Why do cons continue to refuse to learn from history about who will eventually prevail in Iraq?

Question

History is RIFE with examples of a technologically inferior enemy defeating a superior enemy because of superior tactics.

The American Revolution, the Vietnam War, the German barbarians' defeat of the Roman Empire, even Hitler's defeat by the Russians are examples.

Let's use Hitler's example. Hitler's forces were vastly technologically superior to Stalin's, but they were finite and their supply lines were overstretched. Conversely, Stalin had limitless local supplies, endless numbers of human cannon fodder and outside economic aid.

Likewise, US forces in Iraq are technologically superior but finite. The US can't continue to equip and supply several hundred thousand high tech troops overseas indefinitely. Conversely, insurgent forces are virtually limitless, all they need is AK-47s and RPGs, and they are well funded by outside groups.
It's got nothing to do with whose cause is "more just" and everything to do with which tactic is superior. And history has shown that.

If you think nuclear weapons are a viable option, then you're either a complete idiot or a certified lunatic.

Either way, your opinion is not worthy of a moment's consideration.

Refusing to acknowledge the reality of history on the basis that "we'll prevail in this instance and buck the tide of history because our cause is more just" is just arrogant egocentrism masquerading as morality.

EVERYONE in a conflict believes their cause is the "more just", or otherwise they wouldn't be there. The "justness" of a cause is just a subjective, ego-centered perception which has little actual impact on the outcome of a conflict.

Who prevails in a conflict is determined by who uses the superior tactic. Just like everything else in nature, the survival of the fittest principle favors the superior tactic in a conflict, regardless of how strongly the participants believe in their "cause".

And history has provided overwhelming evidence of which tactic is superior.

How typical that you claim that I'm anti-American. Killing the messenger is a classic response by those who desperately wish to remain in denial.

It's okay. I know I'm doing honor to those who have fallen by expressing the very thing for which they fell, my cherished right to express an opinion dissenting from the herd.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Answer 1

The Iraqi occupation will end when there is no more profit to be made by the founders. The founders being Mcdonald,Kellog&Root.(Halliburton). As long as the stock keeps climbing the deaths will also.

Answer 2

If nothing else, history has taught us that the enemy with the most resolve, unity and commitment will always prevail. The anti-war sentiment in this country, though well intentioned as it may be and regardless of the objectives or necessity of our policies, will always diminish our effectiveness in any conflict.
The North Vietnamese were defeated militarily in every major battle ever fought in Viet Nam, including their dismal and complete failure during the TET offensive, yet they won the public relations battle in the U.S. and finally achieved victory in ousting the American troops. The anti-war (at any cost) movement in this country takes pride in this while at the same time apparently dismissing the horrendous slaughter of innocent people that followed our withdrawal.
The Islamic radical tactics are not "superior" - they routinely murder innocent people and perpetrate terror every chance they get - and they know that the more chaos they can create, the more ammunition they give the anti-war movement to throw in the towel and surrender to their demands.
We are at war - and we are easily capable of winning this war - but we are once again battling two fronts: the terrorist front in Iraq and the opposition on the home front.
It is my oppinion that we either seriously get down to business and fight this war or we get the hell out and accept defeat - this isn't some kind of chess game to be debated and half heartedly undertaken - our young soldiers are on the front lines and in harms way - and we have politicians telling the enemy that we have lost the war, initating immediate withdrawal proposals and drafts for a set withdrawal date - the terrorist tactics aren't superior - it's simply our tactics that lack the commitment and resolve to completely reject defeat as an option.
Not one single person who wants an immediate withdrawal will be willing or responsible enough to accept the consequences of such a policy - they see only the immediate and obvious benefits of getting our troops back home and to hell with the Iraqi people who have supported us and the commitments we have made or the consequences of allowing the radicals a victory.

Answer 3

if your definition of winning is loseing, then yes RPGs and AK47 and small terrorist attacks will cause Americans and Iraqi to abbandon all progress and leave. This is a desperate attempt by arabs to keep Iraq from having a free elected government. They see what happens to Islamic countries when they have free elections, they turn secular. Look at Turkey, they are protesting the idea of voting in Islam as the Official religion of Turkey. So that is why Islamic Mosques are not helping the Iraqi government. This is not like Vietnam where the US was making more mistakes with less equipment while fighting an organized force. The US will eventually leave most of the camps in Iraq, except for Camp Liberty, which will end up being a new permanent base. ( I work for KBR in Iraq, the military has already shifted camps and turned areas over to the Iraqis.) Things are getting better over here and the US isnt even trying as hard as they could.

Answer 4

I guess we should just give up on innovative thinking right? First of all we aren't fighting a nation united for a cause. Instead we are fighting in a nation that is beginning to unite for the cause of taking back their country from terrorists. The Iraqis are getting tired of the terrrorists and want them gone. Secondly, the terrorists aren't fighting with limitless local supplies. If they are... they are probably getting them from Iran. That would be similar to what happened in Vietnam except that the people in Vietnam were more united and lacking resources but thanks to the endless supply coming from the Soviet Union we were not successful. Iran doesn't have an endless supply of arms or other resources so our chances for success are much higher than they were in Vietnam. Are you saying that anytime we come up against something difficult that resembles someone's past failure that we can't learn from it and be more successful next time? And therefore we should just not even try! And next time someone small attacks our country that we should just roll over and take it because small people have a history of winning due to their superior tactics? Maybe we should just give up and let them run the U.S. That is what Islamic Fascism wants.

Answer 5

Yes, history is filled with examples as you mention. However, you forget the one important aspect for defeat. the will to continue and the command structure.

The 'superior" tactics you mention is their willingness to sacrifice themselves and others for their objectives and somehow blame the other "guy" for the carnage.

It is their willingness to continue the fight even though they suffer huge losses. Their willingness to recruit and control the minions who will sacrifice themselves.

Of course, if there were disagreement; perhaps dissent about the lives lost .. those dissenters would not be allowed to dissent any longer so, in that regard, through fear and intimidation they become stronger. if we did not have censorship during WWII, the support for the war, eroding rapidly towards the end woudl not have been so great.

Could we sustain ourselves in Iraq? Sure we could if we were not a somewhat free society. if we did not allow "freedoms' to our adversary and freedom of the press to cause dissent at home and did not care about public opinion or, if we were trying to make Iraq a colony, we coudl do what the insurgency is doing and control through terror. However, because of the rules of engagement, because we tried to show that once we defeated the Iraq army, we used restraint and set ourselves up for what has come.

But ask the Kurds if they would be happier without our intervention. Many will not say publicly but .. the adversaries are using our weakness (or, is it really our strength?) against us.

The IRA, Vietnamese, Russians, all those you mentioned and yes, even Ghandi learned this lesson but, it will only work if the other force tries to fight with constraint or "by the rules" which put them in harms way. I am NOT saying we should use the same tactics: on the contrary, I am just making an observation. if we are worried about civilian casualties, and we are, it limits our ability to fight them. we successfully won the first part but after, in an attempt to be benign, we did not declare martial law, we did not stop commerce and "lock down" the population. this allowed the adversary to work its way into the fabric, consolidate their hold and power to fight against us which was proven to be accomplishing what they seek. To have us tire and defeat ourselves by losing the will to see this through. Our adversaries know this. they saw the English, the french and yes the US tire of "lsot causes. all one has to do is prolong it and we lose interest and the will.

And no, I am not saying Germany lost because of "constraint" and "playing by the rules". they lost because of decisions made by the command back home, inadequate support and not allowing commanders in the field to make decisions. it is the same reason that the Normandy invasion was successful for the allies. had the commanders had the ability to make decisions earlier during the invasion, the outcome might have been totally different.

germany lost becasue they created two fronts in which to fight. and yes, their supplies were limited. are ours? only if we allow it.

Answer 6

The enemy is finite, as well. And you know they are being armed by "outside groups" which should tell you why we cannot leave.

Answer 7

after reading your anti american questions on here, iam thinking since you seem to have all the answers that you should deploy and save us all. you can come back and bash me here if you like but it would be better to meet a fool like you face to face.

Answer 8

You want Iran to win? Sounds like it.

Answer 9

its the liberals that hold back total victory..hello they hate America and want us to lose to terrorist..and let Iran have a nuke to use on NYC..I hope your happy ...

Answer 10

I have a test you can take