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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chowder who wrote (21588)	4/12/2003 11:32:22 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 206099

OT Hello dabum, >>"greatest military victory in a century"<< In order to sustain that claim I believe the criteria upon which history has defined "great victories" will have to be reviewed. In my readings I've never seen a victory of an overwhelmingly powerful force over a weak and technologically inferior one referred to as a "great." It's not the amount of ground covered in an advance, the relative number of casualties or the lack of resistance that make for great victories, it's more typically the outmaneuvering and outfighting of a notable power. It's true that we cut off the communications of the Iraqis, left them in the dark, hit them with weapons that traveled farther and did more damage than they could possibly have countered with, and generally devastated them from the air with a hail of missiles and bombs. I believe it's accurate to state that we demoralized their forces with leaflets and explosions and deaths. I think we outfoxed them with disinformation and our willingness to commit ground forces earlier than they expected and with our strategy of circumventing their cities. I think that anyone that criticized the conduct of the action is left to ponder whether we lost too much by leaving our supply lines vulnerable but, then again, going slower would have created its own problems. There are rarely any perfect choices in war. Having said all that, pick any country with a dessert, no air support and inferior technology and then ask how much of that dessert the American military could cover on paved roads, bridges and with light to no resistance. I don't think that ground covered and amount of time taken to achieve an end is the test of a great victory. Your implication that the end result of exceeding expectation could be a measure of a great victory, has merit. In that case, however, one of the issues is whether that occurred as a result of the other parties poor planning and errors, our good planning and execution, the simple fact that one power had overwhelming force or a combination. It appears to me that this is a clear example of the other parties failing to live up to expectations as well as our own strategy exceeding expectations and the fact that our force was so overwhelming. Most pundits stated unequivocally that if the Iraqis fought us with conventional weapons in thinly populated areas, they would be annihilated. The fear was that they would melt into the cities and use the populations for shields forcing us to fight inch by inch. Alternatively there was substantial fear that they would attack with the wmds that we were told they had available and that they were so willing to use. In reality they generally fought us in thinly populated area and neither melted into population areas to put up fierce resistance or used wmds. As predicted, they were destroyed in droves from the air and by our long range artillery. This is a good thing for us, but it doesn't make for a historical assessment of this victory as a "great" one in my view. As far as the war in Vietnam, I'd be the first one to agree that this victory or any of the others we've had is "great" in comparison to what occurred there. One the companies in my battalion that worked the same areas of jungle that mine did, lost over 50 dead in numerous firefights in the 12 months I was there. With less than 100 men in the jungle, that left better than a 50% chance that anyone that spent the full tour with that company would not survive. The number of wounded was, of course, greater. My company suffered its own share of casualties and there wasn't anything we could do to prevent it. There was no good way to do what we were asked to do in the jungles and there wasn't much of a benefit to the strategy of that "war of attrition either." I am thankful that many of the "never again" men that served and suffered in that war redefined how we'll fight wars in the future and what "acceptable" casualties are. What is great is that regardless of whether we asked our men to land on the beaches of Europe or the Pacific Islands and walk into machine gun bullets, regardless of whether we've asked them to move single file into jungle knowing that bullets would rip through them from a few paces away, regardless of whether we asked them to walk into bullets and wmds that could poison their skin or their lungs, our young men and now our young women have always answered the call when we've sent them, even when they knew it likely meant their death. That's an awe inspiring thing and it carries with it the responsibility to guard their sacrifices carefully and honor their service. That's a great thing. My bottom line is that there might be many "great" things about the conduct of the Iraqi invasion but history won't list "great victory of the last 100 years" among them. Ed

To: chowder who wrote (21588)	4/13/2003 12:11:21 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 206099

OT dabum, Dabum, you say a lot in the balance of your post. For instance: >>"We get the blame for a lot of that hopelessness, and justifiably so because, we have supported many of the Muslim leaders that have kept their countries in the Dark Ages. Most Muslim countries blame us for not supporting them and allowing them to improve. These feelings and thoughts of envy and hatred aren't going to go away with a victory in war, and they aren't going to go away within a generation either, in my opinion."<< and, >>"The world will never be one big happy family as long as the human emotions of greed and power exist. We are and have what most others aspire to. If they achieve the same "in addition" to us, then I have no problem. If you are going to achieve that status by "taking it away" from me, then I have a problem. This is what Iraq and the "Evil Axis" countries have in mind. They want to take it away from us. Rather than build themselves up, they want to take us down. Where do you stand up and say, "enough is enough?"<< In the first statement it seems you have a sense of inevitability about the "hatred" of the Muslims for the U.S. In the second statement it seems you have a sense of inevitability about the goal of the "evil axis" countries to take us down rather than to build themselves up. If I'm correct and that is your view, then there is little room for argument with the assertion that we should consider ourselves currently at war with them. I don't share that view. History is replete with examples of countries that changed course when their form of government, their leadership and their level of education and prosperity changed. Japan and Germany are clear examples but other regimes, like Russia, changed naturally with the passage of time. In the middle of the war I'm sure that most Americans would have sworn that the Japanese were a warlike, heathen people that could never be accepted in the civilized world. It's not as if the Japanese didn't commit acts that justified this thinking. They kamikazied, they committed some of histories cruelest atrocities not only to pows but to the civilian populations of countries that they occupied. The Germans systematically and deliberately attempted genocide on a religious and ethnic group of millions among their own people. Today the Japanese tour America with cameras hung around their shoulders, are pacifistic and our among our greatest trading partners and allies. The Germans have a similar relationship. What's different about N. Korea and the other "evil" powers? What economic, political and cultural means can we use to influence change in those countries? What debate are we having on these issues? If it's actually about using American military power to guarantee our economic supremacy and our way of life, that's a course that history says is doomed to failure. The will, resources and intellect of the other people and nations of the world will not allow an aggressive power to remain unchallenged for long. In the end the damage we are now doing to a fledgling world organization and to a tenuous but growing body of international law, is disastrous. The notion that the exercise of unilateral power will lead, in the long run, to a better world for our children ignores not only the effectiveness of terrorist methods, but also the gathering alliances and armaments of other powerful countries (China??) that will not sit idly by while we impose our will on them. I believe we will one day look at the opportunity we had to maintain our status as a benevolent, trusted, one-superpower nation and rue the day we squandered it and created a fearful, more violent, more weaponized world. The war in Iraq was not about terrorists and will ultimately be more likely to increase acts of terrorism than to decrease them. It clearly wasn't about liberating the Iraqi people although that may be a great collateral benefit. I believe you are correct in stating that it is about protecting economic interests that we consider vital. In days past that was called imperialism and in today's world I wonder if a successful imperialistic adventure is possible. Ed

To: chowder who wrote (21588)	4/13/2003 2:31:32 PM
From: edward miller	Respond to of 206099

Well said. The other Ed talks a lot and doesn't understand perspective, reflection or the realization that appeasement of thugs, thieves and dictators is not good policy. His replies are solid proof of that. Ed