US Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted Those They Claimed To Serve

[Rigby5]

Lots of wars the U.S. gets involved in are the geopolitical equivalent of police being called to the scene of domestic violence.

The police never like getting involved in such a situation but they cannot just walk away from it either.

But technically that is illegal.
We hire police to do what we tell them, so we can trust them to a degree and they can mediate between rights.
The US military has vested interests of its own whenever it is used in a foreign country, that is not only inherently corrupt, but illegal.
When Congress ratified the UN Charter, then a unilateral use of military force by one country, became illegal usually.
The only exceptions are in immediate defense, or if the UN authorizes it.

 

[Dayton3]

But technically that is illegal.
We hire police to do what we tell them, so we can trust them to a degree and they can mediate between rights.
The US military has vested interests of its own whenever it is used in a foreign country, that is not only inherently corrupt, but illegal.
When Congress ratified the UN Charter, then a unilateral use of military force by one country, became illegal usually.
The only exceptions are in immediate defense, or if the UN authorizes it.

No one takes the UN seriously. Not then. Not now.

 

[Rigby5]

No one takes the UN seriously. Not then. Not now.

Congress ratified the UN charter, so that is the law.
Until it is changed legally, then war is still illegal, (except in immediate defense or under UN resolution.).

And yes, the UN is taken seriously, as that is the only valid substantiation that exists for Israel to exist.

The UN obviously has problems, in that it has no codified constitution or law, so can't do blind justice.
But all that could be fixed.
And it should be.
There should not be any wars any more.
There has never once been a good justification for any war.

 

[Dayton3]

Congress ratified the UN charter, so that is the law.
Until it is changed legally, then war is still illegal, (except in immediate defense or under UN resolution.).

And yes, the UN is taken seriously, as that is the only valid substantiation that exists for Israel to exist.

The UN obviously has problems, in that it has no codified constitution or law, so can't do blind justice.
But all that could be fixed.
And it should be.
There should not be any wars any more.
There has never once been a good justification for any war.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Rigby5]

Don't be ridiculous.

So then tell me a "good" war that was justified?
I can't really think of one.
Nor should war ever be legal since it results in illegal murder.
Anything sufficient to have a war over, should also have a court where it could be first heard.

 

[Dayton3]

So then tell me a "good" war that was justified?
I can't really think of one.
Nor should war ever be legal since it results in illegal murder.
Anything sufficient to have a war over, should also have a court where it could be first heard.

World War Two for starters (from the U.S. and allied side).

 

[Rigby5]

World War Two for starters (from the U.S. and allied side).

If I were to pick a "good" war, WWII would be closest.
But WWII is tainted by the malicious and viciousness of WWI, which not only was deliberately started by the Allies, and won by illegal starvation of the civilian population, but the outright theft of German provinces, ships, colonies, foreign industries, etc.
The Treaty of Versailles was such a crime, that it makes WWII very muddied.

Lots of propaganda.
For example, the media likes to pretend it was the Germans who used gas first, but it was the French.
{...
Several chemicals were weaponized in WWI and France actually was the first to use gas - they deployed tear gas in August 1914. The agent used was either xylyl bromide, which is described as smelling ‘pleasant and aromatic’, or ethyl bromoacetate, described as ‘fruity and pungent.’ Both are colorless liquids and have to be atomized to be dispersed as weapons. As lachrymatory agents, they irritate the eyes and cause uncontrolled tearing. Large doses can cause temporary blindness. If inhaled they also make breathing difficult. Symptoms usually resolve by 30 minutes after contact. Thus, tear gas was never very effective as a weapon against groups of enemy soldiers.
...}

Gas in The Great War

Gas in The Great War, essay by James Patton, BS

www.kumc.edu

The Allies were also the first to use submarines.

 

[Dayton3]

If I were to pick a "good" war, WWII would be closest.
But WWII is tainted by the malicious and viciousness of WWI, which not only was deliberately started by the Allies, and won by illegal starvation of the civilian population, but the outright theft of German provinces, ships, colonies, foreign industries, etc.
The Treaty of Versailles was such a crime, that it makes WWII very muddied.

Lots of propaganda.
For example, the media likes to pretend it was the Germans who used gas first, but it was the French.
{...
Several chemicals were weaponized in WWI and France actually was the first to use gas - they deployed tear gas in August 1914. The agent used was either xylyl bromide, which is described as smelling ‘pleasant and aromatic’, or ethyl bromoacetate, described as ‘fruity and pungent.’ Both are colorless liquids and have to be atomized to be dispersed as weapons. As lachrymatory agents, they irritate the eyes and cause uncontrolled tearing. Large doses can cause temporary blindness. If inhaled they also make breathing difficult. Symptoms usually resolve by 30 minutes after contact. Thus, tear gas was never very effective as a weapon against groups of enemy soldiers.
...}

Gas in The Great War

Gas in The Great War, essay by James Patton, BS

www.kumc.edu

The Allies were also the first to use submarines.

Being the first to use weapons you consider "bad" have little to do with whether a war is justified or not.

And again, you are talking about World War One, not World War Two.

 

[Rigby5]

Being the first to use weapons you consider "bad" have little to do with whether a war is justified or not.

And again, you are talking about World War One, not World War Two.

Remember that until WWI, Poland did not exist and was part of Germany.

So then what people consider the start of WWII, Germany invading Poland, was considered by Germans to be righting a great wrong the Allies did at the Treaty of Versailles.
And I tend to agree.
Hitler was not the cause of WWII, but the great and justified anger over WWI was the cause of WWII.
So WWII is not so clear cut.
In the Pacific as well, the US was illegally preventing Japan from buying oil, steal, coal, etc.
The US was not at all innocent in any was since the War of 1812.

 

[Dayton3]

In the Pacific as well, the US was illegally preventing Japan from buying oil, steal, coal, etc.

How was Japan entitled to buy oil, steel, and coal?

 

[Rigby5]

How was Japan entitled to buy oil, steel, and coal?

They were the highest bidder, but we prevented them from being allowed to conduct normal business transactions through the illegal use of threats.
Indonesia, Malaya, the Philippines, etc. all wanted to do business with Japan, and we had no right to interfere.

 

[Dayton3]

They were the highest bidder, but we prevented them from being allowed to conduct normal business transactions through the illegal use of threats.
Indonesia, Malaya, the Philippines, etc. all wanted to do business with Japan, and we had no right to interfere.

Why not? What you call "threats" is really "diplomacy".

 

[Rigby5]

Why not? What you call "threats" is really "diplomacy".

Interfering in business is harm, not diplomacy, and is essentially an act of war.

 

[Dayton3]

Interfering in business is harm, not diplomacy, and is essentially an act of war.

You might as well label anything an "act of war" then.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggies"...until you can find a rock.

 

[Rigby5]

If you shut down a business without due cause within a country, that would be considered a crime. And when you commit a crime between countries, that always is an act of war. The fact the US conducts illegal economic warfare all the time, does not make it right or legal. It is highly unethical and criminal. It is just that there is no one willing to arrest the US.

 

[Rigby5]

basquebromance most people don't know shit about military/wars/etc.........we've been over this before...a lot wars are not won or lost---they are ended with cease fires/etc ..UNDENIABLY Vietnam was unwinnable--I've got a thread on it with mucho evidence......
..they did not lose wars....
--your OP is pure bullshit
....the POLITICIANS are in charge--THEY start the wars --not the generals/etc

If money and lives are wasted on a war we could have avoided and we knew was unwinnable, then that is a loss.
With Vietnam, it likely was politicians like John Foster Dulles, but the generals should have said, "no".
Everyone should have known Ho Chi Minh was the hero of the liberation from the French.

 

[Rigby5]

Those who enlist in the military want to win.

You 'win' by doing what is right, not by killing innocents.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: US Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted Those They Claimed To Serve
SUBTOPIC: Objective and Outcomes in Conflicts
※→ el al,

BLUF: The concepts behind the terminology → "war" → "Win 'vs' Losses" → Victory and Strategy are all antiquated concepts along with the baggage and perceptions they carry with them has disappointment written all over them.


(COMMENT)
.
Actually, the term "war" is an idealization. In the big picture, the proper terms are: (QUOTATION SOURCE: ICRC & International Humanitarian Law)

◈ International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:​

​

✦ international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and​

​

✦ non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-​

governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

​

◈ Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.​

​

Terms like "Win 'vs' Losses" → "Victory and Strategy" romanticized notions and political hype use to camouflage the latent objectives and hidden agendas. In terms of the Big Picture, the antiquated term "war" is not actually defined in the
DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms [Short title: DOD Dictionary] does not actually define either "War or Victory." What most people mean by "war" is:

objective —​

​

1. The clearly defined, decisive, and attainable goal toward which an operation is directed.​

​

2. The specific goal of the action taken which is essential to the commander’s plan.​

Now you do see the term "war" as part of a descriptive term or in the phrase of description:

◈ As examples of Phrases: explosive remnants of war - law of war - peacetime, crises or emergencies, or war - etc​

​

◈ As examples of modifiers: irregular warfare - prescribed for war materiel - requirements of a war or other national emergency, etc​

Now there are some cases in which the term "war" becomes essential for international consumption:

◈ theater of war​

​

◈ Treatment of Prisoners of War​

​

◈ War Crimes​

​

◈ War potential or combat effectiveness​

But again, these have variable meanings depending on the entity using the terms and applying them to the events of the real-time world.

Similarly, "to win" is a battlefield outcome, not a conditional outcome based on the "absolute" political objective. An objective → to "break the will of the people to continue the conflict" cannot be achieved through conventional means. Why, because of the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) like (but not limited to) Rule 2: Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. To even tell a country that you are going to hurt them to the point that to continue to support hostilities will become such an unbearable agony → is a violation of IHL.

The only time that "to win" is an objective is when (politically speaking) it is designated a no-holds-barred war - with the unconditional support of Congress, a Declaration of War and grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal in support of total war.

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.​

................................Teddy Roosevelt​

......26th president of the United States​

But if all you are going to do is carry a twig, then stay at home. If you really don't have a stick, then don't speak in opposition of an action by a people that WILL give it their all. The United States is not the country of President Roosevelt's day.

Most Respectfully,
R

All out war is fine if justified.
But since we have never been really "attacked" since 1812, not a single "war" we committed was ever justified and was anything more than a war crime.
The closest was WWII, since our imperialist colony in Hawaii has been attacked, but that was after we illegally embargoed oil, steel, and cold from Japan, and they had no other choice.

 

[surada]

i agree completely. the US empire has SUCCUMBED!

US Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted Those They Claimed To Serve

Military leaders failed to properly account for their own efforts, misled the public, and racked up cushy paychecks post-war. They deserve to be punished.

thefederalist.com

excerpts:

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in June that he wanted to understand “white rage,” why “thousands of people” tried “to assault this building and … overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.”

If Milley really wants to understand the “rage” of the American people he should start by asking why he and his fellow generals can’t win any wars.

Unable to win wars overseas, the military’s leaders went “woke.” Currying ideological favor is easier than trying to end insurgencies. It is also necessary if military leaders want to keep the gravy train of taxpayer funding. Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy and his devastating critique of George Bush and Barack Obama in the run-up to the 2016 election put the military-industrial complex on high alert. Trump was pushing the American right-wing away from the expensive and unending foreign interventions the military-industrial complex needed in order to justify its existence.

Instead of profiles in courage, America’s military leaders deserve profiles in grifting. Current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made $7 million once leaving the service. Gen. James Mattis is reportedly worth $5 million, including $150,000 annual payouts from Theranos for serving on their board. Theranos was a blood-testing company indicted for fraud. Not a single senator asked Mattis about the connection at his confirmation hearing as secretary of defense. Gen. David Petraeus, after leaving the CIA in disgrace after revelations of leaking classified information to his mistress and personal biographer Paula Broadwell, went on to a successful career in academia, public speaking, and private equity. His net worth is estimated at $2 million.

Those military leaders who failed to properly account for their own efforts, mislead the public, and then racked up cushy paychecks after the war deserve to be punished. Generals who lose wars should lose their pensions. At the very least. It isn’t right for thousands of America’s sons and daughters to lose life and limb in service of idiotic policy goals while their leaders get rich.

What Empire?

Are you actually willing to trash our military in defense of a pig like Trump?

 

[surada]

You might as well label anything an "act of war" then.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggies"...until you can find a rock.

You actually believe that or were you trying to be cute?