Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Mad Dr Jeffe on November 02, 2003, 09:03:59 PM
-
George Santayana once said those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Let me submit for your own edification this little observation. We are embroiled in a war, a war with no clear goals, and no clear end, a war that we will not let our military fight.
Today Sunday the 2 of November, 18 Americans died and 21 more were injured in coordinated guerilla attacks
138 Americans have been killed in the last six months.
What do you think the US and its leaders should be doing?
-
To quote MC Frontalot:
"In the interests of Peace is how a Liar wages war, then clamours for more".
"I wish that I could afford the ear of bush the second, I'd ask is it your favourite philosopher who recommended invading and exterminating all who defy us, crying out justice, while seeking out triumphs."
The US should stop encouraging consumemrism and the rampant waste of oil. Then they wouldn't have to kill people for it.
This is a topic I feel really strongly about. I could rant for hours, but I'll restarin myself, for your benefit. Especially since I'm likely preaching to the converted.
-
heh, actually JP, though Jeffe and I are probably in your camp, I think you'll find a lot of the msg board denizens are not.
-
Jeffe I think that's the most ignorent thing you've ever said. Iraq is nothing like Vieatnam. If you use think it is then so is the rebuilding of europe after WW2. Which, while as not as bad as it is now, the same things were being said by people who opposed us rebuilding Eurpoe/Japan. Soldgers were killed by pro-natzi's as well. Yes it's frustrateing to have people killed by terriorests but there are clear goals, and an end. Unfortualy in todays socity if a conflict is not resolved in an hour, like on tv, everyone starts complaineing. And yet none of them offer any fesable plan to help smooth the problems in Iraq.
And as for Jam's statement, we didn't goto war for oil. We actualy got oil cheeper from Sadam then we will once things are settled in Iraq. Despite weither you love him or hate him there's not a single level headed person that says Bush went to war for oil and not a perceived danger. The question is weither or not that threat was real, which is something all of us want to know.
-
And why do you think Iraq is nothing like Vietnam?
What were our goals then and what are they now.
Vietnam
Stop a ruthless dictator
Rebuild a country torn by war
pacify the natives
stop the spread of communism and terrorism
Iraq
Stop a ruthless dictator
rebuild a country torn by war
pacify the natives
stop the spread of terrorism
Both wars constrained American troops and turned them into policemen rather than soldiers.
WWII isnt even up for discussion since there is no "total" war, no recyling at home, no manditory Military service, no millions of dead, and no crusade. And our goals arnt the same as the Marshall plan, or anywhere near as noble.
-
/me claps
Well done Dr Jeffe! Well done for re-opening the single most divisive argument that the forum has had since i have been here!
Against
Jeffe
Jampaladin
SE
For
Entropy
Spriggan
Wavering
HoM
Fell
everyone
-
I think it's much less extreme than Vietnam, but I see much more parallelism to 'Nam than to post-WWII scenarios. And Bush IS very vague about what he claims to be trying to accomplish, and how long we'll be there, etc.
But at least gas prices are down a bit finally.
-
Jeffe your list is too generic, you can fit just about any modern war in those catagories. Now I'm not an expert on war or Vietnam, and I want to hear what mustard says on this since he's the only person that actualy knows things about war history, but Vietnam was more political and such then any other war. US troops would claim an area then hand it back to the Vietcong in some ridiculious deal. Or we'd promise south Vietnam we'd do something with our troops then not. And we didn't do any major air campains because of fear of political fall out. Also in Vietnam there was a central group we were fighting against.
I'n Iraq there's none of those conditions. We've got no central group/leader we're up against. Of course we don't know if or who saddam is ordering around. We do know there are Al Quaida and others from syera and Iran that have come in to attack us. All the combat is basicaly happeing in one small area of the contery. There's no political reason restraining our troops from doing things.
It's understandable that you and most of us are upset with the troops dieing. But this happened in solomia, bosnia and every other war and no one has freaked out as much as with this one. I think it's Intellectualy dishonest to say this was is like Vietnam, especialy when emotions are running so high. Not to say it couldn't become like that, but then we;d have to have hundreds dieing a day and worse, it's just no where near that right now.
And the thing that upsets me about this is all the cynics out there that whine and complaine about it but never offer or say what they whould do better/different. Or that think everything that happens is some conspericy. Life dosen't imitate TV people. Conflicts don't resolve over night and there's no smokeing man.
-
oh and to what SE said, the one thing Rumsfeld has done that I do agree with is not give a time line one how long we're going to be there. Clinton said we'd be in solomia for only 6 months and that was over 6 years ago, were still there. No one knows how long it will take, everytime someone in the past has given a timeline/date when it comes to military things they've almots allwayse been way off. So their being honest there, but it's not very reasuring.
And saying Iraq is closer to 'nam then WW2 dosen't give must justafication to saying it's like 'nam. I just used the WW2 to point out most people said then what their saying now. There's no good plan, we're spending too much, we shouldn't be there, etc...
-
Now I'm not an expert on war or Vietnam, and I want to hear what mustard says on this since he's the only person that actualy knows things about war history]
Thats literally the dumbest thing you've ever said. I know a great deal about war history, considering that it has been a hobby of mine since I was 3. Its hard not to know a lot about War history when your father brings work and his experiences home with every day. When Dad used to work with the Joint Chiefs (just after the War College) he and I would talk about warfare all the time. When I was in college he and I went through the 10,000 slides he took in Vietnam and had a three day session where I quizzed him about his experiences there. We still talk about warfare all the time and are both pretty much agreed on the characterization of the war. His two tours in Vietnam were nothing like you seem to think the war was like. In his second tour when he was shot down in Llaos by the Viet Cong (where he won the Silver Star) the military was committed to fighting a ful scale campaign Lam Son 719. Unfortunately they seriously underestimated the strength of their opponent and the resolve of people fighting for a cause. We did do massive air campaigns untill the end of the American withdrawl from Vietnam and our freeze on airstrikes only occured after all American Units had left the country (with small exceptions like the marine guards at the Saigon Embassy. Most of the time during his first tour Dad spent time in the Jungle hunting NVA and Viet cong with mountaingard irregulars (mountain people kind of like native americans here) that is untill they Vietnamese started the tet offensive and overran his base with T-62 tanks killing everyone they could.
I'd like to know why you think that someone in the military from a military family (a member of my family has been in the military at some time or other since the Civil War) who studies military history knows less than someone who isn't in the military.
And your right, you dont know much about Vietnam, I would hardly call it more political than any other war, considering the Politics of Korea and WWII were much more complicated. (A fact very well supported by the fact that the Korean war has never offically ended thanks to those politics) and that rifts and problems from WWII have never completely healed.
In Iraq we do have a cental group thats is coordinating the attacks, and if you think there isn't then I feel sorry for you. These attacks are planned, and not random. It takes coordination to pull off a massive strike against a garrison force. And considering a signifigant portion of the old regime has managed to elude capture I think we can guess who is behind the attacks.
Also check your facts US troops were withdrawn from Somolia in 1993 after being deployed in 1992 so Clinton had troops in Somolia for six months longer than he initially said. Not Six years. In 2001 after the World Trade center bombing the US again sent troops to somolia under President Bush.
-
By the way you cant fit every modern war into those catagories.
The first Gulf war had simple clear objectives, kick Iraq out of Kuwait. The Six day war had the objective of forcing Syria out of Golan, and Egypt out of the Sinai.
And dissent to WWII was miniscule compared to dissent for Vietnam or this war. So again your example isn't valid.
You say your problem is with Cynics who whine and complain but never say what they would do different,... well you've never asked once what any of us would do differently, you branded us cynics and whiners and never bothered to ask our opinions.
What we need to do is get the UN to send peacekeepers to Iraq in Lieu of a Conqueroring force of British and Americans, its what we should have done in the first place. Barring that we need to commit to total war and erase every vestige of the last regime because that is the only way we will ever win this war.
-
Jeffe, here is how it goes. I get the feeling that bluntness is the key here.
Shut up.
You will cause (another) flame bait thread. And frankly, we covered all this before, and it got boring then. I'm happy you have your opinions, but insisting on using them to devolve the forum into a shouting match is not on. And and Spriggan support the Iraq war - nothing you will say is going to change that. Saint and you oppose it - i doubt anything we could say would change that. All it will become is a bitter argument. So please, let it go. Go back to yattering about RPG's.
And in case you feel you can avoid a bitter argument, well, sorry. You can't. You have already failed in that - both you and Spriggan are getting angry. I address this to you since Sprig said on IM he was not intending on pursueing it further.
P.S. - Looks like your prediction was right saint. He did snap the "not knowledgeable about war" line.
-
Ok I wont pursue it futher either, heck I really only got mad in the first place because I was called ignorent by Spriggan, a fault of mine I know, but I will stop before this gets worse.
-
Thank you.
Incidentially, does anyone else feel that making RPG's based on the Iraq conflict is highly disrespectful at this moment in time, since the bullets are still flying?
Also : kinda a dull game i would have thought.
GM : Ok, you get up. What do you do?
Players : What does teh CO tell us to do?
GM : drive that way.
Players : Ok. We do.
Repeat until pizza arrives.
-
Well I always felt War based RPG's are some of the most difficult to do. A real Army has too much structure to tolerate the kind of independence that RPG charaters exhibit.
Mike"I move around to the flank and signal to bravo squad to take the hut on the west perimiter"
Charlie " I set up a kill zone with my SAW and get ready to fire"
Billy " I charge the hut with my heavy machinegun firing and screamig all the way that should give me a +5 to my fear rating"
The GM " Ok bill roll for surprise to see if you notice the incoming machine gun fire, the rest of you roll to see if you notice the incoming moter fire you can thank billy for giving away you position early.!"
Mike and Charlie-"Son of a ... nice work BILLY!"
But yeah, its tasteless, like the Afganastan RPG that came out a few years ago. The problem is that there is a rush to get this kind of product out, once the war gets sour people will be less likely to buy the game.
-
Ooh - I'm giddy to respond to this thread, but it will have to wait. I got a new job on Monday and they actually make me work.
-
I know I promised not to say anything more, but no one can blame me for this one.
What we need to do is get the UN to send peacekeepers
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
-
Also I didn't mean that you don't know anything about wars Jeffe. It's just the ONLY person on this board who's been consistanly correct when it comes to war history is Mustard. And I want to hear from him because I know he knows more about this then I do, he's like the wilson on Home Improvement. And he's proven me wrong so many times it'd be stupid of me not to ask his opinion.
Also I just heard an analigy from the Editor-at-Large of Time Magazine of Iraq I think I agree with. Iraq is more like northern Ireland and the IRA. Only a coupple of hundred of people in a few places managed to hold of the British army for quite a long time. Just like Iraq, only a few places had any combat and not the whole country.
And Jeffe notice I said "Almost all wars" not all wars. Before you attack someones comment, make sure you've read it.
-
In Iraq we do have a cental group thats is coordinating the attacks, and if you think there isn't then I feel sorry for you.
I do think the attacks are planned, but there's no evidnce that there's one group doing it. I think there's several, they may or may not be in communication with each other. But I think it would be to hasty to say other wise when no one knows for sure
-
Silly spriggan.
BTW, the IRA hardly "held us off". Consider the ratio : several dozen dead soldiers at most, nearly a thousand dead on all three sides in the history of the conflict. Several hundred to a couple thousand IRA guys in jail. We may not have been able to stop all the bombs, but we certainly put away a stinkload of terrorists, something you are not seeing in Iraq now - have they caught anyone?
-
and how many years did it take you to do so? like 30. I don;t know much about the IRA conflict. But the Time Magazine layed out some pretty good arguments. It would be intresting to look at the first year of the IRA insurgence and see how it compaires.
-
Well that was rude.
So you made a promise not to deliberately hurt peoples feelings and start an unending argument and then you start the argument anyway. Despite your desire to really start a flame war Im going to listen to Charlie and not get into it. I'll just have to vehemently disagree.
-
well I wasn't until you replied and ignored part of what I said, miss quoted me and skewed the other part. Oh and I NEVER promised anything, I just said I don't care what more you had to say. But as I said in the first sentence I do care when you twist what I say and try to make it sound like I said something else. And as to intentionaly hurt your feelings, I can do that realy easy but instead I actualy apoligised for impliying you don't know anyhing about war. Then you turn around and insult me, that's what's rude. And if you can't take a joke (the laughing at the UN quote) then you're comming to the wrong site.
-
First off before people run for the hills im not going to address the threads topic. I do think Fell needs to delete it though.
Next
Spriggan in your latest post you stated
Oh and I NEVER promised anything
If this is indeed the case Im sorry, I guess I misunderstood Entropys Post and yours
,which by the way stated that you did promise to stop.
I know I promised not to say anything more
Next You claim I misquoted you about your statement on the political nature of vietnam.
Since that is apparently the only thing you think I "twisted" Iwill ask you to go back and red what you wrote. What you said was...
Vietnam was more political and such then any other war.
Emphesis mine
Which is pretty clear to me.
What I said was
I would hardly call it more political than any other war
How was that misquoting?
You did say the word"any", there no argument there, if you had meant "almost any" then you should have said it.
The only other thing I can see is the part of your post where you said you can fit almost any war into those catagories and I said you couldnt fit every war into those catagories and gave examples.
I knew what you meant and I was giving examples to disagree with you.
I never said you said "every" and never meant to imply it, if thats what your mad about then your the one twisting what I said
If there were other thing I misquoted you on I cant address them because you were only specific about that one.
Finally saving the biggest issue for last, I called you rude. Put your your feelings aside for a moment and realize that laughing at one persons opinion for half a page and then apologizing to them the next post sounds really half hearted, kind of like an obligitory way to save face after doing something that you know was wrong. I'll give you an example
"Jeffe you are a complete git for thinking that. Oh by the way Im sorry for insulting you that time before."
So yeah I called what you wrote rude, it was. Im not sorry for saying so. I found it especially rude since I also agreed to stop talking about a topic I care very passionately about and the other person who had apparently promised not to do the same in the interest of board harmony (my understanding of the situation after talking to entropy and saint and reading your I Know I promised not to do this quote) took advantage of it to jump right back into the thread and argue. I hope you notice that the minute Charlie told me to stop talking about my feelings on the war because its caused problems on the board I stopped. I didnt say a thing about you untill you hopped right back into the argument. If you feel like you have to have the last word I can respect that. But I think thats what this has become. Im going to ask Fell to either lock or delete this thread because its obvious that the subject is too divisive to allow on the board. Untill then Im done with it, you can post as much as you want to get your last word and I wont type a thing.
Jeffe
-
well one thing, I wasn't clear on where the "almost any" was. It wasn't dealing with the comment on vietnam being political but this line:
Jeffe your list is too generic, you can fit just about any modern war in those catagories.
So it was my fault for that confusion. I don't have any problems with the things you pointed out, if I did I would have mentioned them ealier.
I still think Vietnam was more political then korean war, I could be wrong that's why I said I wanted to hear Mustars POV on it. And I clearly stated such in the orignal post.
I did never promise anthign to Entropy and as I said the UN post was a joke in it's entirty. If your one to hold a clearly sarcasic remark made as a joke to someone as a serious coment, then fine I'm a lier.
and in my previous post I clearly explained why I replied, I did not try to argure your main point, I never even mentioned it. I allwayse feel the need to clarify my remarks when I feel someone missreads them for what ever reason.
as for makeing a joke in one post and apologizing in another, I didn't realise that you have no since of humor and I apologize and promise never to make a joke around you again.
-
Stop acting like children. Jeffe has requested that I lock this topic and I heartily agree--if I'd had time to read the forum these past few days I would have locked it already. If you start another topic to carry on this same thread, it will be locked as well.