Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (89358)	4/3/2003 1:47:18 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

I was a child during Vietnam, but I remember it fairly well, and the only inconvenience for the vast majority of us was when protesters got out of hand. The 5 or 10,000 of our soldiers that died each year was only a tiny fraction of what we lost to auto accidents. More recently, our wars have killed fewer people than die by drowning in bathtubs or being struck by lightening. So sure, we're more than willing to fight. Provided it's not us that has to do the dying. The last real war (i.e. major land war where our army provided the majority of the allied divisions and fought against a capable foe) this country fought ended in 1865, and our memories are much shorter than that. Even WW2 was a cakewalk for us, with only about 60,000 dead per year. Are you of the opinion that this will end up with casualtee totals like Vietnam or even WWII? Or this war a "major land war" like The Civil War? Or are you just making the point that we don't like to have a lot of our soldiers die, without it being very relevant to the current war? I agree with you about the fact that Americans don't like and won't easily accept deaths in war likes some countries experienced in WWI and WWII. I'm just not sure I see what that point should even be considered in question, and I'm not sure of the relevance to our current situation or to your original comment "The US is a sea power. It is not possible for us to win land wars in Asia without the assistance of a land power." Land wars in Asia, are not one type of war. Asia is a big place with different countries and areas with different terrain. Vietnam was different then Korea. Both where different then our fights against the Japanese on the Asian mainland or are earlier minor military adventures in China, Korea, and Japan. The fight in Iraq is different then what war in Korea would be like and both are different then what we have experienced in Afghanistan. Land wars in Asia are not universally horrible (by the standards of war, in a very real sense any way is horrible) just as wars outside of Asia like WWI can be the cause of death on a massive scale. Look, if it were the case that we will always have a military advantage of this magnitude, then a "war party" foreign policy would make sense. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by a "war party" foreign policy, but I don't think I would support such a policy, at least I don't support my guess as to what you mean. Maybe you could explain it... Tim

To: Bilow who wrote (89358)	4/3/2003 2:23:16 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The war in Iraq is going better than I expected it would at this point BUT the tough part of the adventure will be winning the peace...Some folks still think we may be getting into another ' VietNam-like situation'... Message 18788499

To: Bilow who wrote (89358)	4/6/2003 8:23:40 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Respond to of 281500

More recently, our wars have killed fewer people than die by drowning in bathtubs or being struck by lightening. This war thing has got you very worked up emotionally way beyond your normally perfect typing and factual analysis. It is spelled lightning.