General discussion

Education for George G. from the guy almost everybody here

says is not just anti-American, but non-American as well.

Revolutionary War: a hard won victory creating not just a new country, but a new, important and more complete form of democracy whose influence governed the next 150 years.

War of 1812 : draw, (it says so in the West Point history website) let's not re-fight this.

Creek Indian War : an easy victory

American expansionism and the attrition and marginalization of the native population, not pretty in hind sight, but not considered a transgression by any outside government at the time, a characteristic of its time.

Texas Rebellion against Mexico: Not an American War per se but they won with much American assistance. You might with justification call the Americans involved in the Rebellion "insurgents", but not, in the Iraq War 2 sense, terrorists.

War Between the States: a tragedy won by the North.

Spanish American War : a fairly easy victory in a world wide conflict (from Cuba and Puerto Rico westward to the Philippines)

World War 1 : late entry, on the winning side, US entry probably reduced casualties on both sides by convincing the Germans that they would inevitably lose. (There is a question of whether the pandemic of 1918 would have spread as far and wide without the US Expeditionary Force being shipped over to France. The first known cases of "Spanish" Flu occurred at Camp Funston, in Kansas in 1917.)

War by the Marines in Nicaragua : ?1927-33? won. small American force, tough victory. Gunboat Diplomacy at its worst as was the ongoing conflict in the Philippines, but again, this was not against the prevailing diplomatic ethos and so is not exceptionable.

World War 2 : late entry, the US was the primary source of arms and materiel for all Allied combattants including Russia, plus US decisive armored strike across France and into Germany. A number of decisive campaigns in the South Pacific. Not to be hard on either Canada or Britain, or on the Soviet Union, but the US contribution was decisive. The Soviets might eventually have prevailed in a conflict twice as long and with the death toll probably twice what it was and all Europe as a Soviet satellite. The Atom Bomb was not a decisive part of WW2.

Korean War. draw, but saving a loss, cease fire line almost the same as the pre-war boundary. Probably reduced Soviet adventurism probably taught the Communist Chinese to spend much more time arming and training thus reducing Chinese Communist adventurism. Under UN colors.

Dominican Republic 1964 : easy victory over a legally elected government. Not in my opinion the US finest hour.

Viet Nam : negotiated withdrawal owing more to the seemingly inexhaustible desire of the North Vietnamese to spend their country's lives and unrest at home in the USA than to any American military failure. My personal opinion is an American win would have left about 1/4 of the country inhabitable, and probably less than that proportion alive. An expensive non-decision. I see little clear evidence of the exit of American troops causing any further collapse of governments in SE Asia. I think the Khmer Rouge regime were already a nascent disaster which a continued US presence would not have changed.

Unclear involvement in the military coup against a legally elected government in Chile, leading to the Pinochet Dictatorship and much loss of life. Again, not an attractive piece of US foreign policy. You want to call it a victory?

Granada : a victory against few forces.

Panama : a victory against 1 man.

Gulf War 1 : Under UN aegis. Brilliantly executed military campaign against Saddam's forces, shame it didn't include Saddam. A victory with a bitter after taste, though probably an unavoidable situation. Remove Saddam and then leave, you have inevitable civil war, the Sunnis after the Shiites after the Kurds.

War in Afghanistan : So far so good. Stable government not quite certain but much improvement over the Taliban and a pretty clear victory over the majority of hearts and minds.

Gulf War 2 : well conducted military campaigns marred by the difficulty of controlling the borders and keeping insurgents and the terrorists out and possibly insufficient planning and intel to indicate that this would be a major problem. Major miscalculation by CIA and other security forces over what the rest of the world would consider acceptable or humane, or just tolerable treatment of POW's even if they were terrorists. Unless US domestic political foolishness intervenes causing an early withdrawal, a clear victory for the US, and a worthwhile one if they can assure a stable government, and withdraw in their entirety, or after having negotiated a "bases agreement" with the subsequent Iraqi government that the Iraqi people will tolerate and accept. Otherwise it could just end up as an excuse for more terrorism.


Discussion is locked

Reply to: Education for George G. from the guy almost everybody here
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Education for George G. from the guy almost everybody here
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
I agree with most of what

your assessment is regarding Iraq today.

I don't believe that this statement is entirely correct, however.

>>>Major miscalculation by CIA and other security forces over what the rest of the world would consider acceptable or humane, or just tolerable treatment of POW's even if they were terrorists.>>>

Except for a few bleeding hearts, the majority of the people hollering the loudest have been Muslim/Islam sympathizers who are actually in support of the terrorists. AND a multitude of extremely irresponsible news reports (papers, tv, and radio) giving out false information throughout the world that was the direct result of riots and killings among other reactions.


- Collapse -
Toni, those "few bleeding hearts" include

most moral theologians and ethicists. Either you're moral, or you're not -- "the end justifies the means" is simply not a morally defensible position. America claims to have a higher moral base than the world at large -- that means we have to act like it! Sometimes doing what's right isn't terribly convenient, and can even be downright dangerous. But that doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Nobody said 'it was the right thing to do'

.....what I said was that his statement claiming that the majority of the world's reaction to a few isolated incidents (which have been ACCOUNTED FOR VIA TRIALS btw, which is more than what would have been the case had it been reversed) has been a bad miscalculation on the part of the CIA is incorrect.

There have been practically NOTHING demonstrated via world-wide comments about those few incidents...other than the one huge riot over Newsweek's massive blunder.


- Collapse -
It's not just a matter of what's happened there, Toni --

it's the treatment of prisoners at Guantanimo, and the White House (really Cheney) reaction to the congressional attempt to re-emphasize the principle that torture should never be used to obtain "actionable information." Those discussions are available for the world to see on C-Span and in the Congressional Record, and they certainly don't give us "the moral high ground" we claim to have. (BTW, I think we are better than most countries -- but not as much as we'd like to think, especially given what we preach and then don't follow ourselves).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
there wasn't any torture dk

showning pictures of naked women isnt torture, hell look at las vegas isnt that what most see?

- Collapse -
I'm not talking about Iraq, Mark,

although in a few cases things went quite a ways beyond what you mention. I'm speaking of the Congressional debate on the limits of acceptable treatment, and the dispute between Sen. McCain, who knows about torture all too personally and well, and VP Cheney, who has about the same personal knowledge of the military as I do.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Is there ANY situation that you would approve

of "torture"?

- Collapse -
Care to tell us who 'most moral theologians and ethicists'

are? Names please, and the study that showed that 'most' agree. Those aren't the same folks who don't see any problem with abortion are they?

- Collapse -
The end justifies the means...

If torturing ONE person and getting a key piece of information would lead to saving thousands of lives, that would be immoral?

Maybe in your world.

I doubt many, including so-called "moral theologians and ethicists" would agree. And if thehy did, they would be wrong.

- Collapse -
Not wrong, They'd be moral ...

If you want to compromise your morality you're entitled. I don't want to go there, and I can't support our government going there either. I'd question the wisdom, ethics and credentials of any moral philosopher, theologican or ethicist who didn't condemn torture. The only place I see where any room for discussion from a moral perspective involves the discussion of what is and is not torture.

Not to mention the fact that information extracted through torture is not necessarily reliable.

- Collapse -
but if we dont get info

how are we to know and if it saves 1 american life you know what i can and will live with it.

- Collapse -
You make your own moral choices ...

I won't choose flimsy, subjective moral values.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) np i did inm nam id do again
- Collapse -
Just don't ask the rest of us to endorse it ....

You are ultimately responsible for your own choices. If you can live with a morality that values the life of one American over any other moral standard then that's your business. That said, you cannot reasonably expect many persons of conscience to endorse your choice.

Furthermore, that moral calculus will ultimately result in increased losses to America because if non-Americans see us acting that way we will generate an increasing number of enemies.

Finally, you have forfeited any right to claim moral superiority over the terrorists who have basically said that their ends justify their means. After all, what you've basically said is that your ends justify your means.

I don't want our country, including our military, to operate on that basis.

- Collapse -
well dont worry as my men came home alive

and if we do whats needed to win the war less americans die
you hold on to your morals ill hold onto life.

and 2nd we/i nevr used suicide bombers to kill inocents your way lets them succede.

and as i sucedded in keeping most not all of my men alive im very happy that im not bound by your "morals" tell it to the famiallys of the dead americans that info could have saved died for your morals

- Collapse -
"Funnie"...I missed those words from Mark. Those being...

..."Just don't ask the rest of us to endorse it ...." Would be so gracious to post a link to those words by Mark.

- Collapse -
So Mark's "moral choices" are "flimsy" and "subjective"?

...And if that's what you meant, I take it that would be your opinion and not a fact.

- Collapse -

If there was a good possibility of saving thousands of lives by torturing one person, I think it would be immoral not to do it.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) i agree but seems were in the minority
- Collapse -
rest of the world would consider acceptable or humane,
EU to punish secret prison hosts

BERLIN (AP) - The European Union's justice commissioner warned Monday that any EU member states found to have operated secret CIA prisons could have their EU voting rights suspended.

Clandestine detention centres would violate the European Convention on Human Rights, a human rights treaty legally binding on all European countries.

It looks like, Muslim/Islam sympathizers who are actually in support of the terrorists. AND a multitude of extremely irresponsible news reports, are not the only ones hollering.
- Collapse -
Excuse me but what countries

OTHER than the US has EVER been threatened by the UN with being banned from voting with this as a reason.....

>>>Clandestine detention centres would violate the European Convention on Human Rights, a human rights treaty legally binding on all European countries.>>>>

Am I worried about their posturing? Not hardly....they have to look rough and tough right now because they have a 'bulldog' in their midst now and if this threat is going to work, HALF or better of the whole UN will be banned at the same time.


- Collapse -
UN? .........EU

or are you saying something else?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Tell me how the UN isn't tied to it
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Tell us how it IS tied to it.
- Collapse -
Now, THERE's a threat that should leave them quivering in

their boots.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Only a SLIGHT bias in your OPINIONS
- Collapse -
And of course, you forgot the greatest victory,

the Cold War

- Collapse -
I understood the terms of reference to be military conflict

involving US troops on the ground against a defined national opponent, or coalition. The Cold War was not a military conflict per se, it was far more an economic and diplomatic conflict with military spending looming large. And the collapse of the Soviet Union was arguably inevitable given the failure of the Soviet economy and its inability to keep dozens of regimes in line.

Your other two items were UN peacekeeping missions that I thought would offend your side, and were again, not the United States against a particular opponent. Haiti was to restore order after Baby Doc's expulsion or exile, Bosnia again didn't pit the US against a defined opponent, just tried to keep the Serbs, and the Croats, and the Bosnians, and the Kosovars from one another's throats.

I did include two instances where the United States interfered with the outcomes of legal elections. I could also have included the Italian election of 1958?? where the US funnelled millions of dollars in to influence the vote and prevent the election of the Communists, or the Australian elections (Gough Whitlam era) of the late 1960's where the United States also interfered.

I was actually trying to keep the level of provocation and attack rhetoric down, as I think Toni's reply tends to show. I appreciate both her reply and her disagreement, I just tend to see things differently on that issue, but appreciate her point of view.

I thought that George was both wrong and wrong-headed, and before somebody more confrontation minded jumped in, I hoped to defuse the discussion to a degree.


- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Therefore, Korea was a "police action" not a war
- Collapse -
Huh???"Police Action"

I can see most on here, don't even know what the hell war is. And thats exactly what Korea was..HELL & WAR. "Police Action" My A***


CNET Forums

Forum Info