01-03-2003 11:25									#1
	Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ok I admit, I really haven't made up my mind about if I support the war or not. My best friend has been activated, and it's a matter of days before they fly her to the gulf, and she has my total support. Yet all of this time one thing has really been standing out in my mind. Robert E. Lee (yea that confederate general guy) said after the battle of Fredericksburg in december of 1862 that "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it," and that quotation just stuck with me. It seems to me that despite all of the outpouring of opposition for the war, that as far as America goes, the war won't be that terrible for us, and I think our leadership knows that. I have heard causulty predictions that our losses could be anywhere from 100-10,000 but most likely it will be on the mid to lower end. Although it will cost billions of dollars, it really won't have that much impact on the taxes we pay or the overall fiscal health of the US, and securing Iraqi oil for the world market should help the economy. There are some doomsayers both here at apolyton and in outside world that proclaim this war will bury a generation of americans, and other bs like that, but then again with the first war there was talk of how formible the Republican Guard would be in battle.

It seems to me that American military power can effortlessly destroy the Iraqi government with little battlefield consequences for the US, and the fact that it is so easy is why we are so eager. It's even seductive to me; I mean I think the stated aims are completely bs. As far as I know Israel or Iran could both be accused of basically everything that Iraq is, and yet we praise Israel ignore Iran and condemn Iraq. I personally think Saddam is a ruthless leader that doesn't benefit either his people or the world, yet I know that an ideal U.N. wasn't created to rubberstamp invasion plans. I don't know if America has the moral right to impose it's will on Iraq, but since it's so easy to do, I ask myself why not?

It seems as war becomes more one sided, then it seems their are more reasons to employee force since there are fewer consequences, and less reason to try and resolve conflicts through diplomacy. So as war becomes less terrible are we growing more fond of it as a nation? Also if it is less terrible, is it a bad thing that we may be growing too fond of it?

What are your thoughts on this?

	01-03-2003 11:41									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The term "splendid little war" was coined to describe the Spanish-American War, and the very notion probably would make Lee roll over in his grave. So I was struck recently by a piece in Salon that suggested that the best historical analogy for right now is not 1939 or 1956 but 1898: led by a largely idea-free president who is widely seen as a puppet of moneyed interests, an aimless U.S. public forgets its many domestic problems and becomes wildly enthusiastic about a small, winnable war against a weak nation far away from home. I'm fully aware of the danger of historical anaology (I read the 'poly thread and everything ) but I've got to say, that one worked for me.

Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 01-03-2003 at 13:10

	01-03-2003 11:54									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Rufus,

i guess my questions is are "splendid little wars" (good analogy btw) a bad thing? While the Iraqi people will certainly suffer and die because of US military action, they are suffering and dying anyways. We don't have to carpet bomb Bagdad to hit the targets we need to go after, and the war should be quick. As civilians are less subject to the horrors of wars, and we can effortlessly pound our opponents into dust with our high tech weapons, does that mean their is less justification needed from the ends to exonorate the means? If the means aren't as bad as what they were 100 years ago, does this lower the bar in any kind of way on the justifable use of force? Also does American seem to be growing more bold in it's use of force because of its previous successes? Obviously if Afganistan had of turned into another Vietnam and thousands of American troops were coming home in body bags Bush wouldn't be beating the war drums for Iraq. Does these easy made for TV wars encourage militarism because they aren't really terrible as far as the consequences to America goes?

	01-03-2003 12:20									#4
	Got spare money?

Well, yes, I would say splendid little wars are a very bad thing (I thought I was clear, but I am still on my first cup of coffee so maybe I wasn't). And I agree that tv makes it worse. The striking thing about Gulf War I was that the whole thing was staged and conducted as if it were a TV show; it seems like "manage the media" is really the only lesson our politicians took away from Vietnam, and th media themselves have yet to object. Staging wars as tv shows certainly makes them seem unreal and without consequence. The only up side of this -- and this is a private theory I've been nurturing for while -- is that politicians who conduct such wars may not get any benefit from doing so: Daddy Bush went from a 91% post-war approval rating to losing re-election 18 months later, and I've always suspected that part of that was that the war itself was simply a highly-rated tv show, and who's gonna vote for that? It's like electing the the programmer of a "Brady Bunch" marathon.

	01-03-2003 12:40									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I've heard that iraqi army are already trying to get some white flags. No I'm serious. Although this was on a conservative talk show, so who knows where that information comes from. But it supposedly came from Iraqi military defectors.

In any case if that is true this war will be a walk in the park. not much tougher than guld war one.

I truelly believe standing up to this dictators is the best solution. Many people over there view americans as weak. And after 8 years of Bill Clinton I can't blame them. They figure they can manipulate us and we can't do anything about it. It is time to be strong and stand up to bad men. Often bullies will back down from a fight. While I can't say I'm 100% sure of this. I do think we lessen the chances of terrorism by attacking.

The think about anti-war people is I think they are scared. Their anti-war ideas are driven out of fear. They fear the terrorist attacks. That is a weakness. We can't avoid war because we are afraid. We must be strong as a nation.

	01-03-2003 13:03									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

led by a largely idea-free president who is widely seen as a puppet of moneyed interests,

Hey! The only person who actually had the guts to oppose the war in power was precisely the president back then, unless my mind has completely gone. He dragged his feet and stalled as long as possible, but the public- and therefore Congress- was really quite fired up about the thing. I also remember good ol' Teddy Roosevelt saying that McKinley "Had the backbone of a chocolate eclair" to the newspapers while trying to whip up support for the war himself, totally missing that it required backbone to oppose the war, not to support it.

Not a bad analogy, actually, but I disagree with that part.

	01-03-2003 13:05									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

It's sad though, because that ship most likely did have a boiler explosion. Such is the way thing work I suppose.

	01-03-2003 14:54									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dissident Many people over there view americans as weak. And after 8 years of Bill Clinton I can't blame them. They figure they can manipulate us and we can't do anything about it.

I don't think this is true. I think, if anything, they are scared of the US. But this is more in cultural terms than physical ones. They are scared that the US way of life (I am avoiding using the word 'culture') will erode their own and that everything they believe in will be lost. And I think this is a reasonable concern - because it will happen.

I also think that they have been conditioned into believing that the Americans are 'evil'. That the US (and the west generally) is deliberately enforcing its cultural dominance on the world in an attempt to destroy the muslim (or whatever) way of life. In a way, I think this is true - it is deliberate - but it is done out of ignorance rather than evil intent.

I think the average american doesn't see Iraqis as 'real people' - if they don't have a car and a dog and a tv and 2.4 kids they are somehow 'something else', so it is OK to kill them.

quote: The think about anti-war people is I think they are scared. Their anti-war ideas are driven out of fear. They fear the terrorist attacks. That is a weakness. We can't avoid war because we are afraid. We must be strong as a nation.

This is just silly. The anti-war people are not 'driven out of fear' (although you could say they are driven out of fear of doing something wrong I suppose). They genuinely believe that fighting an unnecessary war which will lead to the deaths of thousands is wrong.

(For the record I am not necessarily against the war.)

	01-03-2003 16:27									#9
	Re: Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Robert E. Lee (yea that confederate general guy) said after the battle of Fredericksburg in december of 1862 that "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it," and that quotation just stuck with me.

Maybe that's why the US troops got the hell out of Somalia? Unable to hide behind precision bombs and cruise missiles, people suddenly found that old rifles kill as well as new ones.

	01-03-2003 19:10									#10
	Re: Re: Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Maybe that's why the US troops got the hell out of Somalia?

We left because we had no real compelling reason to be there.

	01-03-2003 19:33									#11
	Re: Re: Re: Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc We left because we had no real compelling reason to be there.

If you read up about the true story about events in Somalia and "Black Hawk Down" and don't believe the fictionalised & utter patriotric crap that Hollywood came up with then you'd know that to be somewhat wrong.

You did have a compelling reason to be there, just not a very savoury one.

	01-03-2003 19:35									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I truelly believe standing up to this dictators is the best solution.

Yes, unfortunately the United States has more experience putting them in power and supporting them, than in standing up to them.

Examples (not an exhaustive list):

Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko, Castillo Armas, Anastasio Somoza, Papa Doc Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, the last Shah of Iran, Zia ul Haq, Augusto Pinochet, Sukarno and Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem... and that leaves out El Salvador, Honduras, other South American countries, other African countries, countries in the Middle East...

I'm aware of Soviet support for other repressive regimes and murderers- but aren't we (meaning the West) meant to be the good guys? And does that mean supporting any of the above?

	01-03-2003 19:36									#13
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel You did have a compelling reason to be there, just not a very savoury one.

I'm listening.

	01-03-2003 19:44									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Korn - I've read just the first post - and you summed up the facts!

What else than to ask you it might not be great for you but what about the ones that are on the other side?

Kill them because you can, as they do not want to be obedient?

Kill them beacuse it is in your interest and it is so easy?

Is murder for your interests wrong?. (as clearly we both can agree that Saddam was not picked because he is the "worst" dictator on the planet)

Not to mention that you have other means to achieve the goals. But war seem to have some other benefits for the current democratically elected administration

	01-03-2003 19:47									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave Is [war] for your interests wrong?.

I don't believe so. I wish someone could convince me that it actually did serve our interests though.

	01-03-2003 19:50									#16
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think it does serve our interests, because it renders the other troublesome regimes (including and especially Saudi) vulnerable.

	01-03-2003 19:51									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

hmm lots of sources to be re-found..

distortion of truth in film:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1773466.stm

quote: Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times January 18, 1993 THE OIL FACTOR IN SOMALIA FOUR AMERICAN PETROLEUM GIANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFRICAN NATION BEFORE ITS CIVIL WAR BEGAN. THEY COULD REAP BIG REWARDS IF PEACE IS RESTORED . By MARK FINEMAN DATELINE: MOGADISHU, Somalia Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside. That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation. According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there. Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake. But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece. Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to mantain a functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.

http://www.cdi.org/adm/713/transcript.html is of interest too. Something of interest below..

quote: According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the United States delivered to Somalia about $154 million worth of weapons and military equipment from 1981 through 1991. Mr. ROBINSON: We adopted Siad Barre and the Carter admin-istration, from 1977 to 1989, supplied Siad Barre with $887 million in US foreign assistance, including $200 million in arms. And so, what had been a peaceful, pastoral society became an armed camp.

oh and finally from a review of the film

quote: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw44/blackhawk-down.html The movie has many bad points. The GIs are shown in detail-we learn about their lives, loves and dreams-they are shown to suffer, to bleed, with the audience being drawn into sharing their pain. While the Somalis are portrayed as "killing machines," their fierceness as irrational and vicious. When the Somali people are shot, they just drop: no follow-up with their families and comrades, no showing of their humanity. The U.S. troops call them "skinnies," a racist and dehumanizing term reflective of the outlook drilled into real troops beginning in boot camp. Only after the U.S. left Somalia did U.S. commanders admit that as many as 10,000 Somalis had been killed that summer prior to the October 3rd raid. At least 2/3 of the dead were civilians, including children.

I should rephrase earlier, you did have a compelling and savoury reason to be there - the humanitarian effort - but an unsavoury one too - the oil contracts. Once the US lost 19 lives in one firefight, there was no longer enough reason to stay.

I don't want to belittle the lives lost in the defence of the humanitarian effort but in a way the US actually caused their own problem from what I've read and shown above.

	01-03-2003 19:56									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom I'm aware of Soviet support for other repressive regimes and murderers- but aren't we (meaning the West) meant to be the good guys? And does that mean supporting any of the above?

Only Superman can fight all the bad guys at once. If the US manage to use some of the more moderate "bad guys" against the worst ones that's ok for me.

	01-03-2003 19:56									#19
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel I should rephrase earlier, you did have a compelling and savoury reason to be there - the humanitarian effort -

That's not a very compelling reason to send troops into combat, IMO.

quote: but an unsavoury one too - the oil contracts.

That makes about as much sense as saying the current war is for oil.

	01-03-2003 20:53									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

They want to pin EVERY US war for oil. I wouldn't be suprised if it was shown the Kosovo had oil in the rocks or something .

	01-03-2003 21:19									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Imran: Some of those reporters are getting lazy. They just keep repeating "It oil!", "It's oil!", even when the country doesn't have any oil. I'd be willing to bet the Italians ran all over Somalia looking for oil, or any thing else of value, so if there was a significant quantity of oil it likely would have already been found.

	01-03-2003 21:45									#22
	Put an end to popups!

Oerdin and Imran,

I agree that Somalia wasn't about oil, because if it had of been, US forces would have occupied the oil fields instead of the population centers. Maybe we just couldn't find any oil fields to guard so we said **** it and settle on the food distribution centers instead.

After reading blackhawk down, it seems to me that US forces still leveraged superior technology to make the firefight in Mogidishu something of a "splendid little battle." 150 US soldiers battled around 10,000 militia/civilian clan members to a stand still, and the US lost less than 20 compared to maybe 500-1,000 dead Somalias. Yet even though we pulled out after the battle, still Somalia seems to prove my point in a way, lets say the same series of events had of transpired except that US technology had of been better and no US troops had of been killed or wounded, cerainly Clinton wouldn't have pulled out.

	01-03-2003 21:51									#23
	Support Apolyton

Yes, but that's Clinton.

People who critique US policy 'over the last twelve years' tend to forget that its not the same government over that stretch of time, and priorities can and do change radically between administrations.

	01-03-2003 22:09									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Monk,

I agree, Clinton's use of military force seemed haphazard at best, and simply politically expedient most of the time (the cruise missile strikes shortly after the Monica stories started appearing seemed motivated for all of the wrong reasons), and Bush does seem to stand for something. Although his ideas of the good guys (those who defend what western values would classify as good) vs. the bad guys (those who oppose the good guys) is overly simplistic even if he truly believes in it, though I wouldn't say he is completely wrong, just certainly not completely right. Besides having a different administration, 9/11 certainly made a difference, but even with an administration that has more guts, and an American population that has a higher tolerance for the price freedom carries, I still think there is a limit to the number of dead troops we'll tolerate. As technology decreases the amount of American troops that will die in a war, and also limits the amount of civilians we'll kill; war seems to be a more appealing option. I mean certainly if we could remove Saddam in a war in which we wouldn't lose any troops, nor kill any civilians, wouldn't drumming up support for this war be far easier? On the other hand, if they said 100,000 Americans troops would die along with 2 million Iraqi civilians, I don't think anyone would support this war, not even Bush himself. So as the number of dead go down, the amount of saber rattling (from the US at least) seems to go up.

Just as M.A.D. prevented war with the Soviets, this anti-M.A.D. war without (many) casulties period of history seems to certainly encourage the use of force. War isn't that terrible anymore, and if everything in Iraq goes well (including the nation building), then surely other tinpot dictators had better watch out, because that would just encourage further wars. Yet if the wars are bring about positive changes in the world, would it be a bad thing?

	01-03-2003 22:31									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui They want to pin EVERY US war for oil. I wouldn't be suprised if it was shown the Kosovo had oil in the rocks or something .

Oh I should apologise and agree that 8 year old news is suddenly to be disregarded because of poor reporting now?

Not going to happen. Facts: 4 American companies were there contracting for oil, the US sold > $150m worth of weapons to the Somalis, the US forces' got shot with those weapons.

	01-03-2003 22:38									#26
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

...so you're saying the United States shot itself for oil?

	01-03-2003 22:43									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

no. I never said that. I just iterated facts that do exist, if you choose to add 1 and 1 and get 3 then that's your prerogative. I said that the US sold weapons to the Somalis and then got shot with them - that's irony for you.

Oil in this case IS part of the issue, note I'm not saying it is the case with Iraq. How large a part of the issue I don't know but to deny it would be to deny the facts. I suspect in reality it had probably sod all real effective on the US policy making except for how much the companies themselves could manage to lobby for.

	01-03-2003 23:17									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

the funny thing is some caller on a liberal radio show said afghanistang was about oil

I think many liberals are just stupid. Granted conservatives aren't much better. They may not be stupid, but they just plain lie to you.

	01-03-2003 23:24									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

It may not be about oil, but who gets to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq's major infrastructure, and who gets to reap the windfall once the oil starts to flow again?

	01-03-2003 23:35									#30
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave It may not be about oil, but who gets to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq's major infrastructure, and who gets to reap the windfall once the oil starts to flow again?

I believe it has been said that the oil will be used for the people's benefit - but who is going to say what benefits the Iraqi people? The American military governors that's who.

I honestly don't care though at this time how they plan to split up the oil slush fund, I would like far more detailed plans of how they plan to fix Iraq up again other than the "We'll liberate them and they'll be fine" approach we've seen so far.

It didn't work for Afghanistan ( so far ) and what lessons have they learnt?