Try looking at it as though a similar attack was made on the US; would the instantaneous loss of hundreds of thousands of American civilians in a nuclear attack make them surrender?

I seriously doubt it, There is little they could lose that couldn't be replaced fairly quickly, from a tactical point of view, and I doubt the Russians would have looked at it any differently.

Actually it may be the only thing that might ever even wake them up. No home games there for a very long time.

""There has never been a just war, never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Mark Twain.

So apt for this thread.

Generally speaking I have to say i think you're as full of shit as anyone else posting in these OTB threads. Invoking Twain however, is always good for gaining a bit of credibility. Well Done!

""There has never been a just war, never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Mark Twain.

So apt for this thread.

Generally speaking I have to say i think you're as full of shit as anyone else posting in these OTB threads. Invoking Twain however, is always good for gaining a bit of credibility. Well Done!

Nice to see an honest from-the-heart-reply, and an appreciation for the words of a wise man.

Good to see that you include yourself when you group the "full of shit" people (though I never thought of you as such).

They used propaganda to sell the war in Afghanistan. I bought the propaganda, but at that time I wondered how on earth we would ever get out of that place. I still don't know if it's right or wrong. I lean toward maybe necessary, but I am not convinced it will work or how we will get out (at least without our tails between our legs).

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

I am very interested in your idea of an honorable solution.

This situation looks like a gambler that keeps borrowing money thinking the slot machine will pay out the lost money sometime.

I think it is time to find out/unveil what the real reasons of these recent occupations are as we know that the reasons given by governments were false.

It is clear that multiple corporations (most of them American) gain huge profits from these occupations.

Was the real reason to oust Saddam, to prevent the oil being traded in Euro's and other currency instead of the USD as some people say/think?

Was the real reason Afghanistan was invaded to gain access to their natural resources?

Was it to ensure those pipelines were build?

Is it to contain the expansion of Chinese and Russian (Mafia) influence in that region?

Or having general access to natural resources in that region?

:jap:

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

"get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 ".

This is what this thread is all about......the ignorance of the masses engineered by the media.

The taliban were responsible for 9/11????

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

"get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 ".

This is what this thread is all about......the ignorance of the masses engineered by the media.

The taliban were responsible for 9/11????

The Taliban were invented and supported by the US in their fight against the USSR.

Take a deep breath please people and calm down.

OTB topics are left pretty much to run unmoderated as your are all expected to behave with a modicum of maturity in here, however if flames continue, offenders will reap the rewards.

Please take note.

I feel the same way. It was a mistake to do anything other than just get revenge on the Taliban for 9/11 - butcher and bolt as the British used to call it - but it is hard to get out honorably at this point.

The taliban were responsible for 9/11????

They sheltered al Qeada. They allowed them to run terrorist training camps and they refused to hand them over to the US for trial. The US should have made an example of the Taliban and left, rather than trying to rebuild the whole country. Butcher and bolt!

They sheltered al Qeada. They allowed them to run terrorist training camps and they refused to hand them over to the US for trial.

Doesn't that pretty well describe what Pakistan are doing now?

And being well paid for it with US money?

They let us sick the drones on them, so get extra consideration.

Again for the hundred time.

The Taliban offered ( at least two times) to bring BL into an independent court when evidence was given that BL was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush said we know he is guilty.

Go to the FBI most wanted list and see for yourself, BL is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks.

Please UG, get that programmed response out of your head.

The Taliban were invented and supported by the US in their fight against the USSR.

The Taliban formed about 5 years after the Soviets left by students in the south of Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Early_history

In 1994, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force, reportedly in opposition to the tyranny of the local governor.^[37] Mullah Omar started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar.

Again for the hundred time.

The Taliban offered ( at least two times) to bring BL into an independent court when evidence was given that BL was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban offered to release Osama to a neutral country. I've asked here before but no one had an answer - which countries were neutral right after 9/11? If there weren't any, then the offer was bullshit. Much like saying they would release him to the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny.

The offer was bullshit indeed.

Maybe, it's a moot point anyway, the US would never have agreed to him being tried in a neutral country, the crimes were committed in America and that's where they wanted him tried. And why not?

The administration was no doubt advised that he would be easy to catch anyway... "look at the size of Afghanistan on this map, we'll have him in no time".

Hopefully those advisors are now flipping burgers at the Golden Arches but it never works like that, does it?

I disagree that a neutral country couldn't have been found, but finding one that wanted him may have been a bit harder.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

You only have direct experience of one empire, the current one. There is no telling exactly what the world would look like without that force in the world. My guess is it would stabilise with China at the helm, and become a great deal less free but also more stable, in the long run. If you have studied history, you will also be aware that the taking over of land is not always for the worse, although it can be. There are some places in the world today where arguably, a takeover by a more competent power would likely be beneficial for those living there - and everyone else. Somalia, for example.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

You only have direct experience of one empire, the current one.

Actually, I remember the Cuban crisis pretty well - duck and cover and all that. The Soviet Union certainly made it's mark on the world during my lifetime as did Communist China. My suspicion is that if not for the US, Great Britain, Australia and NATO, the world would be in a lot worse of a mess than it is already - or one big dictatorship.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

You only have direct experience of one empire, the current one. There is no telling exactly what the world would look like without that force in the world. My guess is it would stabilise with China at the helm, and become a great deal less free but also more stable, in the long run. If you have studied history, you will also be aware that the taking over of land is not always for the worse, although it can be. There are some places in the world today where arguably, a takeover by a more competent power would likely be beneficial for those living there - and everyone else. Somalia, for example.

Who do you propose should take over Somalia?

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-07/us/ret.us.taliban_1_abdul-salam-zaeef-surrender-bin-taliban-offer?_s=PM:US

Nuff said.

Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001] Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban.

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

You only have direct experience of one empire, the current one. There is no telling exactly what the world would look like without that force in the world. My guess is it would stabilise with China at the helm, and become a great deal less free but also more stable, in the long run. If you have studied history, you will also be aware that the taking over of land is not always for the worse, although it can be. There are some places in the world today where arguably, a takeover by a more competent power would likely be beneficial for those living there - and everyone else. Somalia, for example.

Who do you propose should take over Somalia?

perhaps the Salvation Army? definitely not the Marines, because they got licked over there.

you are one bad boy Harcourt!

If there was no military deterrence to want-to-be Empire builders like the Soviet Union and Mao's China, the world would be in shambles by now.

You only have direct experience of one empire, the current one. There is no telling exactly what the world would look like without that force in the world. My guess is it would stabilise with China at the helm, and become a great deal less free but also more stable, in the long run. If you have studied history, you will also be aware that the taking over of land is not always for the worse, although it can be. There are some places in the world today where arguably, a takeover by a more competent power would likely be beneficial for those living there - and everyone else. Somalia, for example.

Who do you propose should take over Somalia?

perhaps the Salvation Army? definitely not the Marines, because they got licked over there.

How do you figure that? Far as I can tell, they only had 2 soldiers killed, and there were another 24 or so countries involved in the U.N. Operation at one time or another.

19 US soldiers were killed in the battle and over 1,000 Somali's. Thanks for the usual BS boys.

19 US soldiers were killed in the battle and over 1,000 Somali's. Thanks for the usual BS boys.

Thanks, and yes there's plenty of that around here isn't there. But I was talking specifically about the Marines, and I think all together, over all the operations, the U.S. lost 47 from the information I read, still I would hardly call it getting licked.

Please all, this is not about who got licked or the accurate number of people that died.

This is how about we, the general public is fed wrong information by governments and the media.

Should we not be trying to investigate what the real reasons are behind those interventions, regime changes and occupations?

The Iraq war and occupation is based on lies, the invasion of Afghanistan is questionable.

Thousands of innocent people are dying in these conflicts, why do they have to die?

Ms. Albright said these wars were worth it. Worth it in terms of what? Do you ever ask yourself that question when knowing 90% of people killed are civilians including women and children?

What is it that is worth "It"

Alex

Alexlah: A very probing question. I spent several years in Iraq (not with the military) and I doubt that the 2nd Gulf War was based on lies, but it was based on seriously flawed information that was seriously scewed. The people of Iraq lived in fear of Saddam and his henchmen. Everyone knew a torture site, everyone knew a secret military program etc. He was the boogyman. He knew all, he saw all and he punished all. He ruled by fear and cunning. He also spread lies and rumors to keep people scared.

The US gov't certainly should have known how this worked, but actively chose to believe information which was not verifiable and most likely was questionable given the sources providing the information. The lie came in a very, very shaky link between Al-Queda and Saddam. Iraq was a republic and Saddam was pretty harsh on the Imams and religious fanatics. It was very unlikely that he would team up with the likes of Bin Laden.

Whether a war is ultimately worth it or not depends on the outcome and time. Had the Iraqi's embraced democracy and not descended into chaos and violence, Bush would be viewed as a hero. Of course, in a repressive country like Iraq, that was never going to happen. Saddam was a reasonably well-contained dictator whose daily life was spent trying to hang on to power. His biggest threat was his mouth and he was a pain in the behind for the West.

Alexlah: A very probing question. I spent several years in Iraq (not with the military) and I doubt that the 2nd Gulf War was based on lies, but it was based on seriously flawed information that was seriously scewed. The people of Iraq lived in fear of Saddam and his henchmen. Everyone knew a torture site, everyone knew a secret military program etc. He was the boogyman. He knew all, he saw all and he punished all. He ruled by fear and cunning. He also spread lies and rumors to keep people scared.

The US gov't certainly should have known how this worked, but actively chose to believe information which was not verifiable and most likely was questionable given the sources providing the information. The lie came in a very, very shaky link between Al-Queda and Saddam. Iraq was a republic and Saddam was pretty harsh on the Imams and religious fanatics. It was very unlikely that he would team up with the likes of Bin Laden.

Whether a war is ultimately worth it or not depends on the outcome and time. Had the Iraqi's embraced democracy and not descended into chaos and violence, Bush would be viewed as a hero. Of course, in a repressive country like Iraq, that was never going to happen. Saddam was a reasonably well-contained dictator whose daily life was spent trying to hang on to power. His biggest threat was his mouth and he was a pain in the behind for the West.

A very level-headed answer, with alot of credibility.....however, I suggest that it was known by some in authority that the "seriously flawed information" was seriously flawed, but that the desire to wage war existed and an excuse to do so had to be found.

I suggest that if that was the case, then indeed lies were told.

19 US soldiers were killed in the battle and over 1,000 Somali's. Thanks for the usual BS boys.

and therefore the Greatest Nation on Earth™ withdrew as victorious from Somalia as was the withdrawal from Viet Nam where approximately 1.5 million Vietnamese were killed as opposed to barely 60,000 U.S. "boys".

facit: the winner is... who killed most (by whatever means, be it with napalm, cluster bombs, shooting civilians in My Lai or using Agent Orange to maim or deform generations to come).