"Sabotage in Wartime"

eagle33199 · Oct 16, 2007

As i've made pretty abundantly clear, Berman, every war is a loss for both sides. The expenditure in life, materials, and dollars is something that we can never regain. THAT is what i'm measuring winning and loosing against. Not the artificial political goals of the parties involved.

If you want to define it differently, and downplay these losses because certain political goals were met, go for it - i won't stop you. I guess it really comes down to how high of a cost you're willing to endure to gain your political objectives.

FWIW, i think the Cold War was the closest we've come yet to a win. There wasn't any real open conflict, no massive loss of life. Of course, the building of so many WMD's (and the associated billions of dollars in design, construction, testing, and storage) will never be regained and places the world in a de-facto state of eminent destruction as long as they are around.

dbermanmd · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 16 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]526380[/snapback]</div>

Dr. Black & White being intentionally obtuse again....doesn't ever get old for you David?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Not really Evan, especially when somebody posts something so silly like there are no winners in war. Of course there are - societies/cultures win or lose - obviously. the point is that there are always times that arise that tests a society or culture - that involves either its destruction or its continued survival. There are no Spartans or Athenians today. The Church was separated from the state through the death of many. Nazism was destroyed by the sacrifice of many - Nazism was born how? That is where this thread is going. Sometimes Evan there is black and white - lying, stealing, right v wrong.... The problem I believe is when people only see gray - that there are no winners in war.... it is this "gray zone" that allows for the creation of forces like Nazism or fascism ... and .... drum play..... allowing a nuclear armed Iran is in this same vein - of seeing gray when black and white is what should be in focus.

did you ever get that wine.. Three Rings - Shiraz -- totally amazing and not expensive - about $16/bottle

eagle33199 · Oct 16, 2007

As you so eloquently indicated Berman, your definition of a "win" is entirely political. If the political objectives of an engagement are met, then the cost doesn't matter. It still must be a "win".

I would whole heartedly agree with you that some wars (only a very few, though) are necessary. WWI and WWII were, from our point of view, necessary. To maintain our way of life we had to participate in those wars. But for me, at least, the cost of those wars made it a loss for both sides - One side simply lost more than the other.

dbermanmd · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 12:21 PM) [snapback]526398[/snapback]</div>

As i've made pretty abundantly clear, Berman, every war is a loss for both sides. The expenditure in life, materials, and dollars is something that we can never regain. THAT is what i'm measuring winning and loosing against. Not the artificial political goals of the parties involved.

If you want to define it differently, and downplay these losses because certain political goals were met, go for it - i won't stop you. I guess it really comes down to how high of a cost you're willing to endure to gain your political objectives.

FWIW, i think the Cold War was the closest we've come yet to a win. There wasn't any real open conflict, no massive loss of life. Of course, the building of so many WMD's (and the associated billions of dollars in design, construction, testing, and storage) will never be regained and places the world in a de-facto state of eminent destruction as long as they are around.
[/b]
Click to expand...

if you look at war at a very basic level wars involve the loss of life. the fact that there are people who believe in their countries or societies, etc right to survive is the amazing thing. there is a winner for each war as there is a loser - for most wars. you refer to artificial political goals - please explain - do you believe people in democracies sacrifice life and limb for "artificial political goals"? I believe you diminish the purposes of war or the reasons behind human conflict - it is you who define it to a what i believe is a self serving level -.

i will agree using your definitions of win here in war, Reagan was masterful in his defeat of the soviets in WWIII. he was only able to do this because the democrats and the minority party at that time whomever it was was always behind the president and the common goal of defeating communism in a world wide battleground that involved numerous hot conflicts around the world including korea, vietnam, afghanistan.... sound like our current war on terror - doesnt it?????????

lastly, remember, if we were ever to lose a war it would make no difference how much money or treasure we had.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]526412[/snapback]</div>

As you so eloquently indicated Berman, your definition of a "win" is entirely political. If the political objectives of an engagement are met, then the cost doesn't matter. It still must be a "win".

I would whole heartedly agree with you that some wars (only a very few, though) are necessary. WWI and WWII were, from our point of view, necessary. To maintain our way of life we had to participate in those wars. But for me, at least, the cost of those wars made it a loss for both sides - One side simply lost more than the other.
[/b]
Click to expand...

we are nearing common ground here. i hold the term political here heavier than you do. there are more than political objectives obviously if a democracy goes to war. i think most wars turn out to be necessary - again if democracies are involved in them.

i would add to your list of necessary wars:
1. the War of Independence
2. the Korean War

i would ? WWI - true - as being absolutely necessary

again if you view war on a personal basis you can construct the equations you are operating by - but i would favor looking at war(s) from a larger perspective - i think it creates an environment in which accuracy and truth have a better chance of being appreciated and discovered.

efusco · Oct 16, 2007

No one said the political goals are artifical David. And no one said that war is always unnecessary...those are opinions you're projecting on them, not that they've stated.

1)Political goals can be a justification for war...but just b/c a political goal is achieved and thus one side become the 'winner' of the war does not mean that both sides didn't also 'lose' in terms of loss of life, loss of wealth, loss of innocence. And sometimes those political wins that seem to important at the time are of minimal significance in hind-sight.
2)Political goals are better achieved via diplomacy...better for both sides. Admittedly this isn't always possible, but because of the 'losses' suffered from war war should always be the last resort.
3)Sometimes if we lose so much in war for minor political gains then it could all end up for naught.

eagle33199 · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 16 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]526416[/snapback]</div>

if you look at war at a very basic level wars involve the loss of life. the fact that there are people who believe in their countries or societies, etc right to survive is the amazing thing. there is a winner for each war as there is a loser - for most wars. you refer to artificial political goals - please explain - do you believe people in democracies sacrifice life and limb for "artificial political goals"? I believe you diminish the purposes of war or the reasons behind human conflict - it is you who define it to a what i believe is a self serving level -.

i will agree using your definitions of win here in war, Reagan was masterful in his defeat of the soviets in WWIII. he was only able to do this because the democrats and the minority party at that time whomever it was was always behind the president and the common goal of defeating communism in a world wide battleground that involved numerous hot conflicts around the world including korea, vietnam, afghanistan.... sound like our current war on terror - doesnt it?????????

lastly, remember, if we were ever to lose a war it would make no difference how much money or treasure we had.
[/b]
Click to expand...

As it's been pointed out many, many times to you, Berman, Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. Al Queda wasn't operating in Iraq until after we invaded. The War on Terror should be focused at the terrorists. We can work with world governments to seek them out and destroy them, while leaving the existing governments and societies unchanged. We can impose political and economic sanctions on those countries that are supporting terrorists, without having to resort to a war. The very last thing we want to do is create an environment like we have in Iraq - it's a breeding ground for terrorists.

we are nearing common ground here. i hold the term political here heavier than you do. there are more than political objectives obviously if a democracy goes to war. i think most wars turn out to be necessary - again if democracies are involved in them.

i would add to your list of necessary wars:
1. the War of Independence
2. the Korean War

i would ? WWI - true - as being absolutely necessary

again if you view war on a personal basis you can construct the equations you are operating by - but i would favor looking at war(s) from a larger perspective - i think it creates an environment in which accuracy and truth have a better chance of being appreciated and discovered.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Why are you insisting that if a Democracy goes to war it has to be about more than just political objectives? Do you think the people who make decisions - The President, Congress - consider all that much more than political objectives? Make no mistake - Iraq is a wholly political war that Bush started. Too bad it backfired on him.

What you seem to be lacking is an understanding of diplomacy. In many cases, wars can be averted through the proper use of diplomacy. Thats what we should have done in Iraq. Thats what we should do in Iran. And thats what we're currently doing in NoKo. War is a very personal thing for everyone involved. If you want to try to look at it from a broader perspective, like a game of RISK, then sure, you have a winning and loosing side. But to do so completely strips away our humanity. It turns our soldiers into nothing more than cannon fodder for a political game. Our country is about more than national defense and politics. It's about the people. In many cases, those who make the decision to go to war forget about those people and what this does to them.

dbermanmd · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]526457[/snapback]</div>

As it's been pointed out many, many times to you, Berman, Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. Al Queda wasn't operating in Iraq until after we invaded. The War on Terror should be focused at the terrorists. We can work with world governments to seek them out and destroy them, while leaving the existing governments and societies unchanged. We can impose political and economic sanctions on those countries that are supporting terrorists, without having to resort to a war. The very last thing we want to do is create an environment like we have in Iraq - it's a breeding ground for terrorists.
Why are you insisting that if a Democracy goes to war it has to be about more than just political objectives? Do you think the people who make decisions - The President, Congress - consider all that much more than political objectives? Make no mistake - Iraq is a wholly political war that Bush started. Too bad it backfired on him.

What you seem to be lacking is an understanding of diplomacy. In many cases, wars can be averted through the proper use of diplomacy. Thats what we should have done in Iraq. Thats what we should do in Iran. And thats what we're currently doing in NoKo. War is a very personal thing for everyone involved. If you want to try to look at it from a broader perspective, like a game of RISK, then sure, you have a winning and loosing side. But to do so completely strips away our humanity. It turns our soldiers into nothing more than cannon fodder for a political game. Our country is about more than national defense and politics. It's about the people. In many cases, those who make the decision to go to war forget about those people and what this does to them.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Name 5 wars averted via diplomacy in mankinds history:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 16 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]526420[/snapback]</div>

No one said the political goals are artifical David. And no one said that war is always unnecessary...those are opinions you're projecting on them, not that they've stated.

1)Political goals can be a justification for war...but just b/c a political goal is achieved and thus one side become the 'winner' of the war does not mean that both sides didn't also 'lose' in terms of loss of life, loss of wealth, loss of innocence. And sometimes those political wins that seem to important at the time are of minimal significance in hind-sight.
2)Political goals are better achieved via diplomacy...better for both sides. Admittedly this isn't always possible, but because of the 'losses' suffered from war war should always be the last resort.
3)Sometimes if we lose so much in war for minor political gains then it could all end up for naught.
[/b]
Click to expand...

A winner in war i believe goes beyond the accomplishment of political goals.

We will agree that hind-sight is 20-20 and if were able to operate in hind-sight there would be fewer wars - if those that wanted to push the button on going to war knew they were going to bite it, then they would just surrender or change their strategy.

i like diplomacy first - problem is it rarely works.

wars tend to become reality when one side believes it can beat the other side - hence the need for deterrence and the demonstration of the willingness to use the deterrence. that is the greatest diplomacy - unfortunately. you can never negotiate from a position of weakness.

defining minor when it comes to gains or losses is done best by history decades or more after the event - again unfortunately.

RobH · Oct 16, 2007

Of course there are winners in war. The primary winners are the suppliers of the materials used in war. Of those directly involved in the combat, there are the people who advance to higher positions of authority. And then there are all the workers who rebuild after the war. Lots of "winners" and "gainers" here. Wars are frequently over territory and resources. The winners gain control of that territory and the resources there. Since I live in California, I would say that I am one of the "winners" of the Mexican-American war. If the US had not fought that battle, my grandparents would never have been able to migrate from New England.

If we lose in Iraq, oil is going to be even more expensive. We are winning there now just by maintaining the presence we have.

On the other hand, the cost of our presence in Iraq is more than I am willing to pay. The damage to the Iraqis is probably higher than what Sadam was doing to them. These people have been fighting each other at least a long as there is recorded history. And we think that we can go in and settle everything in a few years?

What Nancy Pelosi and the democrats are doing is a war of attrition. They won't win the current battle, but it is a necessary part of winning future battles. Just as in Vietnam, opposition to the war started by a few people on the fringes of society, and eventually became government policy. It took a lot of blood and failed battles, but eventually policy changed. While burning draft cards was the height of disrespect for authority, I notice that we no longer have a draft.

Who won WWII? I'd say that General Motors came out in a very strong position. They earned respect for their efforts as a war supplier. Unfortunately that respect is getting a little thin after 60 years of their waving the flag. Maybe they need to do something good for the American people again in order to regain that respect. Like advocating high mileage vehicles.

efusco · Oct 16, 2007

Name 5 wars averted via diplomacy in mankinds history:[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL!!! You've got to be kidding...I can't name 5 wars averted by diplomacy b/c they didn't happen.
Here's one for you...name 5 children never born because of abortion.

Diplomacy typically averts major conflicts before they become major conflicts. Once the issues have become irreversible then war is inevitable.

I'm quite sure if one were to go through the minutes of the UN we could find many many diplomatic solutions reached that, had they not been reached, could easily have escalated to conflict/war.

mojo · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 16 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]526503[/snapback]</div>

Name 5 wars averted via diplomacy in mankinds history:

[/b]
Click to expand...

WW 3,WW4,WW5,WW6,WW7

Pinto Girl · Oct 16, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 16 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]526503[/snapback]</div>

...if those that wanted to push the button on going to war knew they were going to bite it, then they would just surrender or change their strategy.

[/b]
Click to expand...

It goes both ways; if those who push the button on war are absolutely convinced they'll win, war is inevitable.

Thank goodness this doesn't describe our country!!

dbermanmd · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RobH @ Oct 16 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]526517[/snapback]</div>

Of course there are winners in war. The primary winners are the suppliers of the materials used in war. Of those directly involved in the combat, there are the people who advance to higher positions of authority. And then there are all the workers who rebuild after the war. Lots of "winners" and "gainers" here. Wars are frequently over territory and resources. The winners gain control of that territory and the resources there. Since I live in California, I would say that I am one of the "winners" of the Mexican-American war. If the US had not fought that battle, my grandparents would never have been able to migrate from New England.

If we lose in Iraq, oil is going to be even more expensive. We are winning there now just by maintaining the presence we have.

On the other hand, the cost of our presence in Iraq is more than I am willing to pay. The damage to the Iraqis is probably higher than what Sadam was doing to them. These people have been fighting each other at least a long as there is recorded history. And we think that we can go in and settle everything in a few years?

What Nancy Pelosi and the democrats are doing is a war of attrition. They won't win the current battle, but it is a necessary part of winning future battles. Just as in Vietnam, opposition to the war started by a few people on the fringes of society, and eventually became government policy. It took a lot of blood and failed battles, but eventually policy changed. While burning draft cards was the height of disrespect for authority, I notice that we no longer have a draft.

Who won WWII? I'd say that General Motors came out in a very strong position. They earned respect for their efforts as a war supplier. Unfortunately that respect is getting a little thin after 60 years of their waving the flag. Maybe they need to do something good for the American people again in order to regain that respect. Like advocating high mileage vehicles.
[/b]
Click to expand...

"If we lose in Iraq, oil is going to be even more expensive." Why and how do you say this?

"On the other hand, the cost of our presence in Iraq is more than I am willing to pay. How much were you willing to pay and how much do you think it really has affected our economy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 16 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]526518[/snapback]</div>

LOL!!! You've got to be kidding...I can't name 5 wars averted by diplomacy b/c they didn't happen.
Here's one for you...name 5 children never born because of abortion.

Diplomacy typically averts major conflicts before they become major conflicts. Once the issues have become irreversible then war is inevitable.

I'm quite sure if one were to go through the minutes of the UN we could find many many diplomatic solutions reached that, had they not been reached, could easily have escalated to conflict/war.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Very good my friend. Now the real question... How many conflicts that were headed towards war did diplomacy effect a peaceful resolution? I cannot accept solutions like Chamberlain's move prior to the onset of WWII. I honestly cant think of one instance in which diplomacy prevented a shooting war.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 16 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]526519[/snapback]</div>

WW 3,WW4,WW5,WW6,WW7
[/b]
Click to expand...

Nice try...

WWIII - the Cold War
WW IV - the war on terror
wwV - coming to you eventually - unfortunately...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 16 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]526607[/snapback]</div>

It goes both ways; if those who push the button on war are absolutely convinced they'll win, war is inevitable.

Thank goodness this doesn't describe our country!!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant - insightful - honestly. It is the common denominator for geopolitical behavioral patterns. It is the purest reason why societies must always burden themselves with the expense of maintaining a military/technological deterrence "force".

It is the major reason that the Cold War was exactly that and why other conflicts involved significant losses of life.

It is also very interestingly being tested in this current global conflict with Islamoterrorism - interesting in how they intentionally do not have a "home base" or "capital" - how they are forcing us to redefine the way we employ our deterrence and force (if they detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil how do we respond?) - how we must redefine victories and success, etc. One of the largest failures of this administration is educating Americans about this.

In any event the bottom line remains the same - we should never ever allow our enemies the smallest inkling of thought that any move against us will advance their cause or motives. Again, imho we currently are failing in this regard.

eagle33199 · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2007, 06:27 AM) [snapback]526767[/snapback]</div>

Very good my friend. Now the real question... How many conflicts that were headed towards war did diplomacy effect a peaceful resolution? I cannot accept solutions like Chamberlain's move prior to the onset of WWII. I honestly cant think of one instance in which diplomacy prevented a shooting war.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about the whole England/Iran problem a while back, where Iran arrested some English navy people for violating there territorial waters? That very easily could have turned into a shooting war - but diplomacy prevailed and the sailors were returned.

There are incidents every year that could escalate into war. Diplomacy prevents most of them. In many cases, diplomacy is so good that you never hear about it.

efusco · Oct 17, 2007

David's question is virtually unanswerable..the kind he loves to propose. While there are, no doubt, foreign affairs historians who write thesis on this very subject I'm sure there's a lot of debate as to which diplomatic measures actually successfully averted war. There can be no proof for either view. So no matter how you answer David can disagree. Hence my lack of a response.

If David were honestly interested in the answer to his own question, he's not, he would google "diplomacy averted war".
http://www.google.com/search?q=diplomacy+a...lient=firefox-a

300k hits, not all of which are unique or pertainent, but many different countries and periods represented where it was felt that war was averted by diplomacy. I'm sure a more refined search would reveal many more.

Darwood · Oct 17, 2007

Who "won" vietnam?

dbermanmd · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 17 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]526870[/snapback]</div>

How about the whole England/Iran problem a while back, where Iran arrested some English navy people for violating there territorial waters? That very easily could have turned into a shooting war - but diplomacy prevailed and the sailors were returned.

There are incidents every year that could escalate into war. Diplomacy prevents most of them. In many cases, diplomacy is so good that you never hear about it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

cute but nope. not even on the horizon of being part of a larger conflict. try again.

efusco · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]526891[/snapback]</div>

cute but nope. not even on the horizon of being part of a larger conflict. try again. [/b]
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: See...ever so predictible!

dbermanmd · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Oct 17 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]526888[/snapback]</div>

Who "won" vietnam?
[/b]
Click to expand...

obviously we did... the sued us for most favored trading nation - they have become the Asia's "Canada" of the US......

are you speaking in military or political terms when referring to the Vietnam War?
if you are referring to the military aspect the US did - hands down
if you are referring toe the political aspect of it - they did. and it was a brilliant plan one that is being followed by the Islamofascists of today with the help of some large media outlets and a political party - again the same players as during the Vietnam War - just a bit older and grayer. wonder why Arafat went to NoVietnam early in his terror career?

our enemies have only to win the media/political battle to win a war today - sad but true - a very large 5th column here in the US.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 17 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]526893[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: See...ever so predictible!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Evan,

you honestly thought the kidnapping of a few British Sailors was part of an over larger looming conflict? HOnestly. heck, England would have trouble invading france today much less sending forces around the globe. they could not even do the falklands war without help 20+ years ago. and they are mothballing an additional 40% of their navy... iran for sure is not afraid of england today - zero chance for war there. let that scenario be iran kidnapping american sailors and i will answer differently.

RobH · Oct 17, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Oct 17 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]526888[/snapback]</div>

Who "won" vietnam?
[/b]
Click to expand...

The first ones that come to mind are McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, and Monsanto.

eagle33199 · Oct 17, 2007

Never mind treaties between England and America... nevermind the fact that, if the sailors weren't returned Bush would have been more than happy to help out against Iran...

"Sabotage in Wartime"

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

RobH Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

mojo Senior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

Darwood Senior Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

RobH Senior Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

"Sabotage in Wartime"

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

RobH Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

mojo Senior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

Darwood Senior Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

RobH Senior Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member