How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

[gobiggergoredder]

Do you believe that we can win in Afghanistan without winning the support of the Afghan people? Or are you just conceding that Afghanistan is a lost war?

 

We will never win in Afghanistan...or we won't win it with Military Lawyers looking over the shoulders of our group. We are not able to fight the kind of war that would crush this country. There is no reason to put the bravest men in our country on line to fight for their lives with their hands cuffed.

 

It was a mistake and we should leave.

[carlfense]

Do you believe that we can win in Afghanistan without winning the support of the Afghan people? Or are you just conceding that Afghanistan is a lost war?

 

We will never win in Afghanistan...or we won't win it with Military Lawyers looking over the shoulders of our group. We are not able to fight the kind of war that would crush this country. There is no reason to put the bravest men in our country on line to fight for their lives with their hands cuffed.

 

It was a mistake and we should leave.

Edit: tone was improper. Sorry gobigger.

 

gobiggergoredder, wars are not fought to "crush countries." Wars are fought for political reasons to attain political goals. There is a reason why the military takes orders rather than giving them. It is because wars aren't fought to kill the maximum number of people or blow up the most buildings. Wars are fought to achieve a given political goal with the least amount of expenditure in both lives and dollars.

 

Crushing Afghanistan is not, and never has been, the goal.

[walksalone]

Do you believe that we can win in Afghanistan without winning the support of the Afghan people? Or are you just conceding that Afghanistan is a lost war?

 

We will never win in Afghanistan...or we won't win it with Military Lawyers looking over the shoulders of our group. We are not able to fight the kind of war that would crush this country. There is no reason to put the bravest men in our country on line to fight for their lives with their hands cuffed.

 

It was a mistake and we should leave.

Wow. You don't really understand why wars are fought, do you?

 

Gobigger, don't worry, thats his gig, talking down to folks.. Just dismiss is...

[carlfense]

Do you believe that we can win in Afghanistan without winning the support of the Afghan people? Or are you just conceding that Afghanistan is a lost war?

 

We will never win in Afghanistan...or we won't win it with Military Lawyers looking over the shoulders of our group. We are not able to fight the kind of war that would crush this country. There is no reason to put the bravest men in our country on line to fight for their lives with their hands cuffed.

 

It was a mistake and we should leave.

Wow. You don't really understand why wars are fought, do you?

 

Gobigger, don't worry, thats his gig, talking down to folks.. Just dismiss is...

Good call. That was condescending. I'll edit it. Sorry, gobigger.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

We bombed Japan to gain a political objective? We set the island nation ablaze to achieve a political objective?

 

Anyways, war and morality is a double edged sword. You're not going to have one without losing the other. Doesn't excuse the actions of those Marines but it could make understanding the psychology of them a little more understandable.

 

The Afghanis, particularly the terrorist organizations, are never going to like us no matter what we do to try and "play nice". The level of ultranationalism within reaches the level of the ultranationalism in Japan prior to WWII. We could've done a whole bunch of "nice" things towards the Japanese but at the end of the day, they would still hate us. Why? Because that is what their nation believed, that any Western influence was bad and that it needed to be eliminated.

[carlfense]

We bombed Japan to gain a political objective? We set the island nation ablaze to achieve a political objective?

 

Anyways, war and morality is a double edged sword. You're not going to have one without losing the other. Doesn't excuse the actions of those Marines but it could make understanding the psychology of them a little more understandable.

 

The Afghanis, particularly the terrorist organizations, are never going to like us no matter what we do to try and "play nice". The level of ultranationalism within reaches the level of the ultranationalism in Japan prior to WWII. We could've done a whole bunch of "nice" things towards the Japanese but at the end of the day, they would still hate us. Why? Because that is what their nation believed, that any Western influence was bad and that it needed to be eliminated.

Short answer: yes.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

[walksalone]

We bombed Japan to gain a political objective? We set the island nation ablaze to achieve a political objective?

 

Anyways, war and morality is a double edged sword. You're not going to have one without losing the other. Doesn't excuse the actions of those Marines but it could make understanding the psychology of them a little more understandable.

 

The Afghanis, particularly the terrorist organizations, are never going to like us no matter what we do to try and "play nice". The level of ultranationalism within reaches the level of the ultranationalism in Japan prior to WWII. We could've done a whole bunch of "nice" things towards the Japanese but at the end of the day, they would still hate us. Why? Because that is what their nation believed, that any Western influence was bad and that it needed to be eliminated.

Short answer: yes.

 

Maybe in this day and age it's a bit different, but no matter what you do, you're going to find a way to piss somebody off, either directly, or indirectly. Maybe it's just easier to get people upset, due to the fact that media's everywhere.

[carlfense]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

Oof. That's more like a book than a message board post but I will try. It will be extremely abbreviated. Sorry.

 

The U.S. and Japan were warring economically prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor turned the war of words and sanctions into a shooting war. Japan's invasions in Manchuria and the Pacific islands threatened the U.S. economically and militarily. The well known island campaigns and naval battles followed. (The battles I've studied most closely are the big naval battles at Midway and Leyte . . . love the "crossing of the T" in Leyte Gulf . . . and Guadalcanal/Iwo/Okinawa.) After the U.S. was within airstrike range of mainland Japan the decision was made to apply enough pressure to the people and economy of Japan to make a surrender by the ruling regime palatable. No one really wanted to have to invade Japan. This was the alternative. The pressure worked. Japan surrendered. I have little doubt that if we could have obtained the same result (the end of the ruling regime and the removal of Japan's military threat) with killing fewer Japanese citizens we would have done so.

 

If you're interested in my opinion, I think the ends did justify the means (firebombing and nuclear weapons). The Japanese government initiated the shooting war and seemed quite willing to continue it through a land invasion. That would have been enormously costly in US lives and money. In this type of war I am more comfortable with the enemy paying that price.

 

Anyways, are you arguing that the goal of the war in the Pacific was to kill as many Japanese people as possible . . . just for the sake of killing them?

[walksalone]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

Oof. That's more like a book than a message board post but I will try. It will be extremely abbreviated. Sorry.

 

The U.S. and Japan were warring economically prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor turned the war of words and sanctions into a shooting war. Japan's invasions in Manchuria and the Pacific islands threatened the U.S. economically and militarily. The well known island campaigns and naval battles followed. (The battles I've studied most closely are the big naval battles at Midway and Leyte . . . love the "crossing of the T" in Leyte Gulf . . . and Guadalcanal/Iwo/Okinawa.) After the U.S. was within airstrike range of mainland Japan the decision was made to apply enough pressure to the people and economy of Japan to make a surrender by the ruling regime palatable. No one really wanted to have to invade Japan. This was the alternative. The pressure worked. Japan surrendered. I have little doubt that if we could have obtained the same result (the end of the ruling regime and the removal of Japan's military threat) with killing fewer Japanese citizens we would have done so.

 

If you're interested in my opinion, I think the ends did justify the means (firebombing and nuclear weapons). The Japanese government initiated the shooting war and seemed quite willing to continue it through a land invasion. That would have been enormously costly in US lives and money. In this type of war I am more comfortable with the enemy paying that price.

 

Anyways, are you arguing that the goal of the war in the Pacific was to kill as many Japanese people as possible . . . just for the sake of killing them?

 

Wasn't the estimate at something like a million us troops, for the invasion? I'm merely guessing, but I think that sounds about right.

 

I'm glad they chose the route they did, becuase my grandfather and uncle were sitting in ETO waiting to ship out for the Pacific.

[carlfense]

My grandfather was also on that list.

[walksalone]

I still don't think we needed to apoligize for dropping the bomb on them though. They did start it.

[carlfense]

I would have waited until after they apologized for Pearl Harbor . . . and I don't think they have yet. At least I can't recall it.

[walksalone]

I would have waited until after they apologized for Pearl Harbor . . . and I don't think they have yet. At least I can't recall it.

 

yea, but I don't think they have, so.....

[gobiggergoredder]

Give me the long answer: I'm curious to hear it.

Oof. That's more like a book than a message board post but I will try. It will be extremely abbreviated. Sorry.

 

The U.S. and Japan were warring economically prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor turned the war of words and sanctions into a shooting war. Japan's invasions in Manchuria and the Pacific islands threatened the U.S. economically and militarily. The well known island campaigns and naval battles followed. (The battles I've studied most closely are the big naval battles at Midway and Leyte . . . love the "crossing of the T" in Leyte Gulf . . . and Guadalcanal/Iwo/Okinawa.) After the U.S. was within airstrike range of mainland Japan the decision was made to apply enough pressure to the people and economy of Japan to make a surrender by the ruling regime palatable. No one really wanted to have to invade Japan. This was the alternative. The pressure worked. Japan surrendered. I have little doubt that if we could have obtained the same result (the end of the ruling regime and the removal of Japan's military threat) with killing fewer Japanese citizens we would have done so.

 

If you're interested in my opinion, I think the ends did justify the means (firebombing and nuclear weapons). The Japanese government initiated the shooting war and seemed quite willing to continue it through a land invasion. That would have been enormously costly in US lives and money. In this type of war I am more comfortable with the enemy paying that price.

 

Anyways, are you arguing that the goal of the war in the Pacific was to kill as many Japanese people as possible . . . just for the sake of killing them?

 

Wasn't the estimate at something like a million us troops, for the invasion? I'm merely guessing, but I think that sounds about right.

 

I'm glad they chose the route they did, becuase my grandfather and uncle were sitting in ETO waiting to ship out for the Pacific.

 

A million+, but I think it is unlikely you will get a response. The bombs saved countless American lives. This was a culture that was teaching it's women how to kill in an invasion via suicide.

 

Carlfense picks out 1 word, doesn't answer any questions, then poses another. NOWHERE in anything did I say that there is that the objective in war is to crush a country. I did say we could crush Afganistan, or any enemy for that matter, if our hands weren't tied.

 

We would rather spare one Afghan goat herder than an American soldier. If that is the situation we are going to put our men in, then get them out.

edit: Carlfense will turn that into that I want to kill innocent civilians.