Correct on both counts. And nobody on that thread offered a convincing argument that those positions were inconsistent.
Well,
I'm correct in the sense that I correctly pointed out what you believe.
You're incorrect in the sense that you're completely wrong.
Douglas MacArthur always attempted to use maneuver to obtain his military objectives, and he was uniformly successful in his career. In the first world war, as an Acting Divisional commander, his division arrived at Sedan days ahead of schedule, and with a fraction of the casualties which had been predicted. That, combined with the uniform success of American commanders in attaining their objectives ahead of schedule, lead to an incredibly rapid and complete collapse of the Imperial Army's ability to defend its lines of communication, and can be considered the significant factor in the request for an amistice by Ludendorf.
In the Second World War, his casualties were low, but if one deducts the casualties of the American forces in the Philippines (a hopeless defense for which the Americans made an heroic effort, delaying the Japanese five weeks beyond the date when they had planned to complete the conquest of Luzon), his casualties were phenominally low. Once again, he bypassed strong points, leaving Japanese troops to rot on the vine. One of the best examples was his move to set up a base on Manus, in the Admiralty Islands, thereby cutting off and rendering the Japanese fortress at Rabual irrelevant to the defense of New Guinea. He had previously sent General Eichelberger to slam straight ahead into Japanese defensive positions on the eastern end of New Guinea at Buna, Gona and Sanananda, and the Americans and Australians suffered horrible casualties. They took the post at Buna, and cut off the Japanese from their supplies--when the Japanese finally surrendered, there was evidence that they had resorted to cannibalism.
When he changed his tactics, established the base at Manus, he began his tactis of "hopping." He rushed along the northern New Guinea coast, landing behind Japanese positions, and cutting them off with very little fighting. An air-drop combined with an amphibious assault allowed him to take Hollandia at the western end of the island with relatively light casualties, dooming all the Japanese on New Guinea to surrender or starvation. MacArthur invented what became known as island-hopping, but it is really little understood--Halsey and the Navy just slammed into every island in their path, at horrible cost to the United States Marines. By the time MacArthur had taken the Phillipines, literally millions of Japanese troops had been cut off, and, sooner or later, surrendered without a fight.
I have no doubt that the less will be lost on the Shrub's cheerleaders here. When a tactic or an operational plan fails, the costs are usually very high, and the sensible response is to try different tactics or a new operational plan, or to abandon that effort altogether to find a different solution to the military problem. There never has been any reason to consider the invasion of Iraq to have been an effective part of a war on terror. Abandoning Iraq will not hurt the effort to destroy al Qaeda, because invading Iraq was always irrelevant to a war on terror.
The most brilliant commanders succeed militarily because they have the good sense not to persist in futile operations. The best forces suffer the fewest casualties, and inflict the fewest casualties, and succeed in the process. Douglas MacArthur would, in my never humble opinion, have been a disaster as President--nevertheless, one could only wish that his military intelligence could be imparted to what passes for a commander in chief these days.
joefromchicago wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Well, I'm correct in the sense that I correctly pointed out what you believe. You're incorrect in the sense that you're completely wrong.
Explain.
You assert the ONLY way to support the troops in Iraq is to oppose the war in Iraq. In order for that to be true, there must be no other way to support the troops. I reckon a great number of troops over in Iraq do not view the current conflict as a waste of time or as "one huge mistake." Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause. These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place. Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq. Ergo, you are incorrect.
I presented the explanation for why you are wrong when you claim to be patriotic for wanting the US to lose the Iraq War on the other thread that I linked to.
Three problems with your position, Tico:
Quote: Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause.
Many of them have to, or they wouldn't be able to continue doing the things they have to do to survive. Not an objective viewpoint at all.
Quote:These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place.
This is speculation on your part. You don't know what the soldiers would say, so stop attempting to speak for them, on an individual or collective basis.
Quote:Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq.
You have zero evidence of this. Unsupportable.
Before you start hunting down links, you should realize that I can find as many anti-war voices amongst the Iraq Veterans crowd as you can pro-war ones. So lets' not waste our time.
You don't seem to understand the difference between supporting the
troops and supporting the
war.
Cycloptichorn
Ticomaya wrote:You assert the ONLY way to support the troops in Iraq is to oppose the war in Iraq. In order for that to be true, there must be no other way to support the troops. I reckon a great number of troops over in Iraq do not view the current conflict as a waste of time or as "one huge mistake." Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause. These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place. Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq. Ergo, you are incorrect.
The troops are fighting in a war that they should not be fighting. Undoubtedly they believe that they are doing a good job, and no doubt many of them are. But they shouldn't be doing it at all. Likewise, many of them undoubtedly believe that they are there for a good reason and cause. In that respect, though, they are mistaken. They are fighting an illegal war, and the only solution to an illegal war is to end it. If their morale is hurt by this "morass of negativity," then that's a small price for them to pay -- certainly a much smaller price than being injured or killed in an illegal war. Troops should not be fighting and dying in an illegal conflict. To support them, therefore, means supporting an end to the conflict. Ergo, I'm correct.
Ticomaya wrote:I presented the explanation for why you are wrong when you claim to be patriotic for wanting the US to lose the Iraq War on the other thread that I linked to.
Summarize it for those of us who may have missed it, or else link to your post in that thread where you offered your explanation.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You don't seem to understand the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.
And that is the crux . . . it also elucidates the tactic of the pro-war crowd, which is to attempt to equate failure to support the war with failure to support the troops. I can think of no expressions of a higher regard for our troops than to wish that they are not maimed or killed needlessly.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Three problems with your position, Tico:
Quote: Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause.
Many of them have to, or they wouldn't be able to continue doing the things they have to do to survive. Not an objective viewpoint at all.
Before you accuse me of building a strawman, let me get some clarity from your statement. Are claiming the viewpoint of the troops is not objective? Are you claiming I am incorrect, therefore, when I claim that many of the troops believe they are in Iraq for a good reason and cause?
Quote:Quote:These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place.
This is speculation on your part. You don't know what the soldiers would say, so stop attempting to speak for them, on an individual or collective basis.
Which do you think is the greater speculation: My claim that there are troops in Iraq that believe they are there for a good reason and cause, and these troops would not agree with Joe, or
Joe's claim that the "only way" to support the troops is to oppose the war? Please take off your anti-war hat when you try and answer that one.
I agree there is a degree of speculation in my assertion, but my premise has a possibility of having a great amount of truth to it. On the other hand, Joe's does not.
Quote:Quote:Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq.
You have zero evidence of this. Unsupportable.
I'm using common sense, Cyclops.
Quote:Before you start hunting down links, you should realize that I can find as many anti-war voices amongst the Iraq Veterans crowd as you can pro-war ones. So lets' not waste our time.
Which sounds as if you agree there are troops of both stripes in the war. Why would you agree with
Joe's contention, in that event, that the only way to support these troops is to oppose the reason they are their fighting, knowing as you do that many of them agree with the reason they are fighting.
Quote:You don't seem to understand the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.
Well, I think I do ... but it appears perhaps
Joe doesn't.
joefromchicago wrote:Ticomaya wrote:You assert the ONLY way to support the troops in Iraq is to oppose the war in Iraq. In order for that to be true, there must be no other way to support the troops. I reckon a great number of troops over in Iraq do not view the current conflict as a waste of time or as "one huge mistake." Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause. These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place. Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq. Ergo, you are incorrect.
The troops are fighting in a war that they should not be fighting.
That is your opinion.
Quote: Undoubtedly they believe that they are doing a good job, and no doubt many of them are. But they shouldn't be doing it at all.
That is your opinion
Quote:Likewise, many of them undoubtedly believe that they are there for a good reason and cause. In that respect, though, they are mistaken.
That is your opinion.
Quote:They are fighting an illegal war, and the only solution to an illegal war is to end it.
Yes, let's do that. Your approach would be to "end it" by losing. That is not my approach.
Quote:If their morale is hurt by this "morass of negativity," then that's a small price for them to pay -- certainly a much smaller price than being injured or killed in an illegal war.
You know better than they do, right? That's what this seems to boil down to.
Quote:Troops should not be fighting and dying in an illegal conflict. To support them, therefore, means supporting an end to the conflict. Ergo, I'm correct.
The opinions you stated above, to which you are entitled, are wrong. Ergo, you are still wrong.
Quote:Ticomaya wrote:I presented the explanation for why you are wrong when you claim to be patriotic for wanting the US to lose the Iraq War on the other thread that I linked to.
Summarize it for those of us who may have missed it, or else link to your post in that thread where you offered your explanation.
My explanation came through the course of that thread. Anybody interested in greater detail -- particularly your claim that you are a patriot if you want the US to lose the war -- ought to go and read that thread.
"Support the Troops, not the War." Impossible. I support neither.
Of course you can support the troops and oppose the war.
Speaking from the experience of fighting in a war that should never have been fought and coming back to get "spit" on by my fellow citizens I have learned that those who have never been there can never understand the honor I still have in serving this nation.
When you are in the seervice, your own personal "war" is what is going on around you. I took pride in fulfilling my duties and "working" with my fellow troops and helping the civilians gather their life together. I had no time for the "big picture".
Then you come home and I got nothing but bad feelings from many of my fellow citizens.
Just remember, todays troops volunteered to give up a piece of their life, to wear our uniform and perform duties that most would never think about doing.
All you folks who can not "support the troops" fail to see the personal sacrifice they made, wether they are stationed in Iraq, Korea, Europe, or whereever. They are doing something you won't do and you should go up to the next soldier you see and thank them for their service. Regardless of what you think about the war.
What is fascinating, exactly?
I understand the point you are attempting to make, but there is no contradiction.
I'm sure that there are troops that support the war, and ones that don't. I'm sure there are troops that truly believe they are doing the right thing, and those who believe it because they need to, and those that believe that they are doing the wrong thing.
My point wasn't that I know what the troops are thinking; just that the troop's opinions are not the basis of a solid formation about the validity of war.
Nice try tho, kudos
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Three problems with your position, Tico:
Quote: Many believe they are there for a good reason and cause.
Many of them have to, or they wouldn't be able to continue doing the things they have to do to survive. Not an objective viewpoint at all.
Before you accuse me of building a strawman, let me get some clarity from your statement. Are claiming the viewpoint of the troops is not objective? Are you claiming I am incorrect, therefore, when I claim that many of the troops believe they are in Iraq for a good reason and cause?
I'm not claiming that you are incorrect, that the troops believe that they are fighting a good cause. Just claiming that that fact doesn't matter in the slightest when it comes to either judging the overall worth of the war, or when it comes to supporting the troops. Many of them need to believe that they are doing the right thing, otherwise, they would never be able to make the choices they have to make to keep them and their mates alive.
I wasn't judging the "overall worth of the war," only
Joe's contention that the only way to support the troops is to oppose the war.
Quote:Quote:Quote:These folks would not agree with your claim that the only way for you to support them is to oppose the reason they are there in the first place.
This is speculation on your part. You don't know what the soldiers would say, so stop attempting to speak for them, on an individual or collective basis.
Which do you think is the greater speculation: My claim that there are troops in Iraq that believe they are there for a good reason and cause, and these troops would not agree with Joe, or
Joe's claim that the "only way" to support the troops is to oppose the war? Please take off your anti-war hat when you try and answer that one.
I agree there is a degree of speculation in my assertion, but my premise has a possibility of having a great amount of truth to it. On the other hand, Joe's does not.
I don't recall saying that I agreed or disagreed with Joe's opinion in my post. You are trying to defend your baseless assertion that you know what troops are thinking, and what they would say when asked a question. You say that your premise has 'a great amount of truth in it,' but I don't buy that's true at all. You have no evidence to support this allegation and should withdraw it.
You shouldn't attempt to analyze my comment in a vacuum, since it was made in response to
Joe's comment, and only holds meaning in relation to it.
Quote:As for Joe's assertion, I agree with him that the only true way to support the troops is to call for the end to this useless war which will gain America nothing. It certainly won't gain the troops anything. Oh, you can do things to make them more comfortable or happier, but that's not the same thing as supporting them. It isn't as if they can decide to come home themselves, so by helping them come home - to where they don't have to live in fear, and can be with their families - we accomplish the greatest possible gain for those soldiers.[/color]
You know I've always supported your right to be wrong.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Persons that oppose the war during the time of war add to the morass of negativity, and diminish the morale of the troops stationed in Iraq.
You have zero evidence of this. Unsupportable.
I'm using common sense, Cyclops.
No, you aren't. You are projecting the feelings evoked in you onto the troops.
You have no way of knowing how they feel about opposition to the war. I'm sure there is a wide range of feelings about it, much like other sectors of our society. I also believe that feelings about the war from back home pale in comparison to worries about IEDs, or insurgents, or how you haven't seen your wife and kids in a year and a half and think you may die before you do again. Think that's a morale-building thought?
This is another unsupportable allegation that should be withdrawn.
Are you claiming no troops have the feelings I've suggested? Because I think that would be an obviously unsupportable allegation that you would have to withdraw. No, it's very likely that
some troops believe as I've described, and in that event, my argument holds true, and
Joe's comment that the only way to support the troops is to oppose the war holds false, as does your attempt to massage it as the only "true" way to support the troops.
Ticomaya wrote:That is your opinion.
I have never claimed otherwise, although I think my opinion is based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.
Ticomaya wrote:That is your opinion
I have never claimed otherwise, although I think my opinion is based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.
Ticomaya wrote:That is your opinion.
I have never claimed otherwise, although I think my opinion is based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.
Ticomaya wrote:Yes, let's do that. Your approach would be to "end it" by losing. That is not my approach.
No, your approach is much worse.
Ticomaya wrote:You know better than they do, right? That's what this seems to boil down to.
I don't see why that's so difficult to believe. I don't know why, in a discussion about the legality of a war, we should defer to the opinions of the troops fighting it. I wouldn't ask someone on the assembly line for his definitive opinion about the finances of GM, nor would I ask a chambermaid her opinion on the corporate direction of Holiday Inns. As Clausewitz correctly pointed out, war is politics by other means. There is no reason to believe that soldiers know more about politics just because they know more about fighting wars.
Ticomaya wrote:The opinions you stated above, to which you are entitled, are wrong. Ergo, you are still wrong.
Explain why they're wrong.
Ticomaya wrote:My explanation came through the course of that thread. Anybody interested in greater detail -- particularly your claim that you are a patriot if you want the US to lose the war -- ought to go and read that thread.
As you must be aware, that was a very long thread. I can summarize my position, and I can
link to a post that adequately sets forth that position. Why can't you?
joefromchicago wrote:Ticomaya wrote:You know better than they do, right? That's what this seems to boil down to.
I don't see why that's so difficult to believe. I don't know why, in a discussion about the legality of a war, we should defer to the opinions of the troops fighting it. I wouldn't ask someone on the assembly line for his definitive opinion about the finances of GM, nor would I ask a chambermaid her opinion on the corporate direction of Holiday Inns. As Clausewitz correctly pointed out, war is politics by other means. There is no reason to believe that soldiers know more about politics just because they know more about fighting wars.
But we're not talking about the finances of GM, we're talking about whether they like working for GM. You seem to believe you know better than that assembly line worker, and would shut down the plant over their objection, because you thought they were working too many hours, then claim you were doing in it their best interests, and thus were really supporting them. I suspect a few of them might differ with your opinion in that regard, no matter whether
you think it was based on sound reasoning or not.
Quote:Ticomaya wrote:The opinions you stated above, to which you are entitled, are wrong. Ergo, you are still wrong.
Explain why they're wrong.
Because the Iraq War is/was justified and serves/served a good cause.
Quote:Ticomaya wrote:My explanation came through the course of that thread. Anybody interested in greater detail -- particularly your claim that you are a patriot if you want the US to lose the war -- ought to go and read that thread.
As you must be aware, that was a very long thread. I can summarize my position, and I can
link to a post that adequately sets forth that position. Why can't you?
Because my argument came out over the course of the thread in many different posts, in response to many other different posts, not in a cut and pasted article at the beginning, like yours. But since you want some links, here are some links:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1090803#1090803
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091015#1091015
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091464#1091464
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091542#1091542
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1092663#1092663
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1092686#1092686
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1092697#1092697
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1093135#1093135
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1093183#1093183
Of course these are only from the first 18 pages.
Ticomaya wrote:But we're not talking about the finances of GM, we're talking about whether they like working for GM. You seem to believe you know better than that assembly line worker, and would shut down the plant over their objection, because you thought they were working too many hours, then claim you were doing in it their best interests, and thus were really supporting them. I suspect a few of them might differ with your opinion in that regard, no matter whether you think it was based on sound reasoning or not.
"We" certainly
aren't talking about the soldiers' job satisfaction. I don't know why that would be an issue. If the soldiers are extremely happy killing Iraqis in an illegal war, that doesn't make the war any more legal, nor should one support such an illegal conflict just because stopping the war would make the soldiers grumpy and miserable. If opposing the war makes our men and women in uniform unhappy, then that's yet another reason to end the war quickly, so we can bring a smile to their fresh-scrubbed faces and a glow to their round apple cheeks.
Ticomaya wrote:Because the Iraq War is/was justified and serves/served a good cause.
What is the justification? What is the good cause?
Thanks, I'll take a look at them.
I'm still having trouble with my media player ... could you please give me the
summation.
Anon
