because the U.S. has more personnel in iraqi than in all those "other countries" combined. the iraqi occupation continues, as does the sunni insurgency, and americans are still dying. you can hardly blame Christian for saying the war isn't over. the U.S. embassy alone employs 15,000 people (though many would be locals and third nationals)Originally Posted by moll.
What do you think the end of the war looks like? They can't just dust their hands and walk off. Even after World War 2 ended, the Allied forces had tens of thousands of troops still stationed in Germany, Japan and Italy. They are still there. Would you suggest that World War 2 still hasn't ended then?
MEcon @ UNSW I
while it would be fun to pursue this line of enquiry, there are a number of things that distinguish this war from World War II and make the comparison spurious at best
1) the U.S. didn't start WWII.
2) WWII ended with an unqualified surrender by the axis.
3) the 'war' isn't over in iraq. the insurgency is ongoing, although seriously diminished.
i think the 'end of the war' looks like what it is now; with the withdrawal of the U.S. military and a iraqi civil administration that leans on U.S. military advice and aid, operations iraq remains crucial to the execution of the ongoing 'war on terror'. while there are similarities to the occupation of western europe and japan after WWII, this is a very different war, with a very different outcome.
Last edited by funkshen; 13 Nov 2012 at 12:31 PM.
1) Who starts something is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's about who finishes it. The US is seen to have just as much an obligation to Iraq as it did to Japan and Germany.
2) Operation Werwolf was ongoing for many years after the official end of hostilities and Japanese garrisons on islands that were cut off continued to fight for some time.
3) ibid.
Hell, the wikipedia page for Werwolf even has a section dedicated to explicit comparisons to the Iraq war. Bush declared it to be similar after the initial invasion in 2003, which was obviously wrong, but I would think that the comparison is a fair one now that the combat troops have left.
MEcon @ UNSW I
now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. what point are you trying to make? that the war in iraq is definitively over? no one disagrees that the withdrawal wasn't significant, but it didn't 'end the war'. technically, the war was over in 2003 after the fall of the ba'athist regime. that took a few weeks. the next 8 years were the occupation and reconstruction. on the other hand, the fall of the third reich took six years; was the product of a unqualified surrender, total military defeat, and international arbitration. the two are literally incomparable.
1) who starts the war isn't irrelevant. the fact that this was a thinly veiled war of aggression was a decisive factor in the lack of international support for it. and you don't think it mattered that nazi germany started world war II? i also don't know what your point about obligation means... the U.S. has no ongoing obligation to iraqi, nor did it ever have one for western europe and japan. rather, its ongoing role in these nations was contingent on the interest it had altering their historical trajectories
2) the comparison of the iraqi insurgency to werwolf is unfounded. numerically, the two are incomparable. at its peak, the insurgency numbered ~130,000... werwolf was a canard and no one can say for sure that any organised resistance ever existed or for how long. the japanese holdouts only numbered in the hundreds at most, a fact attributable to the nationalist zealotry of imperial japan and miscommunication. not only that, but the iraqi insurgency is also related to historically unique circumstances (a global war on terror, transnational terrorism, pan-islamism/arabism so on and so forth) that render a comparison to the past useless.
the comparison of world war II to iraq is spurious at best and i don't know whether you're making the point you want to make. if the point is that obama 'ended' the iraq war, that was already scheduled to happen. the iraqi government was on a timeline for assuming full responsibility - mostly corresponding to the decimation of the insurgency. of course, while republicans like McCain criticised the decision, Bush is actually the one who set the december, 2011 deadline for withdrawal, so i'm not entirely convinced that McCain wouldve handled the withdrawal any differently. we'll never know. but tens of thousands of americans remain in iraq, some performing functions that are perilously close to combat roles. i don't think the war is over.
Last edited by funkshen; 13 Nov 2012 at 10:18 PM.
If offered I would take up the job.
but it would mean that you couldn't post here anymore
My campaign newsletters would reach millions though; while my ruleage would reach Americas 300+ million and the rest of the worlds population.
it would be a golden age my friend... god speed
This is not entirely relevant to this thread, but whether I was president of America, prime minister of Australia or some other title, I would be the best (and most humane) dictator the world has ever seen.
If you want to discuss what we would do as PM of Australia, feel free to create another another thread (I think I have started one of these previously but can't find it now) and we can discuss it there. In essence I would be a cross between Pauline Hanson and Bob Green on steroids.
Supreme overlord.
And indeed you would.
This signature is false
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
PO Box 5692 West Chatswood, Sydney NSW 1515
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks