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: Hawkmoon who wrote (191648)	7/14/2006 11:53:17 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Evidently you think our war against Japan was fought on "land". ... --- Actually it was.. Island by bloody Island." Island hopping is basically a Naval endeavor. Without control of the sea, you can't get the soldiers to the island. By controlling the sea, you prevent the other side from reinforcing and supplying his forces and eventually they starve. Re: "Okinawa was one of the the bloodiest land battles we fought in WWII, second only to the Battle of the Bulge." Our land battles in WW2 were piddly. Battle of the Bulge had something less than 200,000 casualties, total for both sides, counting wounded. At the battle of Stalingrad, there were a total of 1,600,000 casualties, 8x larger. For the US, WW2 was not a "land war in Asia". Instead, it was a relatively small land war on the European western front, and a naval war in the Pacific. It was the Soviet Union that won the land war on the Eurasian eastern front, not the US. This is a matter of simple geography and military strategy. Do you really want to put yourself down as insisting that the "Pacific War" was actually a "land war in Asia"? And then claim that you are an expert on military affairs? Is the Pacific a part of Asia? Is an ocean a continent? Do you know who it was that said "never get involved in a land war in Asia?" Do you think you're smarter than he was? Do you think our military advantages have improved since then? Would you have told him that we could have won in Vietnam if we'd only somehow convinced the American public to sacrifice more of their children? Is that what you're saying today about Iraq? Your problem is that you are willing to believe any silly thing that advances the cause you want to believe in. You are probably very convincing to yourself, but you're not putting up a very strong argument. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (191648)	7/14/2006 11:54:05 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Evidently you think our war against Japan was fought on "land". ... --- Actually it was.. Island by bloody Island." Island hopping is basically a Naval endeavor. Without control of the sea, you can't get the soldiers to the island. By controlling the sea, you prevent the other side from reinforcing and supplying his forces and eventually they starve. Re: "Okinawa was one of the the bloodiest land battles we fought in WWII, second only to the Battle of the Bulge." Our land battles in WW2 were piddly. Battle of the Bulge had something less than 200,000 casualties, total for both sides, counting wounded. At the battle of Stalingrad, there were a total of 1,600,000 casualties, 8x larger. For the US, WW2 was not a "land war in Asia". Instead, it was a relatively small land war on the European western front, and a naval war in the Pacific. It was the Soviet Union that won the land war on the Eurasian eastern front, not the US. This is a matter of simple geography and military strategy. Do you really want to put yourself down as insisting that the US war against Japan, which is frequently called by military historians the "Pacific War" was actually a "land war in Asia"? And then claim that you are an expert on military affairs? Is the Pacific a part of Asia? Is an ocean a continent? Do you know who it was that said "never get involved in a land war in Asia?" Do you think you're smarter than he was? Do you think our military advantages have improved since then? Would you have told him that we could have won in Vietnam if we'd only somehow convinced the American public to sacrifice more of their children? Is that what you're saying today about Iraq? Your problem is that you are willing to believe any silly thing that advances the cause you want to believe in. You are probably very convincing to yourself, but you're not putting up a very strong argument. -- Carl