Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[Galleleo]

You shouldn't take me that serious either, I know you are smarter than that. If it's the same case for Mattey, that's a different question.

[Mattey]

I don't believe its the be-all-end-all. I just said I value it more than speculation. You can think about the atrocities of war all you want. I do sometimes. I doubt we're all that different in how we've formed our opinions on the subject. We even agree (I'd rather be shot than go off somewhere and shoot others) in purpose, but I don't assume that anything I could think of will ever compare to the real smells, sights and experiences of having that shit happen to me. I also believe I'd come away from that with a better understanding of how a war is waged, on many levels, than if I sat around reading about Alexander the Great or Robert E Lee or Ghengis Khan. Anyone can draw up a battle plan, a general that's been there and done that should know how his soldiers will react. What patches will be rough spots. Where to send soldiers in relief and how exhaustive a battlefield could be. That seems like valuable information that someone could only ascertain from being there.

So, in summation, any opinion you have about war is baseless because you've never experienced it, right?

[genocidal]

Afghanistan and Iraq are un-winnable because the goal isn't occupation. The goal is to change ideology, you can't win that by killing as many soldiers as civilians.


Edit: How do you win a war with no clear goals? What is the end-zone we must reach to have won a war in Iraq? Is there one?

The goal in Afghanistan, like I said, is to eliminate enemies. The goal in Iraq is to create a functioning democracy.

I'm not defending either goal or war, but you said the goal is to change ideology - who said that? Did Bush say we want to change all their ideas about life? Did Obama? They are separate wars that are lumped together simply because they're happening concurrently and they're both in the Middle East.

America doesn't give two shits about what happens to Afghanistan once all our enemies are gone because we can't afford to and it's pointless, Afghanistan is a non-centralized (using this in lieu of "backwards," which can be seen as pejorative) feudal-like nation. The only reason there is a central government in Afghanistan is because the rest of the world generally requires it for representation - they are neither coherent nor effective. Warlords tolerate the central government because they don't step on any toes and they get paid off by them.

The goal in Iraq (unless Obama changed it without telling anyone) is to create a functioning democracy. Bush thought that would be easy - that once Hussein was gone everyone would love democracy because it gives them a "voice." He was wrong. You may claim establishing a democracy requires ideological change and you may be correct since you never give any scope to that claim - that is you don't say whose ideology needs to be changed and for what reason. It would be nice if the Sunni and Shi'a could kind of get along enough to allow for a functioning central government while at the same time not persecuting the Kurds, Assyrians, etc. If that happens and the violence stops, we can call Iraq a victory of sorts, since the original intention was fulfilled.

I agree with you that tricky wars of regime change are hard to chart, which is probably why Bush should have just done it and called it a "military operation." We have those all the time in South America, but the M.E. is a different animal.

[Mattey]

The goal in Iraq (unless Obama changed it without telling anyone) is to create a functioning democracy. Bush thought that would be easy - that once Hussein was gone everyone would love democracy because it gives them a "voice." He was wrong. You may claim establishing a democracy requires ideological change and you may be correct since you never give any scope to that claim - that is you don't say whose ideology needs to be changed and for what reason. It would be nice if the Sunni and Shi'a could kind of get along enough to allow for a functioning central government while at the same time not persecuting the Kurds, Assyrians, etc. If that happens and the violence stops, we can call Iraq a victory of sorts, since the original intention was fulfilled.

I would call trying to change a government from a dictatorial gov't into a democratic one, would constitute a change in ideology. Back to the original point, do you think this is possible to accomplish? Especially, when tactics like ransacking entire villages (like what happened in Fallujah) are employed? How can you convince a citizenry that our way of life is better, when we are brutalizing them?

Edit: but remember our opinions of this are baseless because we've never shot anyone.

[genocidal]

I would either:

1) Give them a better enemy to hate. Iran seems like a good idea for right now (until our actions cause more problems 20 years from now, that is). Obviously the Iraqis aren't grateful enough for our presence so if we stirred the pot a bit we might be able to come off looking less like the bad guy. I don't know how we'd do that but it can't be hard - they only got done fighting an 8 year war 20 years ago. Stage Iranian hostilities as a power play in the Middle East and then get behind Iraq in order to defeat Iran. You might even kill two birds with one stone if you (read: Iraq) win that war, but it would be really expensive. Think Cold War era surrogate wars.

If you lose the war (more likely) you'll have given Iraq a reason to unify. Nothing fixes a civil war like a good border conflict. Ironically, you'd probably want a leader like Saddam Hussein in Iraq to tout pan-Arabism like he did in the 80s instead of Islamic order, since an Islamic state would only increase the divide in the Shi'a and Sunni ethnic conflict since their outward disagreement is religious. Either way it gives the US an out in Iraq and possibly ends this pesky Iran threat.

2) Give Iraq a lot of money for infrastructure. I think it was already mentioned but the Marshall Plan is a good template. This seems less likely because Americans don't want to dump more money into a country they don't care about but it seems to me that this would go a long way in fixing the problem without amplifying the bloodshed.

What do I think will happen: nothing, or more of the same. Some stupid course of events will force our hand in Iraq (either a war with Iran, more terrorism, an all-out Israeli-Arab war, or [more likely] something totally unforeseen). Instead of being proactive we'll have been reactive, which is what always happens in history because being proactive is costly for a democracy.

[Cops]

Galleleo shouldn't have posted in the first place.... Maybe you two can build some consensus on that?

[Cops]

I would either:

1) Give them a better enemy to hate. Iran seems like a good idea for right now (until our actions cause more problems 20 years from now, that is). Obviously the Iraqis aren't grateful enough for our presence so if we stirred the pot a bit we might be able to come off looking less like the bad guy. I don't know how we'd do that but it can't be hard - they only got done fighting an 8 year war 20 years ago. Stage Iranian hostilities as a power play in the Middle East and then get behind Iraq in order to defeat Iran. You might even kill two birds with one stone if you (read: Iraq) win that war, but it would be really expensive. Think Cold War era surrogate wars.

Don't you think that Iran in some ways is progressing and that direct confirmation may not be needed?

[Galleleo]

What the fuck you talking about Cops?

[genocidal]

Don't you think that Iran in some ways is progressing and that direct confirmation may not be needed?

I guess you mean confrontation and no I don't think "direct" confrontation is good at all (if by direct you mean US confronting them). A surrogate war is better. But I take it that's not what you meant either, just whether we should confront them in a hostile manner in any facet.

My answer: I don't know. I also don't know what you mean by "progressing." Iran is jerking us around again on the nuclear thing as we speak (link). That doesn't make me or anyone else in the West happy (and I'm not even going into the issue as to whether or not them having nuclear weapons is "fair," life isn't fair). Fortunately it's not up to me to make these decisions so I guess we'll see what happens.

[Epinephrine]

Maybe not necessary, but I would rather have someone that has had experience. If I was to listen to someone about war, I would prefer a first hand experience. It's possible to be a good general without ever actually fighting in a war, I suppose. I'd still rather go with the guy that has seen fighting personally (a guy that knows the toll of war on every individual like Eisenhower).

From Wikipedia:
-------------------
Eisenhower enrolled at the United States Military Academy at West Point in June 1911. His parents were against militarism, but did not object to his entering West Point because they supported his education. Eisenhower was a strong athlete and enjoyed notable successes in his competitive endeavors.
Part of the 1912 West Point football team. Cadet Eisenhower 2nd from left; Cadet Omar Bradley 2nd from right.

Eisenhower graduated in 1915. He served with the infantry until 1918 at various camps in Texas and Georgia. During World War I, Eisenhower became the #3 leader of the new tank corps and rose to temporary (Bvt.) Lieutenant Colonel in the National Army. He spent the war training tank crews in Pennsylvania and never saw combat. After the war, Eisenhower reverted to his regular rank of captain (and was promoted to major a few days later) before assuming duties at Camp Meade, Maryland, where he remained until 1922. His interest in tank warfare was strengthened by many conversations with George S. Patton and other senior tank leaders; however their ideas on tank warfare were strongly discouraged by superiors.[28]

Eisenhower became executive officer to General Fox Conner in the Panama Canal Zone, where he served until 1924. Under Conner's tutelage, he studied military history and theory (including Karl von Clausewitz's On War), and later cited Conner's enormous influence on his military thinking. In 1925–26, he attended the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,[29] and then served as a battalion commander at Fort Benning, Georgia until 1927.

During the late 1920s and early 1930s Eisenhower's career in the peacetime Army stagnated; many of his friends resigned for high-paying business jobs. He was assigned to the American Battle Monuments Commission, directed by General John J. Pershing, then to the Army War College, and then served as executive officer to General George V. Mosely, Assistant Secretary of War, from 1929 to 1933. He then served as chief military aide to General Douglas MacArthur, Army Chief of Staff, until 1935, when he accompanied MacArthur to the Philippines, where he served as assistant military adviser to the Philippine government. It is sometimes said that this assignment provided valuable preparation for handling the challenging personalities of Winston Churchill, George S. Patton and Bernard Law Montgomery during World War II. Eisenhower was promoted to lieutenant colonel (in a non-brevet status) in 1936 after sixteen years as a major. He also learned to fly, although he was never rated as a military pilot. He made a solo flight over the Philippines in 1937.

Eisenhower returned to the U.S. in 1939 and held a series of staff positions in Washington, D.C., California and Texas. In June 1941, he was appointed Chief of Staff to General Walter Krueger, Commander of the 3rd Army, at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. He was promoted to brigadier general on October 3, 1941[30]. Although his administrative abilities had been noticed, on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II he had never held an active command and was far from being considered as a potential commander of major operations.
-------------------------

Eisenhower was frequently criticized by MacArthur for being a desk guy who'd never seen action, contrary to the massive heroics that MacArthur displayed during World War I.

[Squeezer]

true, but he did gain some experience in WWI fighting at the ground level.

besides, he was abnormally conscious of his soldiers and their morale, even more so than the other generals I listed.

[Epinephrine]

true, but he did gain some experience in WWI fighting at the ground level.

besides, he was abnormally conscious of his soldiers and their morale, even more so than the other generals I listed.

"During World War I, Eisenhower became the #3 leader of the new tank corps and rose to temporary (Bvt.) Lieutenant Colonel in the National Army. He spent the war training tank crews in Pennsylvania and never saw combat."

[Cops]

What the fuck you talking about Cops?

Saying something that didn't sound sarcastic then saying it was sarcastic when people call you out was kind of stupid. You didn't really have anything to add, rather than you trying to get people to respond to your love of your god damn continent.

[Cops]

I guess you mean confrontation and no I don't think "direct" confrontation is good at all (if by direct you mean US confronting them). A surrogate war is better. But I take it that's not what you meant either, just whether we should confront them in a hostile manner in any facet.

My answer: I don't know. I also don't know what you mean by "progressing." Iran is jerking us around again on the nuclear thing as we speak (link). That doesn't make me or anyone else in the West happy (and I'm not even going into the issue as to whether or not them having nuclear weapons is "fair," life isn't fair). Fortunately it's not up to me to make these decisions so I guess we'll see what happens.

I don't believe there would be a direct confirmation as you believe. It's kind of funny that in all the realms of possibilities it's very likely that Iraq will be used as America initially intended for them to be, which was a proxy country to fight Iran. In terms of the country progressing, there is a large proportion of the population that is at political unrest with their country, as we saw in the recent elections, which don't even deserve to be called elections. I remember this topic coming up awhile back, and someone (probably Epinephrine) made the point that Iran is a very young country with a large amount of the people being from the ages of 20-30. I don't claim to know everything about revolutions, or even that much but what I do know is that if it's going to happen it's going to be the young that will fight for their democracy. The point was also made that intervening too soon may turn this vital population against you, and these really are the people that can help foster peace and cooperation in the middle east. That is to say that having one stable state in the region could really do a lot of good.

All I can say in regards to Iran having access to nuclear energy, is that I am opposed to them acquiring it for energy or arms because the former tends to be an excuse to get the latter.

[Galleleo]

Saying something that didn't sound sarcastic then saying it was sarcastic when people call you out was kind of stupid. You didn't really have anything to add, rather than you trying to get people to respond to your love of your god damn continent.

So maybe you shouldn't have posted in the first place, as obviously you just ain't got a clue.