War is not and should not be a political game

1. 60

   mishpatposted 9 years ago

   The "president" wants to declare war on ISIS.  Its not even a country.  But congress wants to changes to the proposal.  I have to wonder, has anyone in those "hallowed halls" considered telling a warrior general, "Get your troops together and go get the job done right.  Don't quit until they opposition is totally destroyed.  We'll stay out of the way."  (Don't hold your breath.)
   
   Many here in the forums decry the war waged by the Israelites of the Old Testament, but war is not a game, and like it or not, the end results were peace.  War has no rules except win and sadly the innocents do die.
   
   When Truman told the Japanese, stop or die, his purpose was not one more American life should be lost.  The consequences were expressed before the destruction.  It was disregarded, twice. 
   
   When we consider the power and ability of the American armed forces, it is not hard to see victory when the trained warrior is allowed to wage war in an unaltered fashion.  But congress would sacrifice many more of our young men to satisfy their greed.
   
   War is not a game.  Cruel and barbaric as it may be, War has no rules except win.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      War is, unfortunately, a political game. It has always been one; by my estimation.
      
      Your assumption that it would be best if 'the trained warrior is allowed to wage war in an unaltered fashion' is horror waiting to happen. I would never support allowing anyone to wage war in an unaltered fashion simply as an expedient end. We are not barbarians. We cannot support barbaric actions. We would be no better than the animals of ISIS.
      
      If, as you say, War has no rules except to win' I vote no war. Of course, I'm a firm believer in closing borders and ceasing any business with countries who allow barbaric actions to be their norm. As long as we fund those governments and keep sticking our noses in their business we feed the beast. But, the corporations who sell the weapons would never support that. How would they  continue to profit if there weren't those who support their need for war?

      replyreport
      1. 62

         cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Emile
         "We cannot support barbaric actions. We would be no better than the animals of ISIS."
         Having experienced a little bit of war, Vietnam, I have no taste for it, but I can assure you that if an enemy is not met on his own terms and rules of engagement that war is lost.
         This is not to promote or embrace the barbarity of these Islamist, as we did not in Vietnam, the Japanese or Germany, but as with Japan and Germany their barbarity was countered with devastating force. This, under this President, will not happen and his Chamberlain type apologetics will only serve to enable these savages as Germany was enabled and WWII was launched.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mishpatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Well spoken

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Vietnam and WWII are incredibly different scenarios. Unfortunately, the Middle East is suffering from the same problems we saw created in Vietnam. European imperialism disturbed the balance in Vietnam and the void created after the second World War Europe insisted on starting allowed the civil war we seemed to think we could manipulate into resulting in a different outcome to happen. Vietnam calls the war the 'Resistance War Against America'. Now, that can be called the revisionist history of the winners but we would be better neighbors by attempting to understand why it is called that, by the people who live there; not simply lick our bruised egos.
            
            You can certainly believe that Obama's style of leadership is going to embolden barbarians to World War; but I think the only valid reasoning to support that claim might be that democrats don't rattle sabers as well as republicans do. We heard the same rhetoric when Bill Clinton disgraced us with his presence in the White House; when Jimmy Carter somehow found himself walking those hallowed halls. But, no World Wars were waged. It's political posturing. I find it interesting that the OP claims war is not to be a political tool; yet appears to cheer on your statements.
            
            Anyway. I think looking at the problem of ISIS and talking World War is silly. Who is openly supporting ISIS? From everything I have heard even those you would perceive as our enemies are working against them. One bunch of barbarians does not an 'Axis of Evil' make.
            
            Assuming that force is the only option to achieve your desired outcome pretty much ensures force will happen. Recent history (Vietnam included) proves that assumption to be ill thought and resulting in the opposite of your desired goals. For every person we kill in our attempt to make ourselves feel like we can control the world we create an inestimable number of people who hate us for those actions. I would rather explore ways to foster friendship and cooperation than allow innocents to be 'collateral damage' in our mad rush to police the world stage.
            
            There was a time in history where I believe we had the moral high ground on the world stage. Our intentions were good. I don't believe that at the moment. The average American citizen does care about their world neighbor. Our government, controlled by corporate interests, does not reflect the average American citizen. I have no reason to attempt to pretend there is no man behind the curtain, manipulating policy for personal gain. War is never waged for the reasons presented to the average citizen who must die to achieve its goals. We have no problem accepting this when we attempt to understand how young men can be manipulated into dying in terrorist acts; yet we won't look at our own actions with the same scrutiny.

            replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Whenever I hear statements as naïve as these I think , this is why there will always BE wars , And I think this mentality comes from the Viet Nam era ,  does one think that warriors actually love war ?   Does one think that the soldiers themselves actually  create the very war they fight in ?  Is there no discrepancy between  the evil empire and the one that defends itself and others ?     People who are "anti- war"  are also generally against  the CIA  and  other covert operations too but , isn't there a place between political disagreements and all out wars between  any two countries  where  disagreements are played out in covert action , actually saving   countries from all out war ?.
   
   Yes my children , there is a such a thing as  WAR ! Get over that  and  Now , begin to understand how to  actually stop one !      Maybe by actually VOTING and participating in the system that elects  REAL leaders   and not just a  kindergarten  upper classmen to run the whole high school .,so to speak.

   replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   "War  is or should not be ., ".........  I know many Viet Nam vets , Viet Nam was the first war   to be  actually strategized from  the halls of congress and the white house !    THAT alone , known by almost every vet I know , is why America "lost " that war .   Most of these vets didn't even know where they were walking towards and unfortunately walked right into the  pungy pits of congressional blundering .and stupidity !  That's a given .
   
   WW  I ,  and WWII  , were different wars all together , we all know why ,  So to  group all wars into one category only  serves to show the  Naiveté of these answers and  the "anti- war" culture of modern society ..     No war should not be  and never is , a political game !   Only the media is allowed the  pleasure of playing fantasy games with war .
   
   That is why  the war on terror , much like the war on crime in your neighborhood is an eternal war  at this point ,it  cannot be compared to all others . Wars against  terrorism  may one day be the only war there is , besides economic  or cultural wars ., we should all wish for this .!    Yet the anti- war culture will continue to  always group ALL wars together .!   In my opinion ; mindless drivel .

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. The attempt to save lives needlessly lost to corporate ends is always perceived as mindless drivel by those blinded by false patriotism. Violence should always be the last tool in the arsenal of the pursuit of peace.
      
      I find it mind boggling that someone could see the tainted nature of the Vietnam conflict without putting current attempts to drag us into conflict under the same scrutiny.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Are you trying to say that Vietnam was caused/run by our corporate bosses?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I'm simply saying that the powers that be sell war to the public for personal gain, or because they are in the pockets of those who will gain by a war waged; or they hope to gain power. Rarely does the common man die for the same reason that the powers that be created war.
            
            We, as Americans, want to protect the innocent; save the downtrodden; right the wrongs and injustices in the world. But, I don't believe that is what motivates our government to war.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      mishpatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Let's not forget the Korean "conflict."  Another political game of grief and greed.

      replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Well I believe there are far more wars kept from happening by our powers that be ,  than the opposite , I will never understand the blind Naiveté  of  "anti -war " beliefs , Does anyone here believe that anyone really wants to go to war ? A soldier , a president , or congress ?...... Please !    It seems to me that there is a blind eye being cast towards the  acts of  people against America as well as the rest of the free world  , and  a hyper sensitivity  towards  critiquing  our  defensive acts of militarism.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Give me a conflict where our soul purpose for going, and for staying, is to protect human life. I'll jump on board. Protecting 'American interests' doesn't count. Show me a need to act where the only thing we have to gain is the satisfaction of having done the right thing. Where we sacrifice for nothing more than the knowledge of knowing we did it for the good of other human beings; not some bs back door deals where lies are swapped in order to hood wink the average American into supporting aggression by our government and I'll be there on the front lines. I would have stood firmly behind our government had they sent in troops when the Curds were being gassed. I didn't really appreciate the footage of our troops, once they were in Baghdad, first and foremost protecting the oil ministry. It got even worse when we found out our government had purposely fabricated lies in order to justify the start of the aggression.
      
      I served in the Air Force. I was a young republican. I've been in your shoes. I'm older and wiser. Not naive.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Well   I'm glad you're older and wiser , that alone says little about how " you've been in my shoes ",  Maybe we were all hoodwinked on the whole WMD issue , AND maybe not ,   for what are WMD's if not  even a man and a rifle out of control ?  Or a plane load of hijackers ?  Chemical weapons ?  or the  burning of a hundred oil wells  for that matter ?
         
         So many of you thought we'd find a left over    atom bomb  sitting in a B-25 Mitchell  !  And when that didn't happen you lost your resolve .   And one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard is  " I support the troops but not the war "  ,.....when I started hearing that one ,anti-  Viet -Nam  again ,came to mind ,
         
         Americans haven't enough  depth of historical intelligence  anymore to truly understand  the world , so , they fall back to their "peace-nik " sense of   1960's social and  historical maturity .  It worked then right , why not now !    Keep something in mind ,  buying tires for your car , gasoline , motor oil and heating gas , a new suit or pair of pants, says more about your hypocrisy than written opines in these forums .

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps I don't know you. I can certainly say, unequivocally, that you don't know me. Which is why I do wonder how you can call me a hypocrite for my buying habits; without the benefit of said knowledge.
            
            I agree that we don't know the truth about much. I do believe that our government could enlighten us; were they so inclined. Unfortunately, full knowledge would allow us to make informed decisions and informed decisions on the part of the American public might not result in the same outcome they currently have manipulated.
            
            Just so you know. I have never made the statement of supporting troops, but not a war. I agree, it's a little ridiculous. But, I think what they are attempting to say is that they are patriotic toward and supportive of the sons and daughters; not necessarily willing to rubber stamp government actions. It could be said in a better way; but that is apparently the best they can come up with.

            replyreport
5. 60

   mishpatposted 9 years ago

   The only positive thing man has learned from history is ... well I'm not sure ... nothing is that apparent ...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent point. Couldn't agree more.

      replyreport