Here fishy fishy... here fishy fishy... come on, liberals, bite on the ol' bait TB55 is laying out for ya
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Troop Increase - Realistic or Capitol Hill talk?
- Thread starter Conaway
- Start date
Uhhhhh, isn't that a different war? I don't get the point......
I think he was going after the perception that the current conflict exceeds our involvement in the second World War just because of the official truce dates being signed in 1945. In reality we still had Garrison forces in Japan at the onset of the Korean war years later, and we were rebuilding Germany for the better part of a decade after the war ended. Acting like when Iraq is over we can just take our ball and come home for some much needed R&R is rediculous because like the hydra when we cut one enemys head off we get to fight another.
If that was his point, it is not a very good one. Very little violence met the occupying troops in both defeated countries, the same cannot be said for Iraq.
Differnt kind of enemy. Even the fanaticism of the Japanese pales in comparison to the devotion of some of the Islamic extreamists. And while it was less dangerous at the same time it was going on so lets not forget it lest we belittle the situation they faced.
How does one establish level of zeal?
You are not getting my point, after the surrender of the Japanese and Germans there was very little violence against the occupying troops. Why jam two seperate and distinct wars together to prove his point, it makes no sense.
I am not denigrating the danger the troops in WWII faced, or the guys today (how did you get that?). I think I have an idea what TB55 was getting at but he makes a very poor, and flawed, argument in support of it.
On September 2, 1945 World War II ended, simple as that. Very little fighting/combat happened after that point and to equate the current conflict with the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan is almost laughable. Find another argument......
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Flash, Lawman... both of you are obviously very well read on this issue. Theres not really anything I can say to contribute much further. The type of fanaticism that we are dealing with is something entirely different, as stated. It is much harder to defeat an "idea" (ie islamic fundamentalism) than to destroy a conventional Army. Our current situation puts us into contact with a cowardly enemy, wary of our military force, and unwilling to face us in open combat. The only way to fight this is to adapt unconventional tactics... which I believe we've done at least a fair job in pursuing. But again, we are fighting insurgents and terrorists... we are fighting an idea, not a conventional military force as in WWII...
I think we need to look closely at our foreign policy in the past with regard to our future if we want to stop this fundamentalism. They don't "hate our freedom" or our way of life, they hate the circumstances in which they live and blame much of this on the West's previous foreign policy (supporting Iraq/Iran etc.) as well as current affairs ... As long as they can demonize us, they will be able to fight under this cloak of the "mujahadeen", the freedom fighters. Its hard to establish democracy in an area so divided by religious tradition and economic history. In short, we need to learn from the past and establish something solid, showing our good will and desire to help create stability. Much of this depends on the Iraqis uniting in an effort to create this stability... vice sectarian violence. Topics regarding our forces' influence have already been discussed.
I think we need to look closely at our foreign policy in the past with regard to our future if we want to stop this fundamentalism. They don't "hate our freedom" or our way of life, they hate the circumstances in which they live and blame much of this on the West's previous foreign policy (supporting Iraq/Iran etc.) as well as current affairs ... As long as they can demonize us, they will be able to fight under this cloak of the "mujahadeen", the freedom fighters. Its hard to establish democracy in an area so divided by religious tradition and economic history. In short, we need to learn from the past and establish something solid, showing our good will and desire to help create stability. Much of this depends on the Iraqis uniting in an effort to create this stability... vice sectarian violence. Topics regarding our forces' influence have already been discussed.
^^ While the distinction between conventional forces and asymmetric insurgency style warfare is an important one, I don't think the concept that we're fighting "an idea" is a very useful one. Almost every enemy we face stands for some ideology (Nazism, communism, etc), or political end (Islamic extremists). Despite all the hype, this conflict has very little to do with religion, and everything to do with those aforementioned political ends, mainly a righting of perceived wrongs perpetrated by the West. I think it's important to stop viewing Islam as a monolithic entity. We need to show our good side to the 99% that do not advocate violence, and show the other 1% the way to a painful death.
Brett
Brett
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
^^ 100% concur.. religion is a very small factor. Mostly, as you stated, it deals with our perceived decisions/influence and economic factors. The Shia take issue with the Sunni not primarily because of the differences between their faiths, but because the Sunnis supressed the Shias under Saddam... The Shia got the short end of the economic stick, especially during the UN sanctions. What I was trying to establish is that the "idea" of islamic fundamentalism is still in a state (given our current status in Iraq) to where it can yield many followers... such followers are prone to engage in assymetrical warfare. Essentially, defeating the reason behind this "idea" can be accomplished by a new foreign policy. I'm skeptical of my own statement here, because the feasability of doing this is in question... its something that the region has to accept.
^ you stated it well I think, this would help to show our sincere interest in creating stability in the region.
^ you stated it well I think, this would help to show our sincere interest in creating stability in the region.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=JAK144283&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-5
You mean, the 10% that support suicide bombings? I know you just pulled that number out of your ass, but its important to point out that things aren't as kumbayah as we might wish them to be. Even if your figure of 1% was right, that is a lot of bodies to bury. 1% of 1,200,000,000 is 12,000,000.
More info on Muslim public opinion regarding suicide bombings here:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
^ it was a manner of speech I think, not an actual statistic. Theres a large difference between persons that support the bombings and the ones that actually participate in them. By saying "those that advocate violence" I'm sure he meant "those that particpate in violence" with regard to "showing them the way to a painful death".
Granted, but follow the second link. There is a reason why people were dancing in the streets all over the Muslim world on 9/11. And, that's before OIF and OEF. Everything is not kumbayah.
To borrow a phrase from an AW legend...
...Believe it...
Yes but by your reasoning then all the comparisons of "Well we were only in WWII for 4 years and we're still in Iraq" go right out the window because of the differnt status's and danger levels in the conflict. And thats the point Im trying to make. Everybody seems hell bent on making this a strict arguement of time of involvement no matter the conditions of that involvement.
People wanna say "well we still have troops over there" yes we do. But we still had troops over in Germany and Japan well after that conflict. You could make the arguement that its a hell of a lot more dangerous in Iraq then it was after the fact in Germany and Japan but you could also make the arguement that it was a hell of a lot more dangerous in WWII during the conflict then it was/is in Iraq.
This isnt a war anymore, its an occupation when it comes to Iraq and Afganistan. The war on terror is a much further wider spectrum. And until people quit trying of time I will evolve the arguement of "but we were still in _____."
Basically Im playing devils advocate to point out the ignorance of compairing a conventional conflict between Military powers to that of an asymetric conflict between an insurgency and an occupying force solely on the variable of how long each took.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Few would argue this point I think Lawman... we've all essentially agreed that comparing the two conflicts is a night & day type deal. There are many factors as you say, and this a completely different type of war.