A Comparison for What the War Resembles

[Danimal87]

I think a good comparison for the war in Iraq would be the Phillipine-American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War), from 1899-1913. With all the charges of U.S. imperialism I hear, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone draw a correlation yet.

There are some fallacies in the comparison, of course. We were in the Phillipines for a much more selfish reason than in Iraq, and we lost close to twice the amount of men that we have so far lost in Iraq. However, it seems to be a much more fitting comparison than Vietnam.

[bergshadow]

We were in the Phillipines for a much more selfish reason than in Iraq, and we lost close to twice the amount of men that we have so far lost in Iraq. I think few reasons for invasion could be more selfish than those behind invading Iraq, and the casualties in Iraq should be at least doubled for fair estimation of the violence involved (we have many more surviving brain-injured and burned, etc, from Iraq), but otherwise the comparison seems reasonable.

One big difference might be geopolitical context - Iraq's location amid important neighbors with immediate borders makes a difference, IMHO. Vietnam had border states.

[jeravicious]

I think few reasons for invasion could be more selfish than those behind invading Iraq
....


(sarcasm on)

Indeed.....

Ridding the country of a brutal dictator who oppressed 80% of it's people there and allowing for free and Democratic elections is....selfish of us.

Democracy cannot be forced through military action....and don't let the lesson of Japan after WWII tell you otherwise....

(sarcasm off)

[MelL]

The removal of Saddam Husein was a *by-product* of the invasion, which was claimed to protect the United States and the world.

[jeravicious]

The removal of Saddam Husein was a *by-product* of the invasion, which was claimed to protect the United States and the world.

Regime change policy in Iraq, which is NOT merely a policy of containment, was official U.S. policy signed under Bill Clinton.

[Chewy]

Regime change policy in Iraq, which is NOT merely a policy of containment, was official U.S. policy signed under Bill Clinton.Bush Sr. was ok with containment too. or did you forget? :rolleyes:

[jeravicious]

Bush Sr. was ok with containment too. or did you forget? :rolleyes:

And....Clinton took office....And....signed Regime Change Policy....And...attacked Iraq in 1998 using the SAME WMD evidence and SAME UN Authorization as Bush did in 2003.

What's your point again???

[Chewy]

And....Clinton took office....And....signed Regime Change Policy....And...attacked Iraq in 1998 using the SAME WMD evidence and SAME UN Authorization as Bush did in 2003.

What's your point again???

..... and Bush took office... and invade a country on flimsy evidence and covered his ass with a regime change…. What’s your point?

[jeravicious]

..... and Bush took office... and invade a country on flimsy evidence and covered his ass with a regime change…. What’s your point?

Saddam thanks you for your support.

[Chewy]

Saddam thanks you for your support.
What you think this war in Iraq was about Freedom for Iraqis??? :lmao:

No wait maybe we are bringing them Baseball and apple pie! :lmao:

[Electrify]

I think jeravicious is being sarcastic and is giving an impression of a redneck trailer trash Bush supporter. Given how he said in his first post he was being sarcastic.

If not, he is just one of the mere 25% of Americans who eat up everything and anything Fox News feeds them and still supports the President.

[MooCowzRock]

I think jeravicious is being sarcastic and is giving an impression of a redneck trailer trash Bush supporter. Given how he said in his first post he was being sarcastic.

If not, he is just one of the mere 25% of Americans who eat up everything and anything Fox News feeds them and still supports the President.
Ah, so just because someone supports the government in some of its actions, they are blind redneck trailer trash? Christ, its like you think that poeple should completely oppose the government, in every action it does no matter what!

What makes blind opposition ANY better than blind support???

[Chewy]

What makes blind opposition ANY better than blind support???
I think you make a good point, following the agenda of any organization blindly is foolish endeavor.

[Electrify]

Ah, so just because someone supports the government in some of its actions, they are blind redneck trailer trash? Christ, its like you think that poeple should completely oppose the government, in every action it does no matter what!

What makes blind opposition ANY better than blind support???
I'm not talking about blind opposition or support, I'm talking about supporting a war that was brought on by false pretenses, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and is bankrupting the US more and more each day...

[MooCowzRock]

I'm not talking about blind opposition or support, I'm talking about supporting a war that was brought on by false pretenses, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and is bankrupting the US more and more each day...
Compltely arguable, though. And the fact that we are able to debate it shows that some people dont necessarily blindly follow it. Both sides have a case.

Now, if someone followed every single one of the president's actions no matter what they were, however wron and unjust, and they are completely unable to defend them, then they are blindly supporting them. An example would be board members such as "anti-liberal." Being completely against another side, no matter what the issue, is blind opposition.

[jeravicious]

I think jeravicious is being sarcastic and is giving an impression of a redneck trailer trash Bush supporter. Given how he said in his first post he was being sarcastic.

If not, he is just one of the mere 25% of Americans who eat up everything and anything Fox News feeds them and still supports the President.

*yawn*.....

Is this always the Left's response??

That we are blind sheep on the Right who listen to Rush and watch FOX News??

lol....

First, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh for years...I prefer to watch MSNBC instead of FOX, and I disagree with the President on many issues.

Some examples?? I'm pro-choice, an Atheist and have no problem with gay marriage...that can hardly be considered "blindly" following the Bush party line.

I can understand that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but yours is just an opinion...there are others who might disagree with you...and to discount these opinions as just "brainwashing" is naive and foolish.

[Synch]

meh at least Mckinley served in the army and fought in combat.

[Danimal87]

I think few reasons for invasion could be more selfish than those behind invading Iraq
Looking out for our own security is "selfish", I suppose. It is self-centered, in that we are looking out for our own.
and the casualties in Iraq should be at least doubled for fair estimation of the violence involved (we have many more surviving brain-injured and burned, etc, from Iraq),
If you want a wounded comparison, then the numbers are there in the article I provided. No need to double the american dead to somehow compensate for the more wounded we have in this war than in the Filipino War.
During the war, 4,324 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded.
but otherwise the comparison seems reasonable.
Well thanks. I'm surprised that no one hardly ever talks about this, considering we lost twice the amount of men there than we have so far in Iraq. You'd think it might come up with the war against Japan. My last year's history book was the only place I've seen it discussed.

[MelL]

Regime change policy in Iraq, which is NOT merely a policy of containment, was official U.S. policy signed under Bill Clinton.


But was it *the* goal of the invasion? No, it was not, the goal of the invasion was to protect the United States and the world from Iraq, whether one believes the government on that or not. It wasn't until people raised eyebrows that the people of Iraq, democracy, and terrorism really began to become focal points for supporting military action in Iraq.

[Sketcher]

What you think this war in Iraq was about Freedom for Iraqis???

You may think that it's funny, but it's really not far-fetched at all. Why is it so hard to believe?

[bergshadow]

No need to double the american dead to somehow compensate for the more wounded we have in this war than in the Filipino War. Maybe, though. Comparisons of dead and wounded are often used to sort of mentally estimate the intensity of a war. Simply including the severely and permanently crippled in Iraq as "wounded", who would have been dead in 1910, underestimates the Iraq war IMHO.

I'm surprised that no one hardly ever talks about this, considering we lost twice the amount of men there than we have so far in Iraq. One theory there is that the parallels are too close in certain ways, and throw the Iraq war into a bad light. The Philippine war is generally classed with a couple of the less savory Indian wars, as being a shameful chapter of US history excused only by the benighted times.

The public reasons for the war were very similar to the second tier of public reasons for invading Iraq, for example: bringing civilization to the natives, doing them a favor, saving the grateful majority from bad guys and oppression. The private and corporate motives were clearly similar as well (gold rush opportunity). The military motives were similar (projection of force into a valuable region).

And the treatment of the natives, including the secrecy, shows obvious parallels. It's kind of interesting how the waterboarding turns up in certain kinds of conflict and not others. And how destroying villages to save them did not begin (or end, as we've seen) in Vietnam.

But to discuss parallels with the Philippine war one would need a general US population that had studied the history of their country presented with some honesty, and the geography of the world with some rigor. Vietnam is one of the four wars Americans know anything at all about; comparing Iraq with the Revolutionary War would be unfortunate (King George wins), with the Civil War would be unfortunate (hands off, outsiders), with WWII would be unfortunate (the call to arms, the liberated grateful, the defeated defeated), but Vietnam is OK (as long as one ascribes the defeat there to a lack of will and halfhearted effort).