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.
...}
The Allies were also the first to use submarines.
How was Japan entitled to buy oil, steel, and coal?
Why not? What you call "threats" is really "diplomacy".
Interfering in business is harm, not diplomacy, and is essentially an act of war.
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
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.
