|
|
#51
08-09-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: China bitch
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If there was a reason for the war then there must be a reasonable chance that a brutal 20 year war achieved its objective, whoever ended up as the winner. [/ QUOTE ] Suppose the allies surrendered in 1959 and the situation in the world afterwards was basically okay, which is the analogous situation. That would mean that the war would have been a waste (by DS's original argument) or that during the 20 year war the objective of stopping a monsterous future was achieved. If the monsterous future had still happened then it would be fairly clear that the objective hadn't been met but that's not the point here. chez [/ QUOTE ] so a country decides it HAS to fight a war in order to achieve some objective. it loses the war but the consequences it was fighting to avoid(its objective), dont happen and the world is ok. do u really think its more reasonable that the losers achieved their objective just by fighting or rather to think that the initial assertion that war was necassary to achieve this was wrong? 
|
|
#52
08-09-2005, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: China bitch
[ QUOTE ]
so a country decides it HAS to fight a war in order to achieve some objective. it loses the war but the consequences it was fighting to avoid(its objective), dont happen and the world is ok. do u really think its more reasonable that the losers achieved their objective just by fighting or rather to think that the initial assertion that war was necassary to achieve this was wrong? [/ QUOTE ] Its not a matter of which is more likely. All I am claiming is that to make a reasonable assesment you have take into account the objective of the war and whether it was met. chez
|
|
#53
08-09-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: China bitch
[ QUOTE ]
All I am claiming is that to make a reasonable assesment you have take into account the objective of the war and whether it was met. chez [/ QUOTE ] if the objective of a war is met and yet u still lost the war i think it is more reasonable to think that the war was not necassary to achieve that objective. i know u stated u dont know much about vietnam but here it is anyways. our objective in the vietnam war was to prevent communist takeover in vietnam thus stopping communist takeover of all of southeast asia. we didnt prevent communist control of vietnam(our only real specific objective) but the expansion of communism didnt spread further so it appears that our more general objective was met. i suppose u could make the argument that our willingness and determination in fighting is what prevented that from happening. far more reasonable i think is that the prewar analysis stating that war was necasary to achieve this objective was wrong. and if a war is not necasary to achieve an objective its hard to justify taking that road when u consider all the collareral damage and negative consequences that come with any war(no matter how right) in other words we did achieve our main objective(no dominoes fell) in vietnam despite losing the war. is this because we fought the war. no, its because our reasons for going to war were invalid.
|
|
#54
08-09-2005, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: China bitch
[ QUOTE ]
in other words we did achieve our main objective(no dominoes fell) in vietnam despite losing the war. is this because we fought the war. no, its because our reasons for going to war were invalid. [/ QUOTE ] Assuming this conclusion is based on an analysis of the specific evidence rather than some abstract theory then we are not disagreeing about anything. If an outbreak of harmony causes you concern then post the analysis (maybe in the politics forum?) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] chez
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
