Why We Fight

[gilliam]

Matt25:

I always thought no one was beyond redemption, but hey I’m just an old fashioned Catholic. Talking of which did the Pope support the invasion of Afghanistan? Just asking.

No modern pope has endorsed any war that I know of, if that is what you are asking. That should not be looked at as a condemnation of all the wars in the last 100 years. Instead it is a sign of the Papacy and the fact that the Just War doctrine leaves the judgement up to civil authorities.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

The Officer Corp has something to say about it too.

A nation’s Officer Corp can stagnate without a war, so wars must be fought in order for the Officer Corp to thrive, so generals can be promoted, so that the nation’s military will not be weak in case of a major conflict, so that new strategies can be formulated, and that new military technologies may be tested.

Remember just before 911 how the U.S. was bumping heads with Red China? And during this saber rattling with the people’s republic, General Colin Powell was making speeches about a foreign military presence along the Mexico/U.S. border! Conflicts were being conveniently arranged.

The high maintence of a nation’s Officer Corp is also one reason to have a war.

 

[gilliam]

Kevin Walker:

The Officer Corp has something to say about it too.

A nation’s Officer Corp can stagnate without a war, so wars must be fought in order for the Officer Corp to thrive, so generals can be promoted, so that the nation’s military will not be weak in case of a major conflict, so that new strategies can be formulated, and that new military technologies may be tested.

Remember just before 911 how the U.S. was bumping heads and saber rattling with Red China? Conflicts were being arranged.

Your kidding right? Officer Corps can last for generations without a war. The Pentagon, in case you don’t know, doesn’t fight wars, it plans wars. Fighting wars is left to the field corps which grows and shrinks as needed. Anyway, in this day and age, the ‘peace time’ army was looked at as a stepping stone to civilian jobs.

If you want to justify an officer corps you create a threat that you don’t necessarily fight. Like the USSR or a China or whatever. You don’t have to start a war to retain an officer corps.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

gilliam:

Your kidding right? Officer Corps can last for generations without a war. The Pentagon, in case you don’t know, doesn’t fight wars, it plans wars. Fighting wars is left to the field corps which grows and shrinks as needed. Anyway, in this day and age, the ‘peace time’ army was looked at as a stepping stone to civilian jobs. I really don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about.

On contraire, an Officer Corp will stagnate quickly without a war. In case you don’t know, the Pentagon is not the Officer Corp, and military officers do fight wars. A peace time army is viewed as a ‘job corp’ by the enlisted, not by the professional officer corp. Senior officers don’t become senior officers without battle experience, that is a fact (please note the difference between Command Officer, Staff Officer, and Limited Duty Officers (LDOs).

The field officers are not only fighting a war, but fighting their way up the promotion ladder: every ensign wants to make admiral just as every second lieutenant wants to make general. And it is the Command Officers who make it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the decision makers, and not the Staff Officers or LDOs. The Command Officers must have combat experience or their careers suffer.

In the Navy for example, you cannot make Admiral (Command) without first being a Commodore, and Commodore is a wartime rank only. And during a long time of peace, when all the Admirals retire, you cannot have international recognition of your Navy if its highest rank is a Captain. So you have all these Captains waiting for a war so they can become Commodore and move on to Admiral (the situation in both the U.S. Quasi-War against France in 1798-1800, and the War of 1812). The Officer Corp will petition Congress for military action regarding one of Congress’s foreign policies.

So yes, the Officer Corp are a contributing factor when it comes to declaring a war.

 

[gilliam]

If you want to justify an officer corps you create a threat that you don’t necessarily fight. Like the USSR or a China or whatever. You don’t have to start a war to retain an officer corps and I think the US has proven that over time.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

gilliam:

If you want to justify an officer corps you create a threat that you don’t necessarily fight. Like the USSR or a China or whatever. You don’t have to start a war to retain an officer corps and I think the US has proven that over time.

That’s the ideal situation. Yet the U.S. has had long stretches of peace but has managed a few military interventions: Dominican Republic, Grenada, and the Gulf Wars. Not to mention that the U.S. Army has been heavily fighting in Columbia for a number of years now.

The Officer Corp still manages to get enough combat time to allow senior officers to earn their promotions (Colonels become Brig. Generals, and Brig. Generals become Major Generals, and Major Generals become Lieutenant Generals, ect.) none of which can happen without a war, or at least, combat.

And don’t forget, European armies stated they were envious of all the combat experience the American Officer Corp were receiving from ten years of Vietnam. Foreign Armies often ask to assist in another war for the combat experience, not for the enlisted but for the officers!

 

[gilliam]

Kevin Walker:

And don’t forget, European armies stated they were envious of all the combat experience the American Officer Corp were receiving from ten years of Vietnam. Foreign Armies often ask to assist in another war for the combat experience, not for the enlisted but for the officers!

What Europeans might that be? The Brits and French have kept themselves busy these last 50 years.

 

[condan]

Matt25:

Saddam was a secularist. Islamists called him an infidel because he was not particularly keen on praying to Allah while facing Mecca (nobody prays to Mecca which is a city, Muslims normally pray to God) either.

How does deposing a secularist weaken Islamic extremism?

• Iraq is a stronghold in the region.
• Saddam needed to be overthrown for not complying with 1441.
• Saddam was not a secularist. Rather, he was a moderate Islamic. Islam considers all of the non-Islamic world to be infidels.
• Saddam funded, directly and indirectly, Islamic terrorists.
• Democracy (outside of Israel) is necessary in the region.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

gilliam:

What Europeans might that be? The Brits and French have kept themselves busy these last 50 years.

But not as busy as the United States. Vietnam was a police action but its combat experience counted as war time experience.

The NATO nations (Spain, Norway, Germany, England, Turkey, Italy) all expressed envy at the combat experience American Officer Corp acquired from Vietnam.

France’s Foreign Legion actually had acquired more combat experience than France’s army, with all the interventions in Africa; which is why the officers in the French army all rotate through the Legion, to gain valuable combat time.

 

[cestusdei]

Matt,
Ah so now you complain that before 911 we didn’t interfere in other nations. Now that we do you again do what? Complain. Typical. You folks sure did want us to interfere back in WWII. Tell you what. Let’s just put it back the way it was. The taliban can regain power and we can put Saddam back in his palace. Would that satisfy you? I mean according to you that would be wonderful. While we are at it we can give Kosovo back to the Serbs and let Milosovic loose. Hey what’s a little genocide here or there? We could even pass a meaningless UN resolution. Boy that will scare them! Grow up Matt.

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

from the article:
It is necessary to accept Jarecki’s premise that the Iraq war is the result of America’s imperialistic agenda in order to see corporate greed as the underlying cause.

I don’t! And I don’t know any rational person who does.

Therefore anyone who disagrees with you, (Like most of the rest of the world) is irrational? Hmmmm…

 

[gilliam]

Norwich:

Therefore anyone who disagrees with you, (Like most of the rest of the world) is irrational? Hmmmm…

If the rest of the world thinks Iraq is the result of America’s Imperialist agenda, then yes. By the way, if America has an imperialist agenda, we sure have not been following it these last 100 years. Compare what the US has done this last 100 years to what the UK did during their years of empire. I think you will see a distinct diffference.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

If the rest of the world thinks Iraq is the result of America’s Imperialist agenda, then yes. By the way, if America has an imperialist agenda, we sure have not been following it these last 100 years. Compare what the US has done this last 100 years to what the UK did during their years of empire. I think you will see a distinct diffference.

Just since 1905? Go back just seven more years, and American imperialism was exemplified by the Philippines. Also, our support of dozens of Central American dictatorships in the 1920s and 1930s was a form of imperialism. Keep in mind that back then the US Marine Corps was used to keep order there by being not much more than a goon squad for Dole and United Fruit.

 

[dumspirospero]

Not again I thought you were banned Peace???

**PARK CITY (Hollywood Reporter) - The term “military-industrial complex” was coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation at the end of his second term as president in 1961. ****In ensuing years the phrase has become so commonplace that it has ceased to have any meaning. Now Eugene Jarecki’s shattering documentary “Why We Fight” examines the extent to which the military-industrial complex not only profits from war, but also becomes a force that makes war happen. Winner of the best American documentary prize at Sundance, the thoughtful and extremely well-made film could find a sizable audience of concerned citizens in theaters and later on video. **

the rest:reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reviewsNews&storyID=7539065

 

[FightingFat]

condan:

• Iraq is a stronghold in the region.
• Saddam needed to be overthrown for not complying with 1441.
• Saddam was not a secularist. Rather, he was a moderate Islamic. Islam considers all of the non-Islamic world to be infidels.
• Saddam funded, directly and indirectly, Islamic terrorists.
• Democracy (outside of Israel) is necessary in the region.

Wow you’d have to be pretty blinkered to agree with any of those wafer thin arguments!

Also, don’t you think it all back tracks a little from what we were told originally? Don’t you all think that’s concerning?

gilliam:

I suggest people read:

Please don’t ever forget

gilliam, I think I’m right in saying you have a son or daughter in the forces? I pray they’re safe my friend, and I know how important it is that they are fighting for what is right and that you are proud, but I think that you can’t buy people off with soldiers deaths, because servicemen and women die in conflict doesn’t make it right. If anything, I would think it would or should cause you to look even more closely at the reasoning behind these deaths and ask some pertinant questions!

God bless!

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

If the rest of the world thinks Iraq is the result of America’s Imperialist agenda, then yes. By the way, if America has an imperialist agenda, we sure have not been following it these last 100 years. Compare what the US has done this last 100 years to what the UK did during their years of empire. I think you will see a distinct diffference.

Now why does the comment, “although I’m a student of history we’re talkin about today not years ago” (paraphrased I’m afraid) come to mind, something to do with the history of Palestine if I remember. Is this a case of “I can use history to justify my argument but you can’t”

I would suggest one major difference though, Most Brits acknowledge their imperial designs, most Americans are still in denial.

 

[aimee]

Norwich,

I have decided you are not Simon but which team do you play on… .

Quick TablePos Team Pld GD Pts
1 Chelsea 26 41 65
2 Man Utd 26 27 56
3 ARSENAL 26 28 54
4 Everton 26 4 48
5 Liverpool 26 14 43
FULL TABLE

On this day in…1988…Wembley was beckoning after Arsenal won 1-0 at Everton in the League Cup semi 1st leg

Arsenal

 

[gilliam]

Norwich:

Now why does the comment, “although I’m a student of history we’re talkin about today not years ago” (paraphrased I’m afraid) come to mind, something to do with the history of Palestine if I remember. Is this a case of “I can use history to justify my argument but you can’t”

I would suggest one major difference though, Most Brits acknowledge their imperial designs, most Americans are still in denial.

OK, then tell me what colonies the US has that it has obtained in the last 50 years? Hard to be an imperialist nation without gaining colonies. I don’t see how you can call the US an imperialist state, given the definition of imperialism.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

OK, then tell me what colonies the US has that it has obtained in the last 50 years?

So, 50 years is the benchmark? Then Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China have no imperialist history either. And neither does anyone else.

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

OK, then tell me what colonies the US has that it has obtained in the last 50 years? Hard to be an imperialist nation without gaining colonies. I don’t see how you can call the US an imperialist state, given the definition of imperialism.

There are a number of differing forms of imperialism. Militarily? try Granada, Cuba if you had the chance, Vietnam, you tried and lost.

How about economically. Unfortunately the board only allows I believe 5000 words per post so that rules out even a superficial list.

Lets pick just one simple example of American economic imperialism kiiling the livelyhood of one little country.

BANANAS. The UK and most of Europe used to buy their Bananas from the British Virgin Islands. It was virtually their sole source of income. Now enter the great American banana growers, under the banner of companies such as Fyffes. They complained to the American government that they were excluded from the European markets because we CHOSE to buy our products from someone not controlled by them. The American government, (like good liitle soldiers) threatened economic sanctions unless we (the UK and Europe) bought our bananas from them. Result? we are now lumbered with tasteless mass produced junk from cheap, almost slave laboured banana farms in South America and the economy of the little Virgin islands was almost wiped out in one single blow. What for? so some fat cat in California or wherever could biuld an extension to his swimming pool and live the life of Riley on someone elses misfortune. Very Christian!!!

Oh for the fulfilling of the Magnificat:

The rich shall be sent away empty,
The poor shall be filled witrh good things.

I pray for the day.

p.s. What about NIKE shoes?