ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#26
#26
hog88 said:
Slightly different but it works the same.

You have to destroy the will of the people to fight, nation state or otherwise. If your not willing to commit the resources to do that, stay home.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess after further clarification, if you're going to take the all-in or all-out approach, then I can understand that. Either do it or don't do it kind of thing, and I know what you mean here.

But I hope this means you were ardently against both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing as to how killing civilians in each case was not only wrong but also pretty meaningless, especially in retrospect.
 
#27
#27
Grand Vol said:
He did to an extent. Point being, whether it's in the air or on the ground, the destruction of the will of the people to fight is paramount. Hence, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

It can be argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't needed.
 
#28
#28
Burhead said:
It can be argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't needed.
Click to expand...

I can be argued it saved more lives than it took.

I'm not in the camp that screams about the US being the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. Because when you look at the big picture, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were far worse in comparison to the two atomic bombings.

Face facts, there was nothing off limits in WWII except poison gas.
 
#29
#29
Burhead said:
It can be argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't needed.
Click to expand...

It can be argued but what were the alternatives? Some have suggested that the US High Command should have taken the Japanese brass, and perhaps even Hirohito himself, out for a demonstration of the weapon's power, but I doubt they would have even showed up. Just my two cents.
 
#30
#30
volprof said:
It can be argued but what were the alternatives? Some have suggested that the US High Command should have taken the Japanese brass, and perhaps even Hirohito himself, out for a demonstration of the weapon's power, but I doubt they would have even showed up. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there was only one way to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb.
 
#31
#31
Grand Vol said:
I can be argued it saved more lives than it took.

I'm not in the camp that screams about the US being the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in anger. Because when you look at the big picture, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were far worse in comparison to the two atomic bombings.

Face facts, there was nothing off limits in WWII except poison gas.
Click to expand...

While I don't think it was necessarily right, everyone at that time was killing civilians, so I don't see how it's right to single out the US.

Furthermore, I'm one of those who sees the invasion of mainland Japan as much more deadly (even for Japanese civilians) than the two atomic weapons. Honestly, I think a mainland Japan invasion could have been another "Eastern Front." After the bombs, however, I think they were pretty much resigned to defeat, whereas they may not have been with a sea invasion of the mainland.

I know this current strand is off-topic as hell, but another complication to throw in the mix is the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets a few days earlier. Some have argued that this is what pushed the Japanese over the hump, but I'm still a "the bomb did it" guy.

Any way it happened, it all sucks. But I am damn glad America won.
 
#32
#32
volprof said:
Well, I guess after further clarification, if you're going to take the all-in or all-out approach, then I can understand that. Either do it or don't do it kind of thing, and I know what you mean here.

But I hope this means you were ardently against both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing as to how killing civilians in each case was not only wrong but also pretty meaningless, especially in retrospect.
Click to expand...

Yes, all in or all out, you can't just put the tip in without leaving frustrated.

I was against invading Iraq but not Afghanistan. Once the government refused to hand over OBL and associates they were complicit.
 
#34
#34
Burhead said:
It can be argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't needed.
Click to expand...

It can but it can also be argued that they saved the world.

The destruction demonstrated just might have been the deterrent that kept them from every being used again.
 
#35
#35
volprof said:
While I don't think it was necessarily right, everyone at that time was killing civilians, so I don't see how it's right to single out the US.

Furthermore, I'm one of those who sees the invasion of mainland Japan as much more deadly (even for Japanese civilians) than the two atomic weapons. Honestly, I think a mainland Japan invasion could have been another "Eastern Front." After the bombs, however, I think they were pretty much resigned to defeat, whereas they may not have been with a sea invasion of the mainland.

I know this current strand is off-topic as hell, but another complication to throw in the mix is the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets a few days earlier. Some have argued that this is what pushed the Japanese over the hump, but I'm still a "the bomb did it" guy.

Any way it happened, it all sucks. But I am damn glad America won.
Click to expand...

A combination of things I would imagine. The Soviets going into Japanese controlled territory had some to do with it (and parts they still control today believe it or not). But overall, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the straw that broke the camel's back.

The other problem being is we didn't have any more immediately available at the time. More were being produced, but the actual bombs themselves were the only two we had and if the Japanese had declined the ultimatum to surrender, we would have had to wait longer to use them again.
 
#36
#36
Estimates are estimates, but I've heard some scholars and military historians estimate that as many as 1 to 2 million US servicemen could have been killed invading and securing the Japanese mainland. To be frank, I don't doubt it. With them not knowing the power of the bomb, I think they would have been much more committed to continue fighting, particularly what they perceived a direct threat to their lives and their land (Japanese nationalism was especially strong at that time as well).

Given the possibility that 1 to 2 million US servicemen could have died, I think it's likely that just as many, if not more, Japanese civilians could have as well, whether it was a result of conventional bombing or of them taking arms against the American invaders.
 
#37
#37
Burhead said:
I'm usually on this side of the argument but I do like to play devil's advocate here; look at what the Russians did in Chechnya. You don't hear much of anything anymore coming out of there nowadays.
Click to expand...

Except the fact that there were Chechen fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
#38
#38
hog88 said:
Yes, all in or all out, you can't just put the tip in without leaving frustrated.

I was against invading Iraq but not Afghanistan. Once the government refused to hand over OBL and associates they were complicit.
Click to expand...

100% agree
 
#39
#39
hog88 said:
Slightly different but it works the same.

You have to destroy the will of the people to fight, nation state or otherwise. If your not willing to commit the resources to do that, stay home.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. This isn't post-war Germany, with a largely homogeneous, if destroyed, population.

Iraq is a mess, fractured between Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and whomever else. In the link it says youth and even children(!), not necessarily aligned with ISIS, were throwing stones at government security forces.

You're not going to have order in a place like this unless a vast majority of people support the government we left--which apparently they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#40
#40
Exhausted and Bereft, Iraqi Soldiers Quit Fight

In interviews over several days, soldiers and army commanders said the desertions had become widespread, with thousands of men laying down their arms, gutting front-line units across the country. Before the troops dissolved in Mosul, the army was losing as many as 300 soldiers a day, between desertions, deaths and injuries, according to a security analyst who works with the Iraqi government and requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the military.
Click to expand...
 
#41
#41
With all that U.S.-supplied stuff being abandoned by the Iraqi military, it appears we finally are helping arm the Syrian rebels.
 
#44
#44
Hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced. This is a disaster.

BpxhUBKCMAABtSc.jpg
 
#48
#48
Velo Vol said:
Hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced. This is a disaster.

BpxhUBKCMAABtSc.jpg
Click to expand...

The most disastrous, catastrophic US foreign policy decision since at least Vietnam (and long-term, it may prove even worse) was the decision to go to war in Iraq. For the life of me, I still can't figure out why the Bush administration thought this was a good idea. Absolutely disastrous and an embarrassment to our nation.

Some people gripe about how our national power has fallen recently. Well, guess what: it began here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#50
#50
This is why it was a mistake for the US to announce to the world when we would leave.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top