, principally because of the internal divisions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and because Iraq has no democratic tradition to draw on. It is also a lot easier to run things in a country whose people have been unambiguously conquered (as was the case with Germany) rather than "liberated". As for naivety, it was the Bush Administration that promoted a foolish optimism about how things would turn out. It is only when its optimism was shown to be unjustified that it started talking about the need to be realistic. Joe Woodbury wrote: I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) It is only puzzling because you are assuming that I am a supporter of France. I think that France's motives are at least as mixed as t
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Indeed. You give a long list of things that I "don't understand". My purpose has never been to provide a detailed analysis of WWII and to apportion credit and blame for each behaviour. I simply wished to make a limited point that the US was not well placed to criticize others who had not jumped to support it. In saying this, I never meant to suggest or imply that there were not good reasons for criticising the behaviour of other countries in WWII and at other times. The fact that the US was not the power in WWII that it is today is irrelevant. The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. You emphasise the limited US-European relationships; you ignore the vast difference between, on the one hand, a German military that had already conquered half a dozen European countries and was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and, on the other hand, an "effectively contained" Iraq military that got its arse kicked when it last attempted to attack another country. Joe Woodbury wrote: The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I don't think it is similar. I think it is vastly more difficult, principally because of the internal divisions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and because Iraq has no democratic tradition to draw on. It is also a lot easier to run things in a country whose people have been unambiguously conquered (as was the case with Germany) rather than "liberated". As for naivety, it was the Bush Administration that promoted a foolish optimism about how things would turn out. It is only when its optimism was shown to be unjustified that it started talking about the need to be realistic. Joe Woodbury wrote: I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) It is only puzzling because you are assuming that I am a supporter of France. I think that France's motives are at least as mixed as t
John Carson wrote: The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. John Carson wrote: You can't "give the finger" to the rest of the world and then expect it to donate billions of dollars to help you. Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
John Carson wrote: The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. John Carson wrote: You can't "give the finger" to the rest of the world and then expect it to donate billions of dollars to help you. Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. This entire thread began with the following words from John McIlroy: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. It has never been just about contracts. It has been about the general attitude of the US toward those who declined to support the US in all aspects of its campaign. Joe Woodbury wrote: Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. As I have said before, I don't particularly care about the economics of it. But, since you raise the issue, I think that your analogy is poor. Awarding contracts to France etc. following a competitive tender is not analogous to making a donation to those countries. Indeed, it is the current policy that involves donations, albeit to coalition countries. If the US doesn't award the contract to the best bid, regardless of origin, it is hurting itself financially and/or in terms of the quality of the contracted-for service. To refuse to award a contract to the best bid is a case of active discrimination against France etc. to the economic detriment of the United States. John Carson
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Even if I agreed with everything you said, it would not revive the "we learned from history and the Europeans didn't" argument. I agree in principle that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime was justified on humanitarian grounds. However, bringing democracy/human rights to a country like Iraq is really difficult and a failed attempt can be more costly in terms of human suffering than not making the attempt. Accordingly, the attempt should only be made if 1. Achieving democracy/human rights is the number one priority for the invading force. 2. Extremely detailed planning has been made for achieving the transition to a new system of government. 3. The invading country has sufficient understanding of the invaded country to effectively manage the post-war era. 4. The invading country is willing to stay the course until its objective is met, whatever the cost. In my opinion, none of these conditions was met in relation to Iraq. There is some chance that it will turn out OK in the end in spite of this. But I consider this unlikely. I believe that, in one form or another, the Iraq conflict will go on for many years and the death doll (much of it from Iraqi-Iraqi conflict) is going to be very high. There was indeed "a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war" but I think the real story was roughly the opposite of what you claim. Bush did not focus on the WMD argument because he thought the humanitarian argument wouldn't fly (it worked for Clinton over Kosovo --- in the face of Republican opposition). Rather, he switched (partially) to the humanitarian argument when he found that the WMD (and terrorism) argument was struggling to get off the ground. The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. Starting with the most important, I think the reasons for the war were as follows. 1. Many members of the Administration wanted to "finish the job" of the first Gul
So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. Ironically, I think your three points are valid, but incomplete. I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. (My favorite example, Jefferson wrote passionately about freedom yet kept slaves.) It's also common for groups of people to have extremely condradictory motives in achieving the same goal. The current US administration is by no means unique in that regard. Did Clinton act in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons? I have no idea, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, he didn't blink an eye during the Rwanda blood bath. John Carson wrote: The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. This entire thread began with the following words from John McIlroy: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. It has never been just about contracts. It has been about the general attitude of the US toward those who declined to support the US in all aspects of its campaign. Joe Woodbury wrote: Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. As I have said before, I don't particularly care about the economics of it. But, since you raise the issue, I think that your analogy is poor. Awarding contracts to France etc. following a competitive tender is not analogous to making a donation to those countries. Indeed, it is the current policy that involves donations, albeit to coalition countries. If the US doesn't award the contract to the best bid, regardless of origin, it is hurting itself financially and/or in terms of the quality of the contracted-for service. To refuse to award a contract to the best bid is a case of active discrimination against France etc. to the economic detriment of the United States. John Carson
John Carson wrote: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." I disupute that characterization. John Carson wrote: It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. There was no coalition of the willing. No European country "stood up" to Hitler until they were attacked. Quite to the contrary, they fell all over themselves appeasing him. Ultimately, France was invaded and fought briefly before surrendering. Britain defended itself but was in no position to go on the offensive for several years. Russia also fought back after being attacked. Ultimately, the US fought back after being attacked. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. Ironically, I think your three points are valid, but incomplete. I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. (My favorite example, Jefferson wrote passionately about freedom yet kept slaves.) It's also common for groups of people to have extremely condradictory motives in achieving the same goal. The current US administration is by no means unique in that regard. Did Clinton act in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons? I have no idea, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, he didn't blink an eye during the Rwanda blood bath. John Carson wrote: The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. I never claimed that the US can do no right (I was in favour of the Kosovo intervention, for example). I do, however, view Bush's motives with a lot of cynicism. As for non-Americans knowing more about America's motives than Americans: 1. It is not simply a matter of knowing motives; it is also a matter of admitting to them. 2. There is no uniform belief about the Bush Administration's motives even among Americans. It would not be hard to find an American who agreed with everything I said. 3. It is not impossible for a person of country X to understand more about the motives of country Y than do the citizens of country Y, since the citizens of country Y may be blinded by patriotism. Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. I am too. And I don't doubt that, on some level, the members of the Bush administration genuinely want to promote democracy and human rights (I alluded to this in the final point of my previous post). I just don't think it is the dominant impulse. Joe Woodbury wrote: A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Yes, it is a dilemma and there is no magic wand available to deal with the problem. A start would be to ratify the convention setting up the International Criminal Court. A good next step would be to make the human rights record of countries the primary determinant of US attitudes to them (as expressed through trade policy, development assistance and the like), rather than making countries' attitude to US business the primary determinant. In extreme cases, invasion may be justified against relatively militarily weak countries. The cure would be worse than the disease in the case of invading a militarily strong country li
-
John Carson wrote: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." I disupute that characterization. John Carson wrote: It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. There was no coalition of the willing. No European country "stood up" to Hitler until they were attacked. Quite to the contrary, they fell all over themselves appeasing him. Ultimately, France was invaded and fought briefly before surrendering. Britain defended itself but was in no position to go on the offensive for several years. Russia also fought back after being attacked. Ultimately, the US fought back after being attacked. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I quoted this passage in order to indicate the scope of this thread, not to champion every syllable of the quote. John Carson
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. I never claimed that the US can do no right (I was in favour of the Kosovo intervention, for example). I do, however, view Bush's motives with a lot of cynicism. As for non-Americans knowing more about America's motives than Americans: 1. It is not simply a matter of knowing motives; it is also a matter of admitting to them. 2. There is no uniform belief about the Bush Administration's motives even among Americans. It would not be hard to find an American who agreed with everything I said. 3. It is not impossible for a person of country X to understand more about the motives of country Y than do the citizens of country Y, since the citizens of country Y may be blinded by patriotism. Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. I am too. And I don't doubt that, on some level, the members of the Bush administration genuinely want to promote democracy and human rights (I alluded to this in the final point of my previous post). I just don't think it is the dominant impulse. Joe Woodbury wrote: A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Yes, it is a dilemma and there is no magic wand available to deal with the problem. A start would be to ratify the convention setting up the International Criminal Court. A good next step would be to make the human rights record of countries the primary determinant of US attitudes to them (as expressed through trade policy, development assistance and the like), rather than making countries' attitude to US business the primary determinant. In extreme cases, invasion may be justified against relatively militarily weak countries. The cure would be worse than the disease in the case of invading a militarily strong country li
John Carson wrote: 1. It is not simply a matter of knowing motives; it is also a matter of admitting to them. 2. There is no uniform belief about the Bush Administration's motives even among Americans. It would not be hard to find an American who agreed with everything I said. 3. It is not impossible for a person of country X to understand more about the motives of country Y than do the citizens of country Y, since the citizens of country Y may be blinded by patriotism. Well said! John Carson wrote: good next step would be to make the human rights record of countries the primary determinant of US attitudes to them (as expressed through trade policy, development assistance and the like), rather than making countries' attitude to US business the primary determinant. Again, well said. John Carson wrote: I was in favour of the Kosovo intervention, for example Here, I disagree, esp because the people were so poor that the disturbance caused much more suffering and death than it would have if they were not poor. Also, the country is now less stable than it was before, and the people aren't much better off (if at all). John Carson wrote: It would not be hard to find an American who agreed with everything I said. Here's one. ;) Well, that is, I agree with most of what you said. :)
**"It is appallingly obvious that our technology exceeds our humanity." -- Albert Einstein
-
peterchen wrote: hey - that's not MY position. Then why even mention it - except to incite? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Inciting was not my intention. Because I heard this "opinion" often enough to be "worth mention", and, as said, I consider it remotely possible. Not because the US is evil, but because event the US can err. [edit]It's a very weird thought, and it popped up in places unexpected, not attributable to any political or ideological side.Urban Legend, one wouldsay nowadays[/edit]
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Hmm... probably it has more to do with the fact that only two other nations are on the same continent as us, and one of them has a similar ethnic background.
**"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
jdunlap wrote: probably it has more to do with the fact that only two other nations are on the same continent as us, and one of them has a similar ethnic background. True, but I'd bet that if instead of a communist revolution in 1917, Russia would have had a western democratic revolution and had become a "psuedo US" the surrounding areas including the middle east would have been dramatically more stable. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Inciting was not my intention. Because I heard this "opinion" often enough to be "worth mention", and, as said, I consider it remotely possible. Not because the US is evil, but because event the US can err. [edit]It's a very weird thought, and it popped up in places unexpected, not attributable to any political or ideological side.Urban Legend, one wouldsay nowadays[/edit]
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenOdd, I've never heard it even hinted at before. Before you assume I've insulated myself in US propaganda my whole life, let me remind you I've held some pretty serious geo-political debates with a number of European friends. Oh well, I've heard it now. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Odd, I've never heard it even hinted at before. Before you assume I've insulated myself in US propaganda my whole life, let me remind you I've held some pretty serious geo-political debates with a number of European friends. Oh well, I've heard it now. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: Before you assume I've insulated myself in US propaganda I just assumed we have completely different backgrounds :rolleyes: And, as said, I have absolutely no idea where it comes from. We should probably just dismiss it as an urban legend - we both don't (want to) believe it, albeit for different reasons, and I wish I could diss the mere possibility.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen