"endless" wars

Author: Dr.Franklin ,

Posts

Total: 21
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Every modern war is endless, ADAPT, stop living in this ww2 greatness world America
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Dr.Franklin
I agree that america should not engage in endless wars. But american troops were not really fighting in Syria. They were there to support an ally. Abandoning them only hurts america's foreign policy objective. And ironically it put US troops lives in jeopardy. The US airforce was forced to airstrike their own munitions as they retreated because the withdrawal was not planned. 

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @HistoryBuff
What? We have a ceasfire and no war if we stay there
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Dr.Franklin
What? We have a ceasfire and no war if we stay there
Sorry, maybe i have misunderstood your point. You appeared to be saying you wanted america to withdraw all it's troops from the area as it was a "forever war". Withdrawing US troops has triggered an invasion and killed a large number of people. Most of whom were US allies since both the kurds and Turkey are US allies. 


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @HistoryBuff
Ohh we agree then,nice
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Dr.Franklin
It would appear that we do agree. But in places like Iraq and afganistan, it has become clear that america is not going to be able to maintain the current status quo. 

Also, attempts by the US to escalate tensions with Iran are quite likely to lead to another "forever war" which will further destabilize the region. America should not be sending ground troops to Saudi Arabia. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
Who cares if the Middle East wants to fight for the next 300 years?

Americans can choose to not die there.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @HistoryBuff
I agree there too, fuck saudi

Basically the Syrian war isn't over, this is the wrong time to pull out troops
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Greyparrot
Since when were Americans "dying" in Syria, we were there for strategic reasons
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
Let's look at all the enemies America created or strengthened by meddling in pointless proxy wars.

Korea/China+NK
Bay of Pigs/Cuba
WW II/Russia
Vietnam/China+Russia
Afghanistan/Taliban
Iraq/Iran
Syria/...we pulled out before we could create/strengthen another enemy.

The best way to win a war is by not participating in it.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
The best way to win a war is by not participating in it.
That is just patently untrue. The best way to lose a war is by not participating. 

Several examples on your list are also untrue.

Intervening in Korea didn't strengthen China. It has greatly weakened North Korea and created an staunch ally in the region, South Korea. This pisses off and constrains China.

I will agree the Bay of pigs was a disaster. But Castro had already won. Not to mention that if it had succeeded it would have prevented the cuban missile crisis which almost ended human civilization. 

US intervention in WW2 did not strengthen russia. By the time the US got around to actually helping Russia was already winning the war. The difference that staying out of it would have made was that the red army would have occupied all of europe. And at that point the soviets would likely have had the manpower and resources to destroy america. 

Vietnam was definitely stupid. But mostly because most of vietnam didn't want them there. Most people respected Ho Chi Minh and despised the corrupt south Vietnamese regime. 

Afganistan was stupid too, but the US didn't strengthen an enemy. The Taliban was already in power. They are still pretty much in power. The US has just been fighting and not accomplishing anything. 

Iraq was just one giant war crime. But that is all bush and his neo-cons. 

In syria you weren't fighting a war. You were largely acting a peace keepers preventing 2 us allies from killing each other. now that the US have left they are killing each other. The kurds have made a deal with Assad and russia. Leaving directly benefited Russia. It also screwed over an ally which will prevent any other people from trusting the US in the future. Who could trust a government that betrays people so easily?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Greyparrot
Korea/China+NK

Didn't create or strenthenth, should be obvious

Bay of Pigs/Cuba
Disagree, Cuba was already communist, this was a failed invasion and no it didn't stenthen cuba

WW II/Russia
Because FDR was a shit President, but we were also allies,so what's your point?

Vietnam/China+Russia
Vietnam is not strong today, China was strenthended because of weakness by America not Intervening

Afghanistan/Taliban
The Taliban owned 90% of Afganistan in 2001, this is just plain wrong

Iraq/Iran
We have weakened Iran and helped Iraq beat ISIS, which is good!

Syria/...we pulled out before we could create/strengthen another enemy.
What enemy? Assad? He already won. Turkey, they wouldn't have done anything, pulling out troops gives ISIS and Al-Queda an Advantage

The best way to win a war is by not participating in it.

Name one war that was true from this
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
That is just patently untrue. The best way to lose a war is by not participating. 

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Greyparrot
it's easier to send people to fight then it is to tell the their family their son/husband/father/mother/brother/sister was killed, that job they leave for someone else.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
That reference is only true for nuclear war. And even then, it is only true if the nuclear powers are directly attacking each other.

If russia gains more power over the middle east, they gain more control over critical resources that they can then use against you. If they crush your economy by spiking your oil costs, then they can cause huge damage while risking very little. 

If you don't play the game, then you are ceding to the enemy. Just because you don't play, doesn't mean they stop playing. That doesn't mean you need to invade countries like iraq or afganistan. But if you pretend like you can just ignore the world, then you have already lost. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @HistoryBuff
List the top 5 happiest nations in the world, then list how many proxy wars they sent troops to die in.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
List the top 5 happiest nations in the world, then list how many proxy wars they sent troops to die in.
I don't see any connection between those 2 things. The 5 happiest countries in the world are so because they take good care of the people. America prioritizes the wealth of rich people over the welfare of it's people.

You can have a strong presence in the world as well as take care of your people.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
Eh, my point of the last post was not to draw a correlation between Doves and happiness but to prove that Nations can exist just fine by only participating in defense wars and choosing not to play in endless proxy wars.

America doesn't need to play these wargames.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Eh, my point of the last post was not to draw a correlation between Doves and happiness but to prove that Nations can exist just fine by only participating in defense wars and choosing not to play in endless proxy wars.
America doesn't need to play these wargames.
If you want to cede your position as a world leader, sure you could. But that means that you become much less relevant in the world. Political alliances will re-shift without you. Most likely China would take over as the pre-eminent super power. And how long do you think it will be before china starts leaning into america hard once it has a global power base you let them take?

Withdrawing from the world will help you save some money and lives in the short term. But in the medium to long term it will cost you dearly as you lose your power and your allies. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Referring to my last post, you don't need to have enough power to be the world police to have a happy and safe nation.

America doesn't break the top 10.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,828
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Honestly, anyone indoctrinated enough by the crony public school system to view the 1% as the enemy should also be against the proxy wars pushed by the 1% military-industrial complex...

Unless of course, the crony public school system wants to protect that 1%.