Brief Wars Rarely Produce Lasting Results. Long Wars Often Do.

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
I found an interesting article written by a Harvard law school professor regarding the Civil War and the second Iraq War. It's not going to change any minds, but it does provide some thoughtful arguments which might not seem entirely evident. As usual, I've boldfaced some of the more interesting contentions. The history buffs among you (Ladguf?) probably realize how horribly the North ran their side of the Civil War.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051205&s=stuntz120605
BRIEF WARS RARELY PRODUCE LASTING RESULTS. LONG WARS OFTEN DO.
Noble Cause

by William J. Stuntz

Only at TNR Online | Post date 12.06.05

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln led what was left of his country to war to restore "the Union as it was," to use the popular phrase of the time. Free navigation of the Mississippi River, the right to collect customs duties in Southern ports, the status of a pair of coastal forts in South Carolina and Florida--these were the issues over which young American men got down to the business of killing one another that sad summer.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.

The loss of hundreds of thousands of American men--a lost generation comparable to the generation of young French, German, and British men lost in Flanders fields a half-century later--for the sake of a few Southern forts and ports would have been a tragedy as great as the senseless killing at the Somme and Passchendaele. World War I was senseless, both because it was fought over territory and because it settled nothing. The Civil War that Lincoln and Jefferson Davis set out to fight would have been no different. If control of America's rivers had remained the war's object, then whoever won the day in the early 1860s would have had to defend that object again a generation later, just as World War II saw a generation of British and American men fight for the same territory their fathers won a generation after their fathers won it.

Freedom and democracy, justice and the equality of all men before God and before the law--those causes were very different. Shedding an ocean of blood for them was terribly sad but not tragic: The essence of tragedy is waste, and the blood shed on the Civil War's battlefields was not wasted. Horrible as its killing fields were, those young men accomplished something profoundly good: Their deaths ensured that (to use Lincoln's words again) "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That is why the Civil War has gone down in history not as America's own World War I, but as the war of America's true "greatest generation," the generation that preserved freedom and democracy for us and for the rest of humankind.

In 1861 neither Lincoln nor Davis could have won a fair vote for the war they wound up fighting. Lincoln nearly lost his office, and hence the war, over his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1861 the North could not imagine the suffering of the next four years--and had Northern voters done so, they would have bid the South go in peace and left slavery's chains intact. Thankfully, no one guessed the future (well, almost no one--Sherman came close), and the future was better because of it.

What does this history teach us? Three things: First, that Victor Davis Hanson is right--wars often change purposes after they begin. Second, that sometimes the new purpose is vastly better than the one it replaces. Few nations choose up front to sacrifice their sons for the sake of others' freedom. When such sacrifices are made, they usually flow not from design but from accident and error--just as the North's military blunders prolonged the Civil War, and thereby made it a struggle to bring that new birth of freedom to the war-torn land over which the soldiers fought.

The third lesson is the most important. Brief wars rarely produce permanent results, but long wars often do. Had McClellan's army taken Richmond and ended the war early in 1862, slavery and secessionism would have survived, and "the South shall rise again" would have been a prediction rather than a slogan. Hitler conquered most of Western Europe--Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France--in a two-month campaign in the spring and early summer of 1940. It took five years to undo the conquest. But the long, hard slog to Berlin worked: The Thousand-Year Reich was ended centuries before its self-proclaimed expiration date. Napoleon's marshals occupied Spain in a few months in 1808. It took Wellington and Spanish guerrillas six years to dislodge the French. But the dislodging lasted: In the 19 decades since, no French government has ruled an acre of the Iberian Peninsula.

What would have happened had the second Iraq war turned out like the first, as the White House apparently expected? Saddam would have been toppled, the Iraqi people would have celebrated, order would have been restored quickly, followed by a speedy exit for British and American troops. Then what? Maybe the rule of Iran-style Shia mullahs, perhaps another brutal Sunni autocrat to take the place of the last one, possibly an endless civil war between the two. Today, there is a real chance of a vastly better result--precisely because the insurgency survived, because it wasn't quickly defeated. Sunni intransigence needed to be crushed slowly; a quick in-and-out war was not enough to kill the dream of forever tyrannizing Iraqi Kurds and Shia. More important, thousands of senseless murders over the past 32 months have taught Iraqis--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike--just how vicious Zarqawi and his allies are. That lesson will have very useful consequences for the long-term health of the region.

Today's fighting in Iraq bears little resemblance to Pickett's charge or the Union assault on Marye's Heights in Fredericksburg. For one thing, the Civil War was infinitely bloodier: Its worst battles killed more American soldiers in a day than have died in two-and-a-half years of fighting in Iraq. And the purpose for which our current war was begun--capturing Saddam Hussein's supposed stash of WMDs--seems nobler than the fight over who held Fort Sumter. Still, some key parallels remain. Toppling Saddam and seizing his chemical and biological weapons probably wasn't worth the sacrifice of 2,000-plus American lives (as long as nuclear weapons weren't in the picture). Similarly, control over the Mississippi wasn't worth the bloodletting across the length of the Confederacy's border that took place in Lincoln's first term.

(continued)
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
Thankfully, Lincoln saw to it that the war's purpose changed. George W. Bush has changed the purpose of his war too, though the change seems more the product of our enemies' choices than of Bush's design. By prolonging the war, Zarqawi and his Baathist allies have drawn thousands of terrorist wannabes into the fight--against both our soldiers and Muslim civilians. When terrorists fight American civilians, as on September 11, they can leverage their own deaths to kill a great many of us. But when terrorists fight American soldiers, the odds tilt towards our side. Equally important, by bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win.

We see the fruits of that dynamic across the Middle East. Democracy is rising, fitfully to be sure, but still rising: in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Egypt, in Iran, even in Saudi Arabia--not just because it is also rising in Iraq, but because its enemies are the same as our enemies. That is a war very much worth fighting.

Today our forces and Iraqis are fighting together and, slowly, winning a good and noble war that holds the hope of bringing to millions a measure of freedom they never knew before. And yet today, America seems ready, even eager, to concede defeat and withdraw: a sad twist on the famous George Aiken formula for extricating American soldiers from Vietnam. It sounds bizarre--why would anyone want to throw away the chance of such a great victory, when victory seems within reach? But it isn't bizarre. On the contrary, it has happened before.

Again, consider the politics of the Civil War. In 1863 the Northern street--the term didn't exist then, but the concept did--rose, and New York saw the worst rioting in our nation's history. The rioters' cause was ending the draft on which Lincoln's war depended. A year later Lincoln seemed headed for electoral defeat, even as Grant's and Sherman's armies seemed headed for decisive military victories. Victory often seems most elusive to civilians when it is most nearly within soldiers' grasp. And noble causes often do not sound noble to the nation whose sons must fight for them. (Those who do the fighting understand: Lincoln had the overwhelming support of soldiers in the field, and I would bet my next paycheck that today's soldiers overwhelmingly support fighting through to victory in Iraq.) In many American towns and cities, then as now, the cause of freedom for others did not seem a cause worth fighting and dying for.

But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.

None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East.

Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohamed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.

William J. Stuntz is a professor at Harvard Law School.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
15 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
10,540
I'm not reading this.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,774
Isn't Vietnam the longest war we ever fought?

1955-1975
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
StickmanLoser said:
I'm not reading this.
Too long for most of NG.com
icon23.gif
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
norton9478 said:
Isn't Vietnam the longest war we ever fought?

1955-1975
Yup. I believe it began during 1957, though (US vs Soviets and Chinese). It wasn't really isolated like that, however. Similarly, the overall strategy of Vietnam was a bust from the beginning (alienating Ho Chi Minh by allying with the French, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Takumaji

Kraut Mod
Staff member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Posts
18,025
Long text?

Pff, I've written emails twice as long as that... ;)

Oh, and I don't buy the civil war vs. iraq war comparison, that "the war was worth fighting" crap and the rest of all that propaganda stuff.

War hu yeah what is it good for absolutely nothin.
 

Magnaflux

Onigami Isle Castaway
20 Year Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Posts
13,738
Takumaji said:
War hu yeah what is it good for absolutely nothin.

You just dated yourself with that comment. :smirk:

You stinking Germans can really do some murderkill emailing. It's enough to make me want to deal with someone else, but the Chinese are 3x as bad because they are stupid.
 

Takumaji

Kraut Mod
Staff member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Posts
18,025
Magnaflux said:
You just dated yourself with that comment. :smirk:

You stinking Germans can really do some murderkill emailing. It's enough to make me want to deal with someone else, but the Chinese are 3x as bad because they are stupid.

Yeah.

How did Black Adder say to Baldrick, the Germans know the meaning of torture, their operas last four days and they have no word for 'sandwich'.
 
Last edited:

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
15 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
10,540
Ely13 said:
Too long for most of NG.com
icon23.gif

Short posts get results.

Blackadder might be the best show ever.
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
StickmanLoser said:
Short posts get results.
That must be why some of DashK's threads turn into 10+ page epics.

Anyway, as long as a few people got something out of it, everything is :buttrock:
 

Takumaji

Kraut Mod
Staff member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Posts
18,025
I feel old now, someone get me a rocking chair (a creaky one).
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,435
Ely13 said:
Thankfully, Lincoln saw to it that the war's purpose changed. George W. Bush has changed the purpose of his war too, though the change seems more the product of our enemies' choices than of Bush's design. By prolonging the war, Zarqawi and his Baathist allies have drawn thousands of terrorist wannabes into the fight--against both our soldiers and Muslim civilians. When terrorists fight American civilians, as on September 11, they can leverage their own deaths to kill a great many of us. But when terrorists fight American soldiers, the odds tilt towards our side. Equally important, by bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win.

We see the fruits of that dynamic across the Middle East. Democracy is rising, fitfully to be sure, but still rising: in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Egypt, in Iran, even in Saudi Arabia--not just because it is also rising in Iraq, but because its enemies are the same as our enemies. That is a war very much worth fighting.

Today our forces and Iraqis are fighting together and, slowly, winning a good and noble war that holds the hope of bringing to millions a measure of freedom they never knew before. And yet today, America seems ready, even eager, to concede defeat and withdraw: a sad twist on the famous George Aiken formula for extricating American soldiers from Vietnam. It sounds bizarre--why would anyone want to throw away the chance of such a great victory, when victory seems within reach? But it isn't bizarre. On the contrary, it has happened before.

Again, consider the politics of the Civil War. In 1863 the Northern street--the term didn't exist then, but the concept did--rose, and New York saw the worst rioting in our nation's history. The rioters' cause was ending the draft on which Lincoln's war depended. A year later Lincoln seemed headed for electoral defeat, even as Grant's and Sherman's armies seemed headed for decisive military victories. Victory often seems most elusive to civilians when it is most nearly within soldiers' grasp. And noble causes often do not sound noble to the nation whose sons must fight for them. (Those who do the fighting understand: Lincoln had the overwhelming support of soldiers in the field, and I would bet my next paycheck that today's soldiers overwhelmingly support fighting through to victory in Iraq.) In many American towns and cities, then as now, the cause of freedom for others did not seem a cause worth fighting and dying for.

But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.

None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East.

Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohamed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.

William J. Stuntz is a professor at Harvard Law School.


great opinion piece, though I think the intentions and MOs of the war have been glossed, the effects of withdrawal are spot on.
 

Tacitus

Volatile Memory Construct - SN://0467839
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Posts
15,121
norton9478 said:
Isn't Vietnam the longest war we ever fought?

1955-1975


If you're going to argue semantics... Vietnam was *not* a war.. it was a Police Action. :chimp:
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
wasabi said:
great opinion piece, though I think the intentions and MOs of the war have been glossed, the effects of withdrawal are spot on.
I can't think of any conflict that went smoothly. Even Bosnia and Herzegovina still has a lot of problems with peacekeepers and UN operations. I did run across an article from a dean in the Naval War College which lays out what the White House, Congress, and Senate seem unable to articulate. I wish the national dialogue would shift more in this direction. We can argue the merits of whether it was worth going in or not in 15-20 years when we can accurately gauge whether Iraq was a worthwhile endeavor or not, but right now, we ought to be figuring out what we need to do (and an immediate withdrawal is out of the question).

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200512060813.asp

Strategy can be envisioned as the answers to a series of interrelated questions:
  • What conditions do we wish to prevail in the area of interest to us?
  • What steps do we need to take in order to achieve those conditions, i.e., what plan of action is most likely to bring about the desired conditions?
  • What combination of the instruments of power best supports the chosen strategic alternative?
  • What are the opportunity costs and risks associated with the preferred strategic alternative?
In the short term, success is defined as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.” By this measurement, our enterprise in Iraq has been successful.

Success in the “medium term” will be achieved when Iraq has a fully constitutional government in place, has taken the lead in the war against the terrorists and is providing its own security, and is on its way to achieving its economic potential. The elections in two weeks will constitute an important milestone in achieving victory in the medium term.

Final victory in Iraq will have been achieved when the country “is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.” This is a big order and much has to happen to reach this goal — but the report makes clear what we aim to do.

All too often, strategies do a fine job of describing the goal but don’t address the plan to achieve the goals. ... The document lays out three interconnected tracks that describe the “how” of the U.S. approach in Iraq. These tracks incorporate “eight pillars,” or strategic objectives:

  • Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
  • Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
  • Help Iraqis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government
  • Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
  • Help Iraq Strengthen its Economy
  • Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
  • Increase International Support for Iraq
  • Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,774
VanillaThunder said:
If you're going to argue semantics... Vietnam was *not* a war.. it was a Police Action. :chimp:

Essance > Semantics
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,774
Ely13 said:
In the short term, success is defined as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.” By this measurement, our enterprise in Iraq has been successful.

Success in the “medium term” will be achieved when Iraq has a fully constitutional government in place, has taken the lead in the war against the terrorists and is providing its own security, and is on its way to achieving its economic potential. The elections in two weeks will constitute an important milestone in achieving victory in the medium term.

Final victory in Iraq will have been achieved when the country “is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.” This is a big order and much has to happen to reach this goal — but the report makes clear what we aim to do.

All too often, strategies do a fine job of describing the goal but don’t address the plan to achieve the goals. ... The document lays out three interconnected tracks that describe the “how” of the U.S. approach in Iraq. These tracks incorporate “eight pillars,” or strategic objectives:

  • Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
  • Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
  • Help Iraqis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government
  • Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
  • Help Iraq Strengthen its Economy
  • Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
  • Increase International Support for Iraq
  • Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents

I think I read something like tihs 40 years ago

Ely13 said:
In the short term, success is defined as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.” By this measurement, our enterprise in vietnam has been successful.

Success in the “medium term” will be achieved when vietnam has a fully constitutional government in place, has taken the lead in the war against the terrorists and is providing its own security, and is on its way to achieving its economic potential. The elections in two weeks will constitute an important milestone in achieving victory in the medium term.

Final victory in vietnam will have been achieved when the country “is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.” This is a big order and much has to happen to reach this goal — but the report makes clear what we aim to do.



  • Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
  • Transition vietnam to Security Self-Reliance
  • Help vietnamis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government
  • Help vietnam Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
  • Help vietnam Strengthen its Economy
  • Help vietnam Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
  • Increase International Support for vietnam
  • Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents

Edit: all instances of Vietnam refer to South Vietnam.
 

Ely13

Sultan of Slugs
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
2,585
norton9478 said:
I think I read something like tihs 40 years ago

Edit: all instances of Vietnam refer to South Vietnam.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007639

Kerry Supports the Troops
The old proverb is right: A haughty, French-looking Massachusetts leopard who by the way served in Vietnam doesn't change its spots. John Kerry* appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer yesterday, and his comments on U.S. troops in Iraq were vintage 1971 (link in PDF, quotes on pages 3-4):

Schieffer: Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis' freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Kerry: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, 'Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis.

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
Terrorizing kids and children and breaking sort of the customs! Didn't "Jenjis Khan" used to do stuff like that in Vietnam? Note, too, that Kerry isn't against this per se; he just thinks Iraqis should be doing it. It's highly reminiscent of Vietnam, only back then Kerry's words carried some weight because he sold himself as a veteran against the war, whereas now he's just the junior senator from Massachusetts.
 

NeoGeo on Brain

Kabuki Klasher
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Posts
128
VanillaThunder said:
If you're going to argue semantics... Vietnam was *not* a war.. it was a Police Action. :chimp:

Wrong. The Korean War was the Police Action. Vietnam was nothing but a quagmire of cannon fodder.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,774
Is "Operation Iraqi Freedom" a police action?
 

Tacitus

Volatile Memory Construct - SN://0467839
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Posts
15,121
NeoGeo on Brain said:
Wrong. The Korean War was the Police Action. Vietnam was nothing but a quagmire of cannon fodder.


The war cry of someone owned by teh sem4n71c5....

:kekeke:
 

Mike Shagohod

Stray Dog Grunt
20 Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Posts
13,947
StickmanLoser said:
I'm not reading this.

...and it's with this attitude and mentality that our nation isn't "UNITED" at all. It's united on the surface but not at it's roots anymore. I don't agree with everything that was stated in that long repost, but most of it (I'd say about 90% of it) was spot on. The fact that people can't be bothered to read TWO LONG posts says it all. It's not like anyone has to watch 4 hours of C-SPAN or buy a book at 381 to 600 pages on a topical subject.

thus us fading light types are truly the last resort these days. Once the old guard raised Brown Shoe (fading light) go, the future will belong to faggots and soccer moms... patty cake politicians and the repressed male who's inherent nature is still the same but are so far worked over from either common sense or initative based learning (actual education vs. processing), the state of the union will be an even bigger joke. This nation can still turn things around but ask any group of 20 to 25 people if they care or would like to know more and not keep quiet when things need to be spoken for (even if that's all that gets done) I'll tell you this... maybe 5 out of that 25 will be interested enough and out of the 5 only 2 will go the distance. I've got nothing against you personally but I'm sorry man, that complacent/apathetic attitude IS the problem!

GK
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,774
I finnally had the time to read the entire article.

It's Bullshit... but very Intuative Bullshit.

Actualy, it's not all that Inuative.... Just a new spin on bullshit I've already read/heard.
 
Top