NationStates Jolt Archive

From a Washington Times Editorial:
Mr. President:

It is an honor and privilege to present you and the Congress with the attached 79 recommendations detailed in the following 50 pages. In addition you will find a 40-page preface summarizing the state of the current conflict, plus maps, lists of the experts whose advice contributed to our disinterested conclusions, and full biographies of the commissioners who participated in this bipartisan study. (Autographed photographs are available on request.)

After long and arduous study at a generally safe distance, and by matching the self-evident with the undeniable, offsetting every platitude with a generality, and scrupulously avoiding unhelpful and provocative concepts like honor and victory, we now have reached a carefully balanced bipartisan consensus sure to give no offense or risk dangerous specifics, to wit:

The situation worldwide is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. During the last nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome.

Despite the greatest mass mobilization in our country's history, the enemy remains on the offensive and is proceeding to expand its earlier gains. To quote one of the distinguished historians on our extensive panel of consultants: "So swift and far-reaching were the Axis victories during the first six months of 1942 that it seemed the United States had lost the war." --Arthur S. Link, professor of history, Northwestern University, in his "American Epoch."

In view of Japanese dominance in the Pacific theater, it is time to open negotiations looking to a stable and enduring peace in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The results of Operation TORCH in North Africa have proved no less disheartening. Despite early progress, the outlook is bleak, as this week's news from Kasserine Pass illustrates.

Appeals to Wilsonian ideals like freedom and self-determination cannot compete with traditional European and Asiatic modes of thinking that emphasize nationalism and obedience to a strong leader. We have become involved in lands whose culture and languages are woefully beyond our understanding, and with which we have little if anything in common.

What course do we recommend? Given the weakness of our allies, the United States should launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability, reconciliation and the reconstruction of Europe and Asia. The ambitions of Germany, Italy and Japan should be left to a revitalized League of Nations to deal with while we strive to reach a modus vivendi with their leaders.

There is no magic formula to solve the world's problems. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, as the midterm elections of 1942 demonstrated, not just with the war but with the state of our political debate regarding the war.

Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what has become a costly conflict. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The president and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support.

No one can guarantee that any course of action at this point will stop the growing violence or a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe. Despite a massive effort, stability remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Allied forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.

Because of the role and responsibility of the United States, and the commitments our government has made, the United States has special obligations. Mr. President, if you're still with us, our country must address as best as possible the world's many problems. The United States has long-term relationships and interests at stake in the world and needs to stay engaged.

Respectfully submitted... .

Considering how badly the war was going for the US in 1942, it certainly is a cogent argument. Were we more willing to be "losing" for a while in the hope that things would end in victory? Were we more willing to take casualties? Was the American public more patient concerning the prospects of military success? Are we expecting "instant victory" of the kind that we had during the First Gulf War? Where we "win" and "go home" immediately?

Regardless of the reasons for war or intervention, or whether or not the war is justified or not, one might ask whether or not it is possible to have a credible military force, no matter how large and powerful it might be, when the citizenry which controls that armed force has little or no will to carry through on a military action. If the US as a nation is unwilling to accept casualties (at a rate far, far below that of WW II), and unwilling to fight for prolonged periods through what appears to be times of defeat and disillusionment, has the US military now been put in the position of having lost before the next conflict even begins?

Are you seriously comparing WWII to Iraq? Seriously?


If so I should point out we beat the fuck out of the Italians, Germans, and Japanese in less time than it's taken us to get our asses royally kicked by a bunch of punks with out dated AK-47s and home made bombs.

Are you seriously comparing WWII to Iraq? Seriously?

If so I should point out we beat the fuck out of the Italians, Germans, and Japanese in less time than it's taken us to get our asses royally kicked by a bunch of punks with out dated AK-47s and home made bombs.

Well, if you're going to point out differences, let's look at approaches:

We were willing to firebomb entire cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians en masse in the process - and we didn't think it was a bad thing.

We nuked two cities along the same lines.

My point still stands - are we not willing to do what it appears to take to achieve a victory?

Well, if you're going to point out differences, let's look at approaches:

We were willing to firebomb entire cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians en masse in the process - and we didn't think it was a bad thing.

We nuked two cities along the same lines.

My point still stands - are we not willing to do what it appears to take to achieve a victory?

Are you saying that you should be willing to nuke every islamic country and call it off?

Or I am misunderstanding you?

Yeah, we should have surrendered to the Axis

Is this just an attempt at a funny thread title or do you really think anybody has made this suggestion?

Is this just an attempt at a funny thread title or do you really think anybody has made this suggestion?

I'm sure that had Joe Biden been in government during WW II, he would have suggested it.

My point still stands - are we not willing to do what it appears to take to achieve a victory?

what would victory BE?

we have already acheived the goals of the war. we have removed saddam hussein from office, iraq has no weapons of mass destuction, they are rendered harmless to the rest of the world.

do we now have to stay until the iraqi people are transformed into americans? do we have to stay until the sunnis, kurds and shiites love each other?

when we can define victory in a way that is possible to achieve, we can make plans for victory. until then blowing things up will not win anything.

My point still stands - are we not willing to do what it appears to take to achieve a victory?Would we deserve victory if we followed your path?

Oh yes, the political debate on how to handle two aggressive imperialist regimes who are actively expanding their borders and have attacked both the US and its allies is EXACTLY the same as the debate on whether to continue to occupy a lightwieght country that has no means to project power and is descending into civil war.............




LMFAO!!!

I mean, I know that you MEANT to be serious. But the fact that you think that there is any equivalence at all is frickin' hilarious!

Plain and simple, Iraq never should happened. We shouldn't pull out because troops are getting killed, we should pull out because they're dying in a war that never should have occured.
I'm more than willing to support whatever it takes to achieve victory when a war is justified. However, when a war is unjustified, I don't want victory, I want withdrawal.

And anyone who thinks World War 2 and Iraq are similar wars needs to re-take history. All of it. Immediately. If upon completion you still cannot see where the wars are different, you're beyond help.

Besides, if Iraq is like WW2, then we're doomed to loose unless the insurgents make some logistical mistak of catastrophic proportions or half of them pulls an Italy and we see their leader being torn apart by a crowd of angry previously-oppressed followers.

Are you seriously comparing WWII to Iraq? Seriously?


Trolls are silly.

Would we deserve victory if we followed your path?

The point is we shouldn't learn from the brutality of our past, we should emulate it. Atleast I'm fair sure that's the point he's makin.

Considering that the US entered WWII in December of 1941, a bad situation in 1942 is not comparable to the US in Iraq today, give the amount of time that has passed. It seems like it's less than a year that this report focuses on when contrasting and comparing US involvement in WWII and this new Iraq War...

From a Washington Times Editorial:


Considering how badly the war was going for the US in 1942, it certainly is a cogent argument. Were we more willing to be "losing" for a while in the hope that things would end in victory? Were we more willing to take casualties? Was the American public more patient concerning the prospects of military success? Are we expecting "instant victory" of the kind that we had during the First Gulf War? Where we "win" and "go home" immediately?

Regardless of the reasons for war or intervention, or whether or not the war is justified or not, one might ask whether or not it is possible to have a credible military force, no matter how large and powerful it might be, when the citizenry which controls that armed force has little or no will to carry through on a military action. If the US as a nation is unwilling to accept casualties (at a rate far, far below that of WW II), and unwilling to fight for prolonged periods through what appears to be times of defeat and disillusionment, has the US military now been put in the position of having lost before the next conflict even begins?


But you already "won", haven't you? You destabilised and area that was formerly thought to be impossible to destabilise further.

You have shown to the world that no matter what bullshit excuses you come up with, nobody will stand up and call you liars for it.

And you've proven to yourself that you finally are the biggest bully on the playground.

So what more is there to win?

You can't compare US involvement in WW2 to Iraq:
1) The US started the Iraq war, Germany started WW2.
2) The grounds for going to war in Europe in 1942 were clear, in Iraq they were falsified.
3) No-one (well, no-one rational) has since been in any doubt that the war against the Nazis was justified.

Comparing Iraq to WW1 is slightly more reasonable, but 1) above still stands, even if no-one is really sure what the war was all about.

Veitnam is the most similar war to Iraq of recent times - and the US did back out of that one.

But you already "won", haven't you? You destabilised and area that was formerly thought to be impossible to destabilise further.

You have shown to the world that no matter what bullshit excuses you come up with, nobody will stand up and call you liars for it.

And you've proven to yourself that you finally are the biggest bully on the playground.

So what more is there to win?


The Bush administration- deluded neocons that they are- would define victory in the War on Terror as the rise of a pan-democratic world order. One of America's biggest problems throughout history has been that we see democracy as a God and like other religious fanatics, we have had no problem forcing our religion on others through force of arms.

If the remaining Iraqi civilians have to become a human sacrifice to the Democracy God, I think the Neocons would consider it a fair trade.

What it takes to win Iraq (http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html)

I feel that this writer has the best understanding of what it takes to win the war.

From my own limited research of Iraq, I think we'd need another Hussein in order to fully pacify the insurgency.

Seeing as both you and that article about "nuking it all and such" have no idea of what a Phyrric Victory is, and since you also have no sense in any matter at all, I lay out my solution to the problem, which is utter crap, but about twelve times better than anything that you could probably think up.

1) Massive reparations payments. Billions upon billions of dollars.
2) The biggest apology you could even imagine.
3) Take troops out pretty sharpish.
4) Let the public have Saddam back if they want (not allowing him to run for president was pretty stupid)
5) Stop gallivanting around the world, esp. in the Middle East, apart from if something actually important and tragic occurs, which the US is well-equipped to deal with. Peacekeeping is not something the US is actually well-equipped to deal with.

If anyone nukes anyone, then maybe the US should get involved. Because it's quite good at beating the crap out of people when the gloves are off. But not otherwise.

Well, if you're going to point out differences, let's look at approaches:

We were willing to firebomb entire cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians en masse in the process - and we didn't think it was a bad thing.

We nuked two cities along the same lines.

My point still stands - are we not willing to do what it appears to take to achieve a victory?

Not quite correct. In both examples you outline, the cities were held by a nation that America was at war at. Applying it to Iraq now does not work simply because America already holds the cities. Or at least it claims to.

If you wish to take an example more appropriate to your case, you would have to look up the actions of the Waffen SS or the Einsatzgruppen who generally worked on already held cities/towns/villages, generally depopulating them in the process.

If you have the stomach for that, then you can claim parities. But the Waffen SS were not American, so that kind of kills the argument anyway.

From a Washington Times Editorial:


Considering how badly the war was going for the US in 1942,
That's when the stupid started to burn. The US didn't declare war until December 1941, so all other factors aside, to make the comparison of how we're doing in Iraq now to how we were doing in WWII less than a year after our involvement in it is, well, stupid beyond most right-wing definitions of the word.

That's when the stupid started to burn. The US didn't declare war until December 1941, so all other factors aside, to make the comparison of how we're doing in Iraq now to how we were doing in WWII less than a year after our involvement in it is, well, stupid beyond most right-wing definitions of the word.

It's not stupid - you just hate it when someone is asking a question that makes you feel uncomfortable about the way you think the world should be.

Answer the questions. Are we different now?

It's not stupid - you just hate it when someone is asking a question that makes you feel uncomfortable about the way you think the world should be.

Answer the questions. Are we different now?
Yes it is. You're not even comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to the space dust that makes up the fucking Crab Nebula.

Yes it is. You're not even comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to the space dust that makes up the fucking Crab Nebula.

I am comparing the kinds of people who were US citizens in the 1940s to the kind we have now.

The comparison is apt.

We have no stomach for casualties, even at a level which is orders of magnitude below that of WW II. We have no stomach, for some of us, for casualties among our enemies.

We used to firebomb cities and drop nuclear weapons. We wouldn't do that now.

How can our military have any credibility at all, regardless of its size and technological prowess, if we are politically unwilling to use it?

You're saying that's an illogical or stupid question? Or are you afraid of what the real answer is?

Yes it is. You're not even comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to the space dust that makes up the fucking Crab Nebula.
Sigged!

being the Brit I am I think I will derail this thread entirely:

If I ran the British empire in 1939 I wouldn't of bothered with Poland in fact so long as he’s not fighting anyone in the allied camp he can have the whole damn Soviet union.

I think that speaks volumes about how I would handle the invasion of Kuwait and thus Saddam’s regime as a whole

what would victory BE?

we have already acheived the goals of the war. we have removed saddam hussein from office, iraq has no weapons of mass destuction, they are rendered harmless to the rest of the world.

do we now have to stay until the iraqi people are transformed into americans? do we have to stay until the sunnis, kurds and shiites love each other?

when we can define victory in a way that is possible to achieve, we can make plans for victory. until then blowing things up will not win anything.

I was going to post that the definition of "victory" has changed. Ash is more acurate. We have no definition of "victory" at this point.

It's not stupid - you just hate it when someone is asking a question that makes you feel uncomfortable about the way you think the world should be.

Answer the questions. Are we different now?
Urmm yeah, obviously nuking and firebombing people who have done nothing wrong in Iraq is exactly the same as what occured in Japan, which was in an actual war, and they'd killed millions of Chinese people...

Not that it wasn't reprehensible there, just more understandable. Doing the same to Iraq is just ridiculous.

I am comparing the kinds of people who were US citizens in the 1940s to the kind we have now.

We used to firebomb cities and drop nuclear weapons. We wouldn't do that now.

How can our military have any credibility at all, regardless of its size and technological prowess, if we are politically unwilling to use it?



so you are saying that no one finds it acceptable to firebomb and nuke civilian targets anymore ....and that's a bad thing????-you are one sick puppy....

I am comparing the kinds of people who were US citizens in the 1940s to the kind we have now.

The comparison is apt.


It also ignores this little thing you may have heard of. You know, progress?


We have no stomach for casualties, even at a level which is orders of magnitude below that of WW II. We have no stomach, for some of us, for casualties among our enemies.

I guess it's harder for us to dehumanize the opponents. Ya know, like how we don't have US Government funded propaganda portraying Japs as a bunch of big-toothed, squinty eyed sub-humans.

Come off it. You're waxing reminiscent about times you didn't even live through, for no other reason than you want to accuse people of being not as tough as you.

We used to firebomb cities and drop nuclear weapons. We wouldn't do that now.

Gosh, what a shame that is.

How can our military have any credibility at all, regardless of its size and technological prowess, if we are politically unwilling to use it?

Oh, so our military is weak and incredible because we don't use it to kill civilians in the hundreds of thousands?

How can you have any credibility at all, if you're just going to talk out of your asshole?

You're saying that's an illogical or stupid question? Or are you afraid of what the real answer is?

Yeah, that must be it. Yawn. Everyone else is afraid, and you're the big bad internet tough guy. All because you're willing to admit you get a hard-on when other people kill other people. Get a grip on reality and quit trolling with this idiotic trash.

I am comparing the kinds of people who were US citizens in the 1940s to the kind we have now.

The comparison is apt.

We have no stomach for casualties, even at a level which is orders of magnitude below that of WW II. We have no stomach, for some of us, for casualties among our enemies.

We used to firebomb cities and drop nuclear weapons. We wouldn't do that now.

How can our military have any credibility at all, regardless of its size and technological prowess, if we are politically unwilling to use it?

You're saying that's an illogical or stupid question? Or are you afraid of what the real answer is?

The notion that the comparison is apt when the situations are not comparable is rediculous. Clearly the public accepts a more violent response and a higher cost if they feel more threatened.

Case in point, in 1937, the American State Department protested to Japan about its bombing of Chinese cities stated that "general bombing of an extensive area wherein there resides a large population engaged in peaceful pursuits is unwarranted and contrary to principles of law and of humanity."

Only a year later, when protesting the bombing of cities in the Spanish Civil War, the official response stated that: "Such acts are in violation of the most elementary principles of those standards of human conduct which have been developed as an essential part of modern civilization."

Even after the WAr, General Lemay, who conducted the ariel bombardment of Japan conceded that if the US had lost he would rightly have been tried as a war criminal.

So how did the public will change from 1937 to 1945? The answer to that is obvious. Pearl Harbour and the imminent JUSTIFIABLE fear of the imperialistic tendencies of Japan and Germany.

Why has the public will dropped off now? They were willing to go to war in the shadow of 911 when Bush scared them with the Nuclear threat. Now, understanding that there is no direct threat, they revert to their more normal sentiument.

But have no fear. Should China start rattling it's sabres and provide an imminent threat scenario, the people will be back onside with the willingness to commit democide.

But expecting them not to be situationally aware of the amount of violence they are willing to have committed on their behalf is silly. They exercise that every day.

Which is why they don't mind a cop shooting a rapist caught in the act who won't stop, but do object if a cop shoots a jaywalker who continues across the road.

Your continuing to try to compare the two situations, however, is laughable.

I am comparing the kinds of people who were US citizens in the 1940s to the kind we have now.

The comparison is apt.

We have no stomach for casualties, even at a level which is orders of magnitude below that of WW II. We have no stomach, for some of us, for casualties among our enemies.

We used to firebomb cities and drop nuclear weapons. We wouldn't do that now.

How can our military have any credibility at all, regardless of its size and technological prowess, if we are politically unwilling to use it?

You're saying that's an illogical or stupid question? Or are you afraid of what the real answer is?

oh good lord

did you sleep through SHOCK AND AWE?

we bombed the crap out of iraq.

then we sent our troops in.

we cant bomb now because our people are there.

duh

when we nuked japan we werent occupying it. when we occupied it, we didnt firebomb anymore.

see the difference?

The comparison is apt.

lol