A war that isn't called a war

I think there are plenty of conservatives that don't ignore the social impacts of war. Lots of people that consider themselves "conservative" would rather not see their tax dollars spent to "win" a political or tactical war game in another country.

I'm a Vietnam vet and was assigned to an advisory group that worked closely with the South Vietnamese Marine Corps. Some of them were just kids that had never experienced life without war.
Ignore it if you like, but the social impact is very real and many so called liberals and conservatives are getting sick of paying for wars so those that think it's a game can "win". Some wars are unavoidable. Iraq wasn't one of them.

You want to find a "Winner" in the Iraq war? Look to the suppliers and contractors.

 

I don't think the social impact was being ignore by Doug or I.

I will say that I think it falls short to declare so many war on this very land on social issues and then seemingly dismiss the need for such war on foreign lands. If you believe in something, you believe hard and true. Otherwise, it is just a game of convenience.

I also don't want to dismiss the cost of war. However, we should not forget the potential cost that accompanies sitting on the sidelines.

You and I definitely disagree on the Iraq war. And, that is okay. We allow ourselves for discourse in this country.

 

I was comparing Hawk and I's view against those of the liberal left and used Steelcity as an example since we've had many discussions between us. You also make my point for me, that you cannot judge success or failure of a war based upon social terms. War is not meant to be social. It is social failure in one form or another that leads to war. To me, the social and moral dilemma of war are separate than the tactical and political. As I said, what is the measure of success or failure of war based upon social agenda? There isn't one, so it will always be viewed as a failure in those terms.

 

I understood your point. I simply don't agree with the labeling of liberal and conservative relative to discounting social impacts in assessing the success of a war.

 

Hawks and pussies? Is that better, clearer?

I think you tried to make a point by brining the question of cost of waging war into the equation. It only complicated things but it facilitate your objection.

I maintain that there is a cost to inaction as well, but it is covenient to exclude in discussion of costs.

 

I wasn't objecting. Just giving my point of view.

Oh and Ostrich and Pussies is cleaner.

 

Keep them coming, your point of views. It is all good - debate.

I say convenient but, hey, with disagree. :up:


I don't actually believe the cost of the war/occupation is nearly as high as it is reported. Too often, the values provides include the baseline of operation or maintaining a force.

I have no issues with people raising issue on social fronts. I just think it is a bit hypocritical to fight so many war here and then forget those wars when we talk about what is going on foreign soils.

Just as hypocritical as awarding Citizenship's right to enemy combatant but not to innocent folks under captive dictators.

 

Why would you omit the baseline and maintaining a force costs?
As for the hypocrisy involved, well if people weren't hypocritical, there would be no wars.

 

McCain is right, BO needs to get over his hissy fit over Netanyahu.
Typical Obama, though, as thin-skinned as they come.
He loves to dish it out, but he can't take it.
He should stop picking fights; first Putin knocked him on his ass, and now Bibi is doing it.

 

Because, those cost would be incurred regardless.

That cost of war, should be the cost above baseline. IMO. That is the true additional cost of engagement.

Well, that would go to justify the many wars we have declared here in this country along social issues.

I maintain that we lack the honesty and courage to arrive at root cause so our problem solving is forever suspect.

 

I see. I thought you were talking about maintaing a force in Iraq.

 

Our president seems to be quick to condemn Netanyahu when it comes to what Obama wants to happen in Israel yet he forgets why Netanyahu is also intent on keeping that buffer area between Israel and the Palestinians. Keeping one's enemies farther away makes it a little harder for them to reach out and smack you upside the head.

 

ISIS Launches Salsa Night For Morale, Ends With 39 Beheaded

 

http://circa.com/politics/retired-a...ack-on-extortion-17-could-have-been-prevented

 

Them pigs is tough!

Wild boars rampage in Kirkuk leaving 3 Islamic State members dead

 

Whoa...I wonder if this causes them to lose the 72 virgins. Death by swine has got to be on the naughty list.

 

They get 72 sows.

 

Gilts...72 gilts