Thoughts of war........

#1
Fine Vol

Fine Vol

Go Vols
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
19,849
Likes
2
#1
WW2 was a black and white war. You had Hitler and and his army murdering masses of people just to create a super race. So the choice for countrys like the US was to end this way of thinking for our own piece of mind and monetary reasons.

Skip to today were Osama B Ladin attacks the US. We at one time formed an allegence with OBL. Now every American detest his name and face.

QEUSTION: Does it seem now that lines are more blurred and the role played by the good guys and bad guys are more difficult to discern? Has our role as the good guy been compromised by money and political power? thoughts?
 
#2
#2
We continue to be the good guys. Ask yourself, next time you see a young man or woman wearing the uniform, "Is that the bad guy?" and you'll know the answer.

Don't forget, in WWII, the US was an ally of convenience with Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union. Were it not for Hitler's betrayal of the Soviets and the Russian winter that followed, the outcome in the European theater would have been far different.
 
#3
#3
We didn't really have an alliance with the Mujahadeen, we just had to use them to undermine the Soviet presence in central asia, as they were fighting the Soviets anyhow, we helped them out with some friendly advice, as well as small arms and SAMS.
 
#4
#4
MG1968 said:
We continue to be the good guys. Ask yourself, next time you see a young man or woman wearing the uniform, "Is that the bad guy?" and you'll know the answer.

Don't forget, in WWII, the US was an ally of convenience with Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union. Were it not for Hitler's betrayal of the Soviets and the Russian winter that followed, the outcome in the European theater would have been far different.
Click to expand...
Good point about looking at the uniform.
 
#5
#5
Just wondering how you justify war against a country on facts that were found out much later (killing lots of people) but are so against Iraq when a similar thing was happening. In retrospect WWII was the correct move but will the same be said of Iraq in the future? Put today's media coverage in 1944 and I'm not sure D-day ever happens.
 
#6
#6
If it was the U.S. responsibility to eliminate every brutal dictator in the world then we are engaged in a thousand year war. We don't have those kind of resources to engage in prolonged war.

Cheney/Bush believed Saddam was months away from a nuclear weapon and they couldn't have been more wrong. The CIA/Military all advised them that there wasn't evidence of WMD's in Iraq and a prolonged occupation would be a mistake. It was a terrible decision that we are living with the consequences of.
 
#7
#7
utvolpj said:
Just wondering how you justify war against a country on facts that were found out much later (killing lots of people) but are so against Iraq when a similar thing was happening. In retrospect WWII was the correct move but will the same be said of Iraq in the future? Put today's media coverage in 1944 and I'm not sure D-day ever happens.
Click to expand...
cause I am American and it is my right to be wrong!:)
 
#8
#8
oklavol said:
If it was the U.S. responsibility to eliminate every brutal dictator in the world then we are engaged in a thousand year war. We don't have those kind of resources to engage in prolonged war.

Cheney/Bush believed Saddam was months away from a nuclear weapon and they couldn't have been more wrong. The CIA/Military all advised them that there wasn't evidence of WMD's in Iraq and a prolonged occupation would be a mistake. It was a terrible decision that we are living with the consequences of.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should have concentrated on Afgan.
 
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
Just wondering how you justify war against a country on facts that were found out much later (killing lots of people) but are so against Iraq when a similar thing was happening. In retrospect WWII was the correct move but will the same be said of Iraq in the future? Put today's media coverage in 1944 and I'm not sure D-day ever happens.
Click to expand...

It doesn't you are correct. Let us not forget the main factor for not finishing Sadam the first time. Remember the massacre of his forces on the highway by air strikes and the media coverage of burned out tanks and vehicles, not to mention the bodies? I do not think it was coincidence that soon after that the decision was made to slowly withdraw.
 
#10
#10
oklavol said:
If it was the U.S. responsibility to eliminate every brutal dictator in the world then we are engaged in a thousand year war. We don't have those kind of resources to engage in prolonged war.

Cheney/Bush believed Saddam was months away from a nuclear weapon and they couldn't have been more wrong. The CIA/Military all advised them that there wasn't evidence of WMD's in Iraq and a prolonged occupation would be a mistake. It was a terrible decision that we are living with the consequences of.
Click to expand...

I really don't think anyone was arguing that but thanks. My point is that it seems we can change justifications for wars past as long as the end result is a just one. Not doing the same for all of them seems a bit hypocritical.
 
#11
#11
Fine Vol said:
I agree, we should have concentrated on Afgan.
Click to expand...

Agree on Afgan. Although I do believe we needed to take some action against Sadam. He thumbed his nose at inspectors from the UN for far too long. The UN is not perfect by any means but if they are to have ANY credibility their binding resolutions have to carry some weight otherwise they are useless and have no authority.
 
#12
#12
I know I'm coming in late on this but here's what I thought when I read the original question in this thread.
I immediately had the movie "Behind Enemy Lines", and "Blackhawk Down" come to mind.
 
#13
#13
oklavol said:
The CIA/Military all advised them that there wasn't evidence of WMD's in Iraq
Click to expand...

You certainly have a different memory of pre-war events than I.

I seem to remember the words "slam dunk" from Tenet. Virtually all intelligence pointed to presence of WMD. It was wrong but the intelligence info wasn't ignored, it was embraced.
 
#14
#14
#15
#15
Fine Vol said:
QEUSTION: Does it seem now that lines are more blurred and the role played by the good guys and bad guys are more difficult to discern? Has our role as the good guy been compromised by money and political power? thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting discussion that has been talked about in certain circles out here. The question you would have to ask yourself would be, do you believe we were the good guys in WWII? The troops didnt have news teams following their every move and most media was extreme in their patriotism. The Allies committed some horrible atrocities in WWII that never got any attention, and in my opinion you can not fight a war with PC police on your case. The troops fighting right now may arguably be more restrained than our WWII troops.
 
#16
#16
MontereyVol said:
This is an interesting discussion that has been talked about in certain circles out here. The question you would have to ask yourself would be, do you believe we were the good guys in WWII? The troops didnt have news teams following their every move and most media was extreme in their patriotism. The Allies committed some horrible atrocities in WWII that never got any attention, and in my opinion you can not fight a war with PC police on your case. The troops fighting right now may arguably be more restrained than our WWII troops.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt they are.
 
#17
#17
The absolute destruction we could cause now is beyond comprehension.

Curtis LeMay would not be allowed in today's pc world.
 
#18
#18
. . .this whole war, and all wars since "the bomb" are restrained!! This restraint comes in the form of the inability to find and destroy our enemy due to the fact that they hide within the public sector, then yell and scream when innocent civilians get injured or killed. Restraint also manifests itself in the realization that we cannot utilize more than 10% of our military might due to the type of war that we are fighting. . .we cannot use large bombs etc. due to infighting with civilian population. When an enemy knows you can only fight with one arm and one leg (the others being tied behind your back) then they also know that countries like the USA with a strong military, are reduced to almost nothing. We should always remember this when we engage in war like this. Someone said we'll never get into another Viet Nam. . .this is WORSE!!

Let's get back to Big Orange Football!!
 
#19
#19
On the issue of WMD in Iraq.. Are you really sure they didn't find anything? I don't have any inside info on this. I wonder though, are we just keeping this a secret? And really, do we need to know when General Gates farts? I like secrets, secrets keep us safe.. We need more IMO.
 
#20
#20
WWII was not black and white. We were slow to enter the war because of dissent. Even American Hero Charles Lindberg was against entering the war.
 
#21
#21
VolDad said:
WWII was not black and white. We were slow to enter the war because of dissent. Even American Hero Charles Lindberg was against entering the war.
Click to expand...

Many in America were reluctant to enter. Not to mention we had the Nazi party establish roots here in America.
 
#22
#22
tim said:
On the issue of WMD in Iraq.. Are you really sure they didn't find anything? I don't have any inside info on this. I wonder though, are we just keeping this a secret? And really, do we need to know when General Gates farts? I like secrets, secrets keep us safe.. We need more IMO.
Click to expand...


If anyone had found the slightest sniff of a WMD, they would've screamed it from the mountaintops.


Fine Vol said:
QUESTION: Does it seem now that lines are more blurred and the role played by the good guys and bad guys are more difficult to discern?
Click to expand...

I think that the line is only blurred to people that forget why we are there. If I recall, WMDs were not the only reason we invaded Iraq, it was just one of many articles of war that congress laid out authorizing military action.

Fine Vol said:
Has our role as the good guy been compromised by money and political power? thoughts?
Click to expand...

I encourage you to read this:

WAR IS A RACKET - Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired

Money and political power is all any war is about... this concept is as old as war itself. Smedley Butler was the most decorated service member of his time and was a 2 time winner of the Congressional MOH before he went to France for WWI.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
You certainly have a different memory of pre-war events than I.

I seem to remember the words "slam dunk" from Tenet. Virtually all intelligence pointed to presence of WMD. It was wrong but the intelligence info wasn't ignored, it was embraced.
Click to expand...

Frontline discussed this at length in a special program they did. They have aired it several times, I've seen it twice.

The CIA did not have evidence that Iraq had WMD's (obviously since they didn't). However before the first Gulf War they learned Iraq had been months away from a nuclear weapon and the CIA didn't have any idea.

Cheney didn't believe the CIA this time after being burned by them during the first Gulf War. Well the CIA was right and Cheney/Bush was wrong. Then Bush used Tenet as a scapegoat for their bad decision. That was discussed at length with several former members of the CIA who were there during the whole debacle.
 
#24
#24
oklavol said:
Well the CIA was right and Cheney/Bush was wrong. Then Bush used Tenet as a scapegoat for their bad decision. That was discussed at length with several former members of the CIA who were there during the whole debacle.
Click to expand...

Imagine that . . . former CIA members saying it wasn't the CIA's fault. Not saying that there might not have been scapegoating going on, but those aren't exactly unbiased sources.
 
#25
#25
GAVol said:
Imagine that . . . former CIA members saying it wasn't the CIA's fault. Not saying that there might not have been scapegoating going on, but those aren't exactly unbiased sources.
Click to expand...

I also thought about that, but as you know, Colin Powell was against the decision as well, as was discussed in the program. Powell is who Bush should have listened to IMO.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top