White House to Abandon 2011 Timeline for Afghan War

Malor wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
No point worth this level of argument.

Can we agree that Afghanistan sucks pretty hard but that it's at least vaguely modern, and that the information is at least available for those who have the will and means to find it?

No. Unless you consider isolated African tribes in the Congo "vaguely modern".

Wait. How did we get from Afghanistan to Africa?

I was just using them as a baseline comparison. If lobster thinks isolated African tribes in the Congo are "vaguely modern" then Afghanistan would meet that bar. I wanted to know where the bar was. Because I don't think any country where the majority of the people are almost completely isolated from tribe to tribe, have no infrastructure or communication, and lack education and literacy, as "vaguely modern". 12th Century Europe was far more modern than Afghanistan. Hell, the Roman empire had a better infrastructure.

I don't think they're that backward, Shoal. I have a friend who grew up there in the 1970s, and she said it was pretty much like everywhere else at the time. It's been badly damaged since, but it's not The Untamed Wilds.

Shoal, is there any possibility of finding some common ground here?

OG_slinger wrote:
Be surprised. If the destruction of the war had been brought to every town in the South we could have avoided a century of Jim Crow and likely wouldn't have any idiots who still rally around the Confederate flag or view those times with misty nostalgia.

Wasn't it the harshness of the northern campaign and subsequent harshness of reconstruction that lent strength to some of those institutions? The North had to wage "total war" against the south to win, but it reinforced a level of bitterness that still exists in some parts of the country today.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Wasn't it the harshness of the northern campaign and subsequent harshness of reconstruction that lent strength to some of those institutions? The North had to wage "total war" against the south to win, but it reinforced a level of bitterness that still exists in some parts of the country today.

Think the difference between Germany after WWI vs. Germany after WW2. WWI didn't bring much destruction to Germany proper, meaning the populace didn't quite understand how destructive war can be. That changed in WWII with the Allies purposefully laying waste to German cities to expressly make the point that there is a steep cost to starting wars. And that lesson was dearly learned by the Germans.

The North only destroyed 11 Southern cities out of nearly 300, which affected only about 15% of the population. Had we brought near total destruction to the doorstep of every Southern town the population would have completely understood that not only did they lose, but also that their entire way of life was crushed. Political leaders should have been rounded up and imprisoned or executed outright.

Reconstruction as it happened was much less harsh than it should have been. That approach favored a speedy reintegration of the South into the Union over completely purging Southern nationalism and attitudes towards blacks and we all know how that turned out.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Wasn't it the harshness of the northern campaign and subsequent harshness of reconstruction that lent strength to some of those institutions? The North had to wage "total war" against the south to win, but it reinforced a level of bitterness that still exists in some parts of the country today.

Think the difference between Germany after WWI vs. Germany after WW2. WWI didn't bring much destruction to Germany proper, meaning the populace didn't quite understand how destructive war can be. That changed in WWII with the Allies purposefully laying waste to German cities to expressly make the point that there is a steep cost to starting wars. And that lesson was dearly learned by the Germans.

I'm not so sure about that. Instead, it might have been the reaction (ironically) to the visit of the Shah in 1967 and the Vietnam War, a German political movement of 68ers who saw West Germany as insufficiently de-Nazified and still holding on to Fascism.

And of course the period between the wars has been too simplified I think; in fact, I found this while looking around:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...

was Valkyria Chronicles making an allusion to this?

The North only destroyed 11 Southern cities out of nearly 300, which affected only about 15% of the population. Had we brought near total destruction to the doorstep of every Southern town the population would have completely understood that not only did they lose, but also that their entire way of life was crushed. Political leaders should have been rounded up and imprisoned or executed outright.

Reconstruction as it happened was much less harsh than it should have been. That approach favored a speedy reintegration of the South into the Union over completely purging Southern nationalism and attitudes towards blacks and we all know how that turned out.

It's tough--there were large areas of the South that violently resisted the Confederacy; in fact, this is a running theme in the history of the American South, the lowland planters vs. the hill country and backwoods folk that goes back to Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis.

I don't know enough about the history of the era to have my own opinion on what went wrong and what went right, but I do think the situation is a bit more complicated than--ironically--the jackass apologists for the Confederacy and the Lost Cause have led us to believe.

CheezePavilion wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. Instead, it might have been the reaction (ironically) to the visit of the Shah in 1967 and the Vietnam War, a German political movement of 68ers who saw West Germany as insufficiently de-Nazified and still holding on to Fascism.

And of course the period between the wars has been too simplified I think; in fact, I found this while looking around:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...

was Valkyria Chronicles making an allusion to this?

My point was that WWI was largely fought outside of Germany's borders. Civilians didn't really understand the cost and destruction of war. In WWII, about 50% of all German cities were destroyed or severely damaged, in some areas this went up to 75% or 85%. Nearly half of all the homes and apartments in the country were destroyed. And the country was occupied by three different armies.

Simply put the average German knew they had lost the war and lost it badly. All they had to do was look out their window, if they had one left, to see the destruction their political leaders brought to their very homes.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's tough--there were large areas of the South that violently resisted the Confederacy; in fact, this is a running theme in the history of the American South, the lowland planters vs. the hill country and backwoods folk that goes back to Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis.

I don't know enough about the history of the era to have my own opinion on what went wrong and what went right, but I do think the situation is a bit more complicated than--ironically--the jackass apologists for the Confederacy and the Lost Cause have led us to believe.

And yet a lot of dirt farmers fought for slavery because, someday, they thought they'd own slaves and would benefit economically. Much like poor people today who vote Republican because, someday, they think they'll be stinking rich and want to make sure they'll benefit from low taxes. Contrary to what economists want to believe, we humans don't make rational decisions.

I'm wondering if the pushing back of the deadline isn't an attempt to play the "no sitting president has been defeated during wartime" card.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. Instead, it might have been the reaction (ironically) to the visit of the Shah in 1967 and the Vietnam War, a German political movement of 68ers who saw West Germany as insufficiently de-Nazified and still holding on to Fascism.

And of course the period between the wars has been too simplified I think; in fact, I found this while looking around:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...

was Valkyria Chronicles making an allusion to this?

My point was that WWI was largely fought outside of Germany's borders. Civilians didn't really understand the cost and destruction of war. In WWII, about 50% of all German cities were destroyed or severely damaged, in some areas this went up to 75% or 85%. Nearly half of all the homes and apartments in the country were destroyed. And the country was occupied by three different armies.

Right, but the issue is chain of causation here: if the experience of war this destructive created the change we saw in Germany, why did West Germany go back to flirting with Fascism and slow the process of de-Nazification after WWII?

Simply put the average German knew they had lost the war and lost it badly. All they had to do was look out their window, if they had one left, to see the destruction their political leaders brought to their very homes.

Well it's a valid argument, but not a sound one when you look at the history more deeply. Your facts are not wrong, and I don't think it's an irrational argument you're drawing from those facts, but you're ignoring both the true timeline of the process and other facts that cut against the theory.

It's tough--there were large areas of the South that violently resisted the Confederacy; in fact, this is a running theme in the history of the American South, the lowland planters vs. the hill country and backwoods folk that goes back to Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis.

I don't know enough about the history of the era to have my own opinion on what went wrong and what went right, but I do think the situation is a bit more complicated than--ironically--the jackass apologists for the Confederacy and the Lost Cause have led us to believe.

And yet a lot of dirt farmers fought for slavery because, someday, they thought they'd own slaves and would benefit economically. Much like poor people today who vote Republican because, someday, they think they'll be stinking rich and want to make sure they'll benefit from low taxes. Contrary to what economists want to believe, we humans don't make rational decisions.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the South was not as solidly Confederate as it wound up and as you're presenting it. Something must have happened to turn those formerly pro-Union areas of the South, and it can't be a lack of destruction to teach a lesson if they were on the Union side to begin with.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Right, but the issue is chain of causation here: if the experience of war this destructive created the change we saw in Germany, why did West Germany go back to flirting with Fascism and slow the process of de-Nazification after WWII?

So you're saying Germany is a hot bed of fascism today and Nazism is all the rage once again and you have proof of this?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Well it's a valid argument, but not a sound one when you look at the history more deeply. Your facts are not wrong, and I don't think it's an irrational argument you're drawing from those facts, but you're ignoring both the true timeline of the process and other facts that cut against the theory.

Please, explain to me the true timeline and the facts that cut against the theory.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the South was not as solidly Confederate as it wound up and as you're presenting it. Something must have happened to turn those formerly pro-Union areas of the South, and it can't be a lack of destruction to teach a lesson if they were on the Union side to begin with.

I'm aware that the South wasn't a monolith, but I'm also aware that not one of those "good Southerners" tried to assassinate Davis like a real patriotic American would have. If they really didn't want to fight then they should have escaped to the North. Because they didn't they were just as guilty of treason as the driver of a getaway car is for a bank robbery his buddies committed.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the South was not as solidly Confederate as it wound up and as you're presenting it. Something must have happened to turn those formerly pro-Union areas of the South, and it can't be a lack of destruction to teach a lesson if they were on the Union side to begin with.

I'm aware that the South wasn't a monolith, but I'm also aware that not one of those "good Southerners" tried to assassinate Davis like a real patriotic American would have. If they really didn't want to fight then they should have escaped to the North. Because they didn't they were just as guilty of treason as the driver of a getaway car is for a bank robbery his buddies committed.


Man, I love Hyperbole Theater.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Right, but the issue is chain of causation here: if the experience of war this destructive created the change we saw in Germany, why did West Germany go back to flirting with Fascism and slow the process of de-Nazification after WWII?

So you're saying Germany is a hot bed of fascism today and Nazism is all the rage once again and you have proof of this?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Well it's a valid argument, but not a sound one when you look at the history more deeply. Your facts are not wrong, and I don't think it's an irrational argument you're drawing from those facts, but you're ignoring both the true timeline of the process and other facts that cut against the theory.

Please, explain to me the true timeline and the facts that cut against the theory.

Um, I already did in my first post since you know, 1968 is between 1945 and 2010 timeline-wise:

CheezePavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Wasn't it the harshness of the northern campaign and subsequent harshness of reconstruction that lent strength to some of those institutions? The North had to wage "total war" against the south to win, but it reinforced a level of bitterness that still exists in some parts of the country today.

Think the difference between Germany after WWI vs. Germany after WW2. WWI didn't bring much destruction to Germany proper, meaning the populace didn't quite understand how destructive war can be. That changed in WWII with the Allies purposefully laying waste to German cities to expressly make the point that there is a steep cost to starting wars. And that lesson was dearly learned by the Germans.

I'm not so sure about that(<--that's a link). Instead, it might have been the reaction (ironically) to the visit of the Shah in 1967 and the Vietnam War, a German political movement of68ers(<--that's a link too) who saw West Germany as insufficiently de-Nazified and still holding on to Fascism.


http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the South was not as solidly Confederate as it wound up and as you're presenting it. Something must have happened to turn those formerly pro-Union areas of the South, and it can't be a lack of destruction to teach a lesson if they were on the Union side to begin with.

I'm aware that the South wasn't a monolith, but I'm also aware that not one of those "good Southerners" tried to assassinate Davis like a real patriotic American would have. If they really didn't want to fight then they should have escaped to the North. Because they didn't they were just as guilty of treason as the driver of a getaway car is for a bank robbery his buddies committed.

Oh okay, I thought you were aware of things like the First Alabama Cavalry or the fighting the Confederate Home Guard had to do in places like the piedmont of North Carolina. I've posted that stuff in a couple of the Civil War threads on here, I didn't want to go through the whole shebang again as the Powers That Be seem not to like ax-grinding.

The people acting as apologists for the Confederacy/Lost Cause nutters have been *very* successful in getting their mythical version of history accepted as the truth not only by fans of the Confederacy, but even more importantly, by its biggest critics as well.

+++++

not relevant to the discussion, but of interest to anyone reading this for the Civil War topic, here's a crazy little piece of history I've come across in reading about the Confederacy:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...

Stengah wrote:
Man, I love Hyperbole Theater.

I do too, but I usually fall asleep by the end.

Yeah, MLK was totally about expedience. Totally.

Malor wrote:
Yeah, MLK was totally about expedience. Totally.

If Ghandi was alive today, he'd approve our invasion of Iraq.

Not worthy of it's own thread, but there was kind of a bizarre message out of the DoD today as Martin Luther King day approacheth:

WASHINGTON – If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, would he understand why the United States is at war? Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel, posed that question at today’s Pentagon commemoration of King’s legacy.

In the final year of his life, King became an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War, Johnson told a packed auditorium. However, he added, today’s wars are not out of line with the iconic Nobel Peace Prize winner’s teachings.

“I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack,” he said.

Having a hard time linking King to an endless war in Afghanistan, extraordinary rendition, torture, wiretapping, and the rest of our modern national security strategy.

If Mother Theresa were alive, she'd back gay marriage and distribute condoms to the poor.