Name a war that has not escalated; especially toward the end of the conflict.
Why do California liberals hate poor, black women?
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Name a war that has not escalated; especially toward the end of the conflict.
...things were very stable over there before the election of 2000.
And it's not like the President PRIOR to him had established a policy of regime change in Iraq as late as 1998.
The war in Iraq isn't the problem here.
The war in Iraq didn't cause bubble economies.
The war in Iraq didn't cause GM to go bankrupt.
It didn't cause unemployment to go into the double digits.
It didn't run up $14T dollars of debt.
It isn't why the only growth sectors of our economy are federal jobs and healthcare- and given time, the government would like to make them one in the same.
The war in Iraq isn't the reason why the Congress wants to run this years debt ceiling up to $2T.
And the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the erosion of our liberties.
Did the war "help things?"
That's a strange choice of words when addressing a military action.
We can argue the merits of the Iraqi invasions and the strategic failures that are associated with it, but it has nothing to do with the state of the country. And it's impossible to discuss the ultimate outcome because that's yet to be determined. In the long run, the idealistic foreign policy applied may be extremely beneficial to us and the stability of the region. More so than the invasion in Afghanistan, which I'm sure you'll argue is the "just war" and the one we "really needed to commit too."
you better define stable. they been anything but that in most of a century.(if not more)
no, it's not the ONLY reason. but it is one of them.
nowhere did i say it was the only reason.
iraq was a war that should never have been fought. it's why the states are going it alone.
it is one that may not have needed to be fought either. after defeating the russians, the american military ties just packed up and left a devastated country to it's own demise.
now everyone is over in afghanistan, yes, it's going to have to be seen to the end or it will crumble.
but then, all i originally answered was
to this question.
so shag was wrong. afghanistan and iraq were the conservative "solution" to terrorism.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Absurd. You just contradicted yourself in one short sentence. :bowrofl:
WW2 escalated with D-day, again when we actually pushed into Germany and with the invasion of Okinawa. The Nuke was used to prevent further escalation (because of the Bushido culture that would have had Japan fighting to the last man). Almost all wars escalate at some point. It is how you move from a stand still toward victory (or at least attempt to). Another example, the Tet offensive...
escalated on d-day? you would mean re-escalated. their wasn't much of europe left fighting. and the russians had pulled back some as well.
and who do you mean by we?
as for escalation, i guess just declaring war would be an escalation.
i'm speaking more from the point of after a certain commitment to fight with.
at some point, you are only replacing losses.
however, after taking most islands, to take the mainland of japan would have required a great escalation of man and machine. the bomb was the quicker option. (right or wrong).it was used before that escalation.
there always was a certain amount that was pretty much known to be needed in the pacific arena.
and who do you mean by we?
as for escalation, i guess just declaring war would be an escalation.
i'm speaking more from the point of after a certain commitment to fight with.
at some point, you are only replacing losses.
however, after taking most islands, to take the mainland of japan would have required a great escalation of man and machine. the bomb was the quicker option. (right or wrong).it was used before that escalation.
there always was a certain amount that was pretty much known to be needed in the pacific arena.
and as usual, you just trolled in your own thread.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Heh. You brought up WWII, hijacker. This thread is about cancer.
It was sarcasm, so I think we're both recognizing that the country and region was not stable PRIOR to the Iraq War.
And that Bill Clinton was responsible for instituting the policy of REGIME CHANGE in Iraq back in '98.
Using this kind of logic, any decision made by government for the past century can be argued as being "one of them." And using such a broad, vague kind of logic, I can't disagree with you.
But to present it as a major contributing factor demonstrates a gross ignorance of economics and the way the U.S. government operates. It also demonstrates a limited understanding of foreign policy.
That's an overly simplistic observation, and one that isn't accurate. We've discussed the conflict in Iraq countless times, there's no sense in investing the time trying to explain it again in this particular thread.
But your point that the engagement in Iraq is a significant cause of the economic problems facing the U.S., and the world, is ridiculous and horribly short sighted.
The American military was not actively involved in Afghanistan. They provided some training, equipment, and supplies to the Mujahideen.
I'm not sure what point your trying to make, but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding.
You're responding to an offhand comment I made, one that could easily hijack the thread. My mistake.
There is no Afghanistan. There's never been an Afghanistan. They don't view themselves as Afghans. They identify themselves by religion and by tribe.
There is no infrastructure worth a damn in that country.
And the people are very primitive and brutal.
There's nothing to "crumble."
Strategically, Iraq is much more sensible and valuable than Afghanistan.
And since it has a national identity, infrastructure, and the reminents of a viable middle class, it actually has the potential be a successful state.
There is a viable, realistic long term potential for Iraq.
Afghanistan will probably be revert to being a failed state regardless what we do, unless we intend to be build the entire country from the ground up.
Liberating 31,000,000 people in Iraq.
And 28,000,000 people in Afghanistan.
....as for the escalation point.
I'm not sure what point your making. I might agree with you, but I might not.
I think I agree with your point, but I think you WW2 example is bad.
Regarding the ongoing costs of a War..that's a profoundly AMERICAN construct.
In the past, the loser would pay reparations. In the 20th century, America would pay to reconstruct the defeated nations.
Arguably this was done because of the countries enormous economic power and, some would cynically argue, a desire to open up the defeated markets economically.
The nuclear weapon was used to prevent the inevitable loss of millions (about a million Americans and millions of japanese) of lives that would have come with an invasion of mainland Japan.
But the costs of the war persist to this day.
We still provide Japan most of it's military protection.
You could argue that this policy is every bit as responsible for the economy right now as the expense associated with Iraq, to tie this into the beginning of the post.
It's time for all of this overseas and domestic larges, all of which designed with the purpose of control, to come to an end this century.
The 20th century provided the U.S. (and many of it's allies) unparalleled wealth and the ability to engage in behavior and policy that was wasteful and unsustainable.
Last edited by a moderator: