How Do You Win A War?

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,818
7,194
113
Washington DC
We've apparently forgotten.

I would suggest that you have won the war when the other side says "We'll do whatever you want if you'll stop killing us!"

American Revolution - we won when the Brits fucked off.
Mexican-American War - we won when they said "OK, you can have half of our country."
Civil War - we won when they said "OK, you can have ALL of our 'country'."
Spanish-American War - we won when they said "OK, you can have all our overseas territories."
World War I - we won when they said "OK, we'll change our government to whatever you want."
World War II - ditto.
Korean War - we didn't win.
Vietnam War - we flat-out lost.
Desert Storm - we half-assed won when they changed their government. Didn't stick (that's OK, neither did Germany after WWI). We fucked up their offensive capability for a few years.
Iraq War - we lost.
Afghan War - we lost.

I would suggest that we lost because we gave up on the concept of fighting until the other guy yells "Uncle!"
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,524
8,259
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I’m assuming, tongue in cheek, that this thread really is circling around the whole Middle-Eastern Goat-Rodeo of the current flavour?

The Hamas-Houtie-Coutie-Iran Hezbollah UN Syria Yemen and not so friendly neighbours, and their desire to drive Israelis from the river to the sea?
That vs Israel’s desire not to have to indefinitely swim in the Mediterranean Sea as opposed to drowning? Am I reading this right (?) or reading too much into it? Forest for the Trees sort or thing?

Israel launched the current war on Hamas, after Hamas militants rampaged through Israeli communities Oct. 7, 2023 killing around 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostages…& what their response should be in this instance? Is that about right?

Currently the UN, and South Africa, and most of its members, want Israel to roll over and expose its belly…so that Hamas can rearm and commit Oct.7th 2.0 over and over and over and over… making all the neighbours happy? If not then Israelis are the villains and deserve world condemnation?

“Here you go boys! We’re throwing in the towel…& giving you aid, because that worked so well in the past, so you can re-dig the tunnels And restock the missiles, and screw the Gazan citizenry, and just stay stuck at the same circular death spiral indefinitely… until the Jews are driven from the river to the sea.” Is that the answer?

Perhaps a two-state solution, with Hamas running Gaza still, & the PLO running the West Bank (that actually gets its name from when Jordan occupied that land and it was the chunk west of the Jordan River), & Israel….or is that a three-state solution? How has that worked out so far? How is that working? Who’s agreed to the two-state (or three-state?) solution to date?

In all the wars since….lets say 1948 because this has to start sometime, Israel has always won so it still exists. What happens if it loses once? Does that mean there would be “Peace in the Middle East?”
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,524
8,259
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
So was I correct? This thread is really about Israel vs all its neighbours & their surrogates locally & globally that want them eradicated?
…& that is the beginning point for the negotiations (?) towards a solution?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,818
7,194
113
Washington DC
So was I correct? This thread is really about Israel vs all its neighbours & their surrogates locally & globally that want them eradicated?
…& that is the beginning point for the negotiations (?) towards a solution?
Not really. This thread is about the nature of war, and particularly the current half-assed efforts to "limit" wars or end them. Granted, this particular war was inspired by the current Gaza dust-up, or rather by the "international reaction" to it.

You limit wars by being too big, bad, and ugly for the belligerents to get you in the game (unless you want to be there). And you end wars by beating the other side, not by resolutions or moral suasion.

The concepts of a "just" war or "laws of war" are silly. What're ya gonna do if I break the "laws of war". . . make war on me?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,524
8,259
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
More about the folly of the be-nice-to-Gazans bunch.

War is messy and tragic. Don't want it to be messy and tragic? Don't engage in warfare.
But Palestinians aren’t Hamas, but Hamas are Palestinians, but they’re separate, except when they aren’t, and everyone must distinguish between the two groups, except when they don’t distinguish between themselves, and so on and so forth?

(If an election was held in Gaza today, would Hamas win? Would it be close? Would it matter? Would it ever happen anyway with Hamas in control?)
Not really. This thread is about the nature of war, and particularly the current half-assed efforts to "limit" wars or end them.
So it’s not specifically about the current shit show, but about shit shows in general.
You limit wars by being too big, bad, and ugly for the belligerents to get you in the game (unless you want to be there). And you end wars by beating the other side, not by resolutions or moral suasion.
So here we are. What happens going forward, with respect to shit shows in general?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,818
7,194
113
Washington DC
But Palestinians aren’t Hamas, but Hamas are Palestinians, but they’re separate, except when they aren’t, and everyone must distinguish between the two groups, except when they don’t distinguish between themselves, and so on and so forth?

(If an election was held in Gaza today, would Hamas win? Would it be close? Would it matter? Would it ever happen anyway with Hamas in control?)

So it’s not specifically about the current shit show, but about shit shows in general.

So here we are. What happens going forward, with respect to shit shows in general?
Same thing that happened since Ur invaded Lagash. Build an army, make friends good enough (or with sufficient intertwined interests) to take your side, and develop a reputation for winning.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,033
2,088
113
New Brunswick
We've apparently forgotten.

I would suggest that you have won the war when the other side says "We'll do whatever you want if you'll stop killing us!"

American Revolution - we won when the Brits fucked off.
Mexican-American War - we won when they said "OK, you can have half of our country."
Civil War - we won when they said "OK, you can have ALL of our 'country'."
Spanish-American War - we won when they said "OK, you can have all our overseas territories."
World War I - we won when they said "OK, we'll change our government to whatever you want."
World War II - ditto.
Korean War - we didn't win.
Vietnam War - we flat-out lost.
Desert Storm - we half-assed won when they changed their government. Didn't stick (that's OK, neither did Germany after WWI). We fucked up their offensive capability for a few years.
Iraq War - we lost.
Afghan War - we lost.

I would suggest that we lost because we gave up on the concept of fighting until the other guy yells "Uncle!"

I'd have to disagree with that assessment - we/they/you didn't lose because we gave up on the concept of fighting, but rather the 'enemy' was not the roll over and give up that was expected, and when the 'war' began to cost more than the civilian populace was willing to risk in terms of money, resources and lives, Government's said "okay fine, we'll leave".

More about the folly of the be-nice-to-Gazans bunch.

War is messy and tragic. Don't want it to be messy and tragic? Don't engage in warfare.

It's folly to promote civilians not be annihilated in retaliation that is beyond what is necessary?

It's folly to realize that what was done in retaliation for what Hamas did only played right into Hamas hands?

Or is the folly on the ones who were clueless and did all the above?

War IS messy, tragic and we're humans so it's part of what makes us up. War will never end, someone's always going to fight someone else and we're all a villain to someone else's story.

But you know and I know it's also not that simple as "don't engage in warfare", especially when people involved don't have a choice.

Not really. This thread is about the nature of war, and particularly the current half-assed efforts to "limit" wars or end them. Granted, this particular war was inspired by the current Gaza dust-up, or rather by the "international reaction" to it.

So that there are people who would rather not have wars especially stupid, needless ones, are... what then?

You limit wars by being too big, bad, and ugly for the belligerents to get you in the game (unless you want to be there).

Yeah, that's not how it works either. If that were the case there'd be less wars, not continual ones.

And you end wars by beating the other side, not by resolutions or moral suasion.

Beating them how, exactly? Until they say "uncle"? And if they don't?

So you're pro the US and it's allies still being in Afghanistan? Cause sure as shit the Taliban were not beat, not by a long shot.

The concepts of a "just" war or "laws of war" are silly. What're ya gonna do if I break the "laws of war". . . make war on me?

There is no "just" war.

But come on, you should know better about "laws of war". There have been such for hundreds of years in varying degrees. More modern history is to try and limit the death that comes from war as much as possible.

Or are you for all out destruction regardless of who it is, military or civilian alike?

I'll grant you - you get countries that don't follow the "Rules" and it doesn't matter, but does that mean ALL countries shouldn't follow those same 'rules'? So far those 'rules' have kept our species alive until now. Get rid of the rules...

You break the laws of war, you should be held accountable - like Israel right now.

Like the US should be.

Like any country that violates them.

Just because humans are 'basic' doesn't mean we shouldn't want to be better and hold ourselves accountable.

Then again maybe it'd be a different story if all we did was use rocks, spears or bows and arrows to kill each other. More effort to fight, getting up and close to your enemy, etc, etc...

Wars now are half computer games. Removing that face to face against your opponent leads to disconnect about the realities of war.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,818
7,194
113
Washington DC
I'd have to disagree with that assessment - we/they/you didn't lose because we gave up on the concept of fighting, but rather the 'enemy' was not the roll over and give up that was expected, and when the 'war' began to cost more than the civilian populace was willing to risk in terms of money, resources and lives, Government's said "okay fine, we'll leave".



It's folly to promote civilians not be annihilated in retaliation that is beyond what is necessary?

It's folly to realize that what was done in retaliation for what Hamas did only played right into Hamas hands?

Or is the folly on the ones who were clueless and did all the above?

War IS messy, tragic and we're humans so it's part of what makes us up. War will never end, someone's always going to fight someone else and we're all a villain to someone else's story.

But you know and I know it's also not that simple as "don't engage in warfare", especially when people involved don't have a choice.



So that there are people who would rather not have wars especially stupid, needless ones, are... what then?



Yeah, that's not how it works either. If that were the case there'd be less wars, not continual ones.



Beating them how, exactly? Until they say "uncle"? And if they don't?
Keep beating.
So you're pro the US and it's allies still being in Afghanistan? Cause sure as shit the Taliban were not beat, not by a long shot.
I wasn't pro them being in Afghanistan in the first place.
There is no "just" war.

But come on, you should know better about "laws of war". There have been such for hundreds of years in varying degrees. More modern history is to try and limit the death that comes from war as much as possible.
All hypocritical, unenforceable, and therefore a bad joke.
Or are you for all out destruction regardless of who it is, military or civilian alike?

I'll grant you - you get countries that don't follow the "Rules" and it doesn't matter, but does that mean ALL countries shouldn't follow those same 'rules'? So far those 'rules' have kept our species alive until now. Get rid of the rules...
All countries fail (or refuse) to follow the rules.

Lt William Calley's platoon herded over 250 villagers into a pit and fired into them until they were all dead. On Calley's orders. Calley was actually prosecuted. And received a Presidential pardon.
You break the laws of war, you should be held accountable - like Israel right now.

Like the US should be.

Like any country that violates them.

Just because humans are 'basic' doesn't mean we shouldn't want to be better and hold ourselves accountable.
Claiming you're "holding somebody accountable" when you're not is stupid and hypocritical.
Then again maybe it'd be a different story if all we did was use rocks, spears or bows and arrows to kill each other. More effort to fight, getting up and close to your enemy, etc, etc...

Wars now are half computer games. Removing that face to face against your opponent leads to disconnect about the realities of war.
The greatest peacekeeping tool ever created by humans was the atomic bomb.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Serryah

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,754
3,621
113
Edmonton
I'd have to disagree with that assessment - we/they/you didn't lose because we gave up on the concept of fighting, but rather the 'enemy' was not the roll over and give up that was expected, and when the 'war' began to cost more than the civilian populace was willing to risk in terms of money, resources and lives, Government's said "okay fine, we'll leave".



It's folly to promote civilians not be annihilated in retaliation that is beyond what is necessary?

It's folly to realize that what was done in retaliation for what Hamas did only played right into Hamas hands?

Or is the folly on the ones who were clueless and did all the above?

War IS messy, tragic and we're humans so it's part of what makes us up. War will never end, someone's always going to fight someone else and we're all a villain to someone else's story.

But you know and I know it's also not that simple as "don't engage in warfare", especially when people involved don't have a choice.



So that there are people who would rather not have wars especially stupid, needless ones, are... what then?



Yeah, that's not how it works either. If that were the case there'd be less wars, not continual ones.



Beating them how, exactly? Until they say "uncle"? And if they don't?

So you're pro the US and it's allies still being in Afghanistan? Cause sure as shit the Taliban were not beat, not by a long shot.



There is no "just" war.

But come on, you should know better about "laws of war". There have been such for hundreds of years in varying degrees. More modern history is to try and limit the death that comes from war as much as possible.

Or are you for all out destruction regardless of who it is, military or civilian alike?

I'll grant you - you get countries that don't follow the "Rules" and it doesn't matter, but does that mean ALL countries shouldn't follow those same 'rules'? So far those 'rules' have kept our species alive until now. Get rid of the rules...

You break the laws of war, you should be held accountable - like Israel right now.

Like the US should be.

Like any country that violates them.

Just because humans are 'basic' doesn't mean we shouldn't want to be better and hold ourselves accountable.

Then again maybe it'd be a different story if all we did was use rocks, spears or bows and arrows to kill each other. More effort to fight, getting up and close to your enemy, etc, etc...

Wars now are half computer games. Removing that face to face against your opponent leads to disconnect about the realities of war.
It's all well & good to say that Israel & the U.S. should be held accountable but what about Hamas & Russia? It seems it's only the "west" that has to be held accountable & I'm not saying that you're wrong. I am saying that there's MUCH more accountability required from others as well. Or, are you saying that these are the ONLY 2 that should be? Just wanting clarification...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2