|
| Thread: The Price of Victory |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
BountyHunter97
Famous Hero
King of all that is Chicken
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:02 AM |
|
|
The Price of Victory
Well, im not sure if any1 has made a thread like this b4, but it relates to the war in iraq, and some the things that went rong, and still could go wrong
Now, many of us ask ourselves who live in america, why oh why r we in war? we are spending mountains of $$$ on this war, nearly 1 billion dollars per day.
We migth have won the so called "war" but was it really worth the losses we and other nations have suffered?
In the war against iraq, america is fighting a lost cause, now im american, i would know, all over the news everyday "3 more soldiers died in iraq" or something like that. Pointless slaghuter of peoples sons and daughters
Some Prices of Victory Were:
-America has lost over 100 billion dollars!!!
-America has lost almost 100 young soldiers
-America is now wasted a projected 800 million on recruiting trainers 4 iraqi police
-America is losing its allies
Turkey is now thinking of backing out in the agreement in sending in 10,000 troops to relieve American soldiers
-In a patrol which the 82nd Airborne was attacked with a bomb, they werent hurt, but with their aggressive taktives, which is 2 shoot in every dircetion, blew up a civilion car, killing 4 innocent people
Now some things that might still go rong in iraq
-First off, 2 motar rounds were shot off to the "Green Zone" a place in baghdad where many US army leaders meet to discuss stuff, it is the most heavily fortifed/guarded place in iraq 4 US soldiers and other personal
-America will use most of its $ on iraq instead of other things, such as new medicene improvement, they have now think they found a cure 4 heart problems so imagine, heart cures and other things such as skool improvments (which isnt that great  )
-Many more soldiers will be killed, young people, 18-22 years of age, that an incredibly short time 2 live
-Sooner or later, America will recive no help from other nations, and soon billions and billions of dollars will b spent 2 move the some 250,000 troops in iraq, not 2 mention trying 2 repair what damage they have done
Okay, im hereing all of this stuff on TV, and it just makes me mad, i mean having people die, cause sadness, becuase no 1 can find those so called "Weapons of mass destruction"
so again we ask ourselves (this is copyrighted as of now) "in war, we ask ourselves, who will have to suffer, who will have 2 perish in order for one side 2 acheive victory? what is the price of victory?"
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:10 AM |
|
|
Yes the war in Iraq has no point. It is costing us money and we are just wasting money. There is another Iraq thread which is at the bottom of this post. It is the almighty Iraq War thread, it is 69 pages long.
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=6261
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:14 AM |
|
|
|
Yes, write stuff like this there instead. Thought provoking, yes, but not always accurate. Do the two of you think Iraq was better under Saddam?
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, write stuff like this there instead. Thought provoking, yes, but not always accurate. Do the two of you think Iraq was better under Saddam?
This thread is about the price/conseqeunces of war. What you wrote should be in the Iraq thread. And to answer your question, I'll say yes.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:22 AM |
|
|
|
Ok, so that is insane, but anyway. Price, ok, here goes. Welfare is a waste of money, maybe we should get rid of that. Prisons are a waste of money, maybe we should limit prisoners to two meals a day and no free college education. How's that for wasting money, more money is wasted on the bums of the U.S. than we have spent in Iraq.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 04:26 AM |
|
|
Yeah well all of that actually has a purpose. I would rather see my taxes going to helping homeless Americans than helping poor foreign Iragis
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 05:02 AM |
|
|
what is the population of america?
"the war" has no point?
I dont consider this a war. I consider it a struggle to relive the power from terrorists and unfortunately Sadam probably had ties with them, since the residation of much anti americanism (aka anti whomever is opposed to the taliban) lied within his monarchies administration.
There is a point, ludicrous to think otherwise. We'd be dead by now if they had their way!
All they want to do is kill us.. Wipe us out, and mabey start up slavery again with the left over. They will 1 day (be it 500 years, or 50 years) if they have enough power, try to wipe out all that is not on their side. WHen that happens, there'll be new sides. And the dominate will provail in its evil light. Unless we (the world) put an end to ethnicentrism, which is the basis of this terrorism.
The price of victory, the way we're going at it, is a struggle. We are struggling to be victorious. What is our goal? The first 1 is world peace. The second one, is for the world to cooperate with eachother.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 05, 2003 09:25 PM |
|
|
The American-Roman connection
The Romans went into Upper Germania to conquer the tribes living there. Superior in military force, but unable to adapt to the Germans' forest/guerilla warfare (they kept getting ambushed), the Roman commanders finally declared "victory" and retreated.
The Americans have gotten the "declaring victory" part down pat. We have yet to retreat.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 06:55 AM |
|
|
If the Allies aren't careful they'll end up in a drawn out peace process with increasing losses and casualties. BUT America and her allies knew this would be the case prior to invasion, you can't agree to blast the hell out of a country one minute and then complain when they ask you to rebuild it the next. Crushing a country's infrastructure and leaders and then doing nothing to resolve their problems is one sure-fire way to produce anarchy and turn Iraq to a hotbed for terrorism.
It's not about how much it costs, it's about owing those people. America and her allies had 2 major reasons for invading Iraq, WMD's (oops none found) and to remove Hussain as a threat to the area, his people and the world. As part of removing the threat to the Iraqui people you have an obligation to ensure what follows is better than before. Pulling out will fail the people of the country. The Iraqui people are not going to thank the US and her friends for Removing Hussain if Hussain MKII takes over when the west has had enough.
Whatever the west and perhaps Bush may have thought, Iraquis are quite a proud and independant people. They're glad to be free of Hussain, but they don't want that replaced by the Martial rule of the Allies or the anarchy of the withdrawl. This was never going to be easy, recent events have proved this. Those who thought it was were not looking into the future very well.
As for what it could be spent on... well I look at it in terms of now that we are there, if we withdraw we will probably have to go in again in X years to do it all again. More expense, more deaths, more problems and so on. Dingo, America cannot claim to be a morally superior country if it invades foreign powers and then pulls out simply because a number of it's troops die and it costs a little too much for your precious wallet to enjoy. Along with freedom of action comes responsibility.
You object because he's not American? Did you object to the rebuilding of Europe after WWII? What about financial aid? Would you refuse monetary and food aid to starving African countries because it might increase your taxes, or mean less money for Welfare? Let me guess, you're one of those who backed Clinton to withdraw from Somalia because it got a little tricky.
Wars are expensive, peace is expensive, the world's usually a better place because we rebuild countries than if we let them fall apart alone though. Look at post WWI germany and try to learn that lesson.
Khaelo: Bit simplistic and slightly innacurate. Romans lost their fights in Germany because their then commanders were useless, they fought and won in terrain like Bavaria under capable leaders, they would of won had they been well lead.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 05:04 PM |
|
|
Yes, I realize the analogy is simplistic. Most historical analogies are. The most serious objection would be in the issues you raised, about the current status of the Iraqi people -- the Germans were doing just fine before the Romans came in and did just fine after they left. The Iraqis were/are in a poorer situation before and during American occupation.
We are in over our heads but won't admit it. That was my point.
I don't think the quality of leadership is a good hit on the example, though. That would imply that the American forces are currently under good leadership. 
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We are in over our heads but won't admit it. That was my point.
We might have been, the romans were not, they easily had the power and capability to subdue Germany or signifigant parts of it, their poor leadership let them down though. Romans unlike some Americans also had a higher capacity for accepting crushing defeats also, neither Traismene or Cannae forced Rome to subdue to Hannibal despite atrocious losses for example. There your connection fails
Quote:
That would imply that the American forces are currently under good leadership.
On the ground they have mostly competent officers yes, pity about the moron in overall command though...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 07:27 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 6 Nov 2003
|
Quote:
We might have been, the romans were not, they easily had the power and capability to subdue Germany or signifigant parts of it, their poor leadership let them down though.
We have the sheer power to subdue Iraq, and possibly to rebuild it, but our leadership (that moron in overall command and his advisors) are letting us down. Leadership is part of a nation's resources, after all. We're lacking, as the Romans were in the case of Germany.
Quote:
Romans unlike some Americans also had a higher capacity for accepting crushing defeats also, neither Traismene or Cannae forced Rome to subdue to Hannibal despite atrocious losses for example. There your connection fails
Things are different when the enemy is on your turf, as Hannibal was. Iraq was not posing a serious threat to the U.S. -- the main support for the invasion was Bush's rhetoric and confusion over who was responsible for 9-11 (the nation with strongest connections to al-Qaeda was actually Saudi Arabia, no?). Therefore, I think upper Germany is a better connection than the second Punic war.
Quote:
On the ground they have mostly competent officers yes, pity about the moron in overall command though...
Oh, agreed, definately. I don't blame the ground troops and officers for the idiocy of their commander-in-chief. From what I heard, there were conflicts between the career army guys and the political buffoons who had no clue how to run a war.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 07:45 PM |
|
|
What I don't understand, is why people ask questions like this.
Why not ask, what is the cost of leaving?
When Saddam took over Kewait (sp), we went in, drew a line in the sand and forced him out.
At the time, there was a virtual revolution in Basra, and we were responsible for it. We told them at that time we would support their rebellion, and gave them the impression that Saddam was gone.
Then, after he left Kewait, we said "thanks" and went home.
Shortly afterwards (or even during our withdrawal), the rebellion was crushed, and the leaders executed.
I'm sorry my friends, but that price was too darn high. We are in it for good this time, like it or not. If we leave people will die for supporting us, and the country will be taken over by the strongest faction, resuming it's dictatorship.
The entire middle east hates us already (according to many polls), leaving wouldn't help that, it would only cause the people risking their necks to support us pain, anger, and hatred, if they live.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 07:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We have the sheer power to subdue Iraq, and possibly to rebuild it, but our leadership (that moron in overall command and his advisors) are letting us down. Leadership is part of a nation's resources, after all. We're lacking, as the Romans were in the case of Germany.
The difference is that the Romans were much more capable IMO of subduing Germany than the Allies are of Iraq due to the pressures on the Allies from within and without being much more than that facing the Roman empire. The romans had no will to even engage the Germans in invading them after Augustus bar the failed attempt at Teutoburgerwald. The romans never got to attempt a serious settlement of Germany, therefore there is no link to the current situation in Iraq of the post-war situation.
Quote:
Things are different when the enemy is on your turf, as Hannibal was. Iraq was not posing a serious threat to the U.S. -- the main support for the invasion was Bush's rhetoric and confusion over who was responsible for 9-11 (the nation with strongest connections to al-Qaeda was actually Saudi Arabia, no?). Therefore, I think upper Germany is a better connection than the second Punic war.
Perhaps but the romans suffered numerous disasters in their campaigns and rarely until the last 2 or 3 hundred years (by which time the empire was in the wane anyway) did they allow this to turn into a serious setback.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 08:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference is that the Romans were much more capable IMO of subduing Germany than the Allies are of Iraq due to the pressures on the Allies from within and without being much more than that facing the Roman empire.
Hmm, I guess it depends on how much weight you give to the public support and diplomacy side of military capability, compared to personnel, technology, and so on.
Quote:
The romans had no will to even engage the Germans in invading them after Augustus bar the failed attempt at Teutoburgerwald. The romans never got to attempt a serious settlement of Germany, therefore there is no link to the current situation in Iraq of the post-war situation.
See below re: engaging Germans. I don't think the U.S. is trying to settle Iraq, either. At this point...well, at this point, there's a humanitarian and political mess that takes precedence, but I think part of the Bush administration's original agenda was to install a U.S.-friendly government, possibly so far as a puppet government. The Romans were far more explicit about their rule, but isn't the general principle the same? Disrupting another people's government to suit one's own purposes?
The analogy does fall apart insofar as the Iraqi government was in need of disruption, from a humanitarian perspective, whereas the German tribal system wasn't. However, I don't think the Bush administration's motives in taking action were any more humanitarian than the Romans'. Both wanted control of resources in the area and the political glory that comes with victory in war.
Quote:
Perhaps but the romans suffered numerous disasters in their campaigns and rarely until the last 2 or 3 hundred years (by which time the empire was in the wane anyway) did they allow this to turn into a serious setback.
Augustus pulled back across the Rhine following the loss of three legions under Varus, and he advised his successors not to attempt to press further. He clearly saw it as a setback. It took a new, ambitious emperor to try again.
Anyway, the analogy may be far from perfect, but it does provoke thought.  It has also effectively distracted me from reading about how to educate an orator, so I must bow out temporarily.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
BountyHunter97
Famous Hero
King of all that is Chicken
|
|
posted November 07, 2003 01:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah well all of that actually has a purpose. I would rather see my taxes going to helping homeless Americans than helping poor foreign Iragis
heh dingo, go 2 san fransico, there u'll c about 100 bums walking around askin 4 $, they make about 100 bucks a day from what ive seen/heard
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 07, 2003 01:52 AM |
|
|
What kind of message do we send to future generations when they see things like that? You don't have to work for a living anymore. You only need to talk to other bums* and ask how they do it. It's ludicrous!
*Bums is not only a term used for homeless people. By bums I mean all people who mooch off the government, and other working americans.
|
|
BountyHunter97
Famous Hero
King of all that is Chicken
|
|
posted November 07, 2003 04:50 PM |
|
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 08, 2003 02:41 AM |
|
|
The whole worlds doing it wrong.
This dosnt mean I have a formulated plan.
My dice are in their hands. Says populas throughout the world.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted November 08, 2003 01:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
like somewhere i said in my first post, allies would not send help, in this case, turkey has backed out from sending in 10,000 troops to help the US and British forces...
thats the great news that i rest at home, it will be most stupid thing to enter our army to an old colony... in this unholy massacre im glad we dont play active role... i hope british and american youngsters returns home before they hunted one by one every day, its hard to fight vs unknown militia.. there is no army in front of you ,no forces and you are shooted one by one , who is the next pscycologie is the worst... usa luck that there is sand , no forest... it protect high casulties like in vietnam...
|
| |
|
|
