...and right now I am watching the documentary: "How the West Was Lost" about the history of the Hollywood Western.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00c4zvh

It's great !!!

jasonw1239 wrote:
Mark, in all seriousness, I am curious what constitutes a victory in the war on terror?

"Terror" is not a nation state, there are many small independent groups opposing the US throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia and there is no traditional military "front line" or single government or group of leaders to negotiate with.

What does most Americans think of when they consider "winning" the war on terror?

From outside the US it looked like in 2003 that the 9/11 attack was being used to manufacture a new "Eastern Bloc" type of enemy to keep the massive military/industrial machine chugging along.

Not trying to bash the US, just saying what it looks like from another country.

EDIT: I just want to make sure that it is understood that my comment about "used to manufacture" is not to imply a "conspiracy theory".
I just mean that those involved in the highest levels of government looked at the event as an opportunity rather than a tragedy.

Jason...

I think your observations are on the point...

I started to write an essay about American military history, but I deleted most of it as not really appropriate here...

The idea that the 911 attacks were "used to manufacture" anything is simply a bad mis-reading of American history.  Simply put:  Be our friend and we protect you like a newborn babe.  You attack us...you die.

In war, there is no nation more grim and violent than America.  Other nations should remember that.  In peace there is no better friend.

Suffice to say that America is actually very familiar with asymetrical warfare and the concept that victory can take many forms.  Our long-time military tradition has not emphasized capitols or territories as goals.  Rather, Americans always fight to destroy the opposing army.

(This philosophy drove the English nuts in WWII, but it is very American.)

In short, you are no threat to us if you are either dead or afraid to fight anymore.  In the case of terrorists, we prefer dead.

The American model for victory in war is Japan.

Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Japan was an essentially medieval society that attacked America using modern weapons.  (Before you object, remember that most Americans felt that Iraq did in fact attack us.)  Because we are a peaceful nation the Japanese badly misread our national character.  They didn't think such whimpy peace lovers would fight.

The result was disastrous for Japans military rulers...but a boon to the average Japanese.

America rebuilt Japan into a democracy.  We did not change their religion or their basic ideals.  What we changed was the medieval tryrany that ran their daily lives.  When the Japanese saw mercy rather than revenge.... When they saw freedom rather than tyrany...they became active partners in rebuilding their own nation.

Now, American schoolchildren can hardly believe that Japan was once our enemy.  War with Japan is a ludicrous idea.  Japan is the country, arguably, that Americans admire the most.

That is what we want for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just as a basic tip for understanding America...just a start for foreign nationals:   Don't even listen to the American news media.  Almost nothing they say has any real relevance.  All you should hear when they talk is a small buzzing noise.

The American news media is not politically neutral and it is, by and large, the exclusive province of a wealthy, East Coast, upper class group of people largely disconnected from what the average American thinks or experiences.  Most American journalists are not people of great accomplishment.  They are the sons and daughters of people with the right connections who mostly spent all of college thinking up sarcastic things to say in the school paper rather than actually studying anything.  

That is why people in other countries could, for instance, listen to a four-year hate campaign about George Bush, only to see him re-elected in 2004 by an almust unprecedented majority.

Ponder these things.  

FormCritic wrote:That is why people in other countries could, for instance, listen to a four-year hate campaign about George Bush, only to see him re-elected in 2004 by an almust unprecedented majority.

Ponder these things.  

What it really meant was an incumbent president who ran against a rather weak opposing candidate primarily on a platform of fear that influenced enough people who were either too dumb or too naive to realize that one of the worst presidents in US history was somehow going to "change" over the next four years.  Particularly considering he gave nothing more than lip service to it in his first term, its amazing to me so many people bought it.  The fact that people were suckered into voting for him again simply proves that the American public can be duped pretty easily if the right buttons are pushed.  

Kerry was obviously not an optimal canidate(he wasn't very good at all TBH), but something tells me that he would be running at a bit higher approval rating than GW's current 30%(give or take) if he would have won 4 years ago.  I didn't vote so much for Kerry 4 years ago, as I voted against GW. The best thing for me about this upcoming election is the fact that no matter who wins, it will not be George W. Bush.  In my mind, things can only go up from here.

jasonw1239 wrote:Damn! The Cubs beat the Jays 6-2 today.  

Is this a subtle hint that I may have been a bit too harsh?  

Kingofpain89 wrote:
Nope....he is just saying the Cubs are badass this year.  

And the Pirates are just BAD for a change.  

jasonw1239 wrote:
Mark, in all seriousness, I am curious what constitutes a victory in the war on terror?

"Terror" is not a nation state, there are many small independent groups opposing the US throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia and there is no traditional military "front line" or single government or group of leaders to negotiate with.

What does most Americans think of when they consider "winning" the war on terror?

From outside the US it looked like in 2003 that the 9/11 attack was being used to manufacture a new "Eastern Bloc" type of enemy to keep the massive military/industrial machine chugging along.

Not trying to bash the US, just saying what it looks like from another country.

EDIT: I just want to make sure that it is understood that my comment about "used to manufacture" is not to imply a "conspiracy theory".
I just mean that those involved in the highest levels of government looked at the event as an opportunity rather than a tragedy.

Can we leave politics off this list?

jasonw1239 wrote: The US lost much of the world's support when they decided

The USA never had much of the worlds support. The USA supported much of the world.

Nationalism is warfare. It is a resource management conflict, sometimes money is used, sometimes oil, sometimes food, sometimes bullets and bombs, but it is warfare. As long as there are two or more nations there will be continual warfare.

JZavoda wrote:
The USA supported much of the world.

It seems to me that history shows that support was less of a concern than developing markets for products. That and the quest for cheap labour and resources.

The projection of force and the manipulation of governments through the support of insurgents (and aid packages/bribery) seems to have been part and parcel of the "support".

Don't forget that in the 1980's Saddam Hussein was a "friend" of the US when it came to projecting force against Khomeini's Iranian army.

Edit: What I have been wondering about for the last few years is; is Iraq the way it is because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of the nature of Iraq?

Ok Mark. Let's agree to disagree and drop it.