gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/27/91)
Some have asked what I mean by "the next war."
Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the
current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit.
Where? Here are some of the candidates:
country pretext(s)
------- ------------------------------------------
Afghanistan control civil war
Cambodia control civil war
Colombia drug war; oppose revolution
Cuba drug war; assist revolution
El Salvador suppress revolution
Iran oppose influence/intervention in Iraq
Iraq II control civil war
Libya terrorism; influence/intervention in Africa
Peru drug war; oppose revolution
Vietnam vengeance
(Note also that if Kurdish success in Iraq leads to a Kurdish
invasion / revolt in Turkey, NATO will probably be bound by
treaty to intervene.)
When?
Defeat causes a considerable hiatus in the rhythm of American
military adventures. Consider the following table, covering
the period of the domination of American politics by the
Military-Industrial-Academic complex:
first last
year year event result time until next war
---- ---- ----- --------- -------------------
1941 1945 World War II victory 5 (1950)
1950 1953+ Korea standoff 12 (1965)
1965* 1973 Vietnam defeat 13 (1986)
1986 1986 Grenada victory! 4 (1990)
1990 1990 Panama victory!! 1 (1991)
1991 1991 Iraq victory!!! ?
+ most of the fighting took place in 1950 and 1951.
* first year of admitted combat using U.S. troops. Inter-
vention began earlier, but was ignored or concealed.
The average time to war after a victory is three years and
change (but note the trend!); after a less satisfactory outcome,
12 years and six months. Unopposed interventions and goofball
excursions such as Lebanon I and II and the Rescue of the
Iranian Hostages have not been included.
There's also the matter of the 1992 election. His Excellency
was slipping fast in the polls before the light in August.
None of the pre-Gulf problems have really gone away. Will
another little war be necessary to get the polls up again?
--
Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcfbee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) (03/27/91)
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >Some have asked what I mean by "the next war." >Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the >current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... -- bee@ms.uky.edu uunet, etc.:ukma!bee bitnet:bee@ukma.bitnet Man is the highest animal. Man does the classifying.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (03/27/91)
In article <bee.670089091@s.ms.uky.edu> bee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) writes: gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >Some have asked what I mean by "the next war." >Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the >current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... But if you'll go back and read his article, Gordon notes that it's the Military-Industrial Complex that's calling the wars he talks about, and the MIC didn't come to the forefront of American politics until after WWII. -- --russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker. It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/28/91)
| gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: | | >Some have asked what I mean by "the next war." | >Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the | >current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. bee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) writes: | Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just | all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... It's true what they say about you guys not reading history, isn't it? Between the period from 1918 to 1930 the United States intervened in the Soviet Union and in Latin America. However, the Military-Industrial-Academic complex had not yet formed, and as a result war was not being sold as a regular product. It was just something that the, uh, "managing class" did to get its business done, as quietly as possible. War was once considered a Bad Thing, you know. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
kitchel@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Sid Kitchel) (03/28/91)
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: |->It's true what they say about you guys not reading history, |->isn't it? Between the period from 1918 to 1930 the United |->States intervened in the Soviet Union and in Latin America. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Let's not cast too many motes before we examine the beams!! The US and others put troops into Russia in 1919-20 to protect the integrity of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Russia was in chaos with the Reds and the Whites hard at it. When the foreign troops arrived the Tsar had not yet been executed. There was no stable CCCP as yet. Franklin Roosevelt's first administration was the first US government to recognize that the Bolsheviki had won the civil war. Former naval person and former historian, --Sid -- Sid Kitchel...............WARNING: allergic to smileys and hearts.... Computer Science Dept. kitchel@cs.indiana.edu Indiana University kitchel@iubacs.BITNET Bloomington, Indiana 47405-4101........................(812)855-9226
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.224813.20137@swbatl.sbc.com> prater@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater) writes: >In article <bee.670089091@s.ms.uky.edu> bee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) writes: >>gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >> >>>Some have asked what I mean by "the next war." >>>Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the >>>current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. >>Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just >>all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... >Don't be ridiculous, King George and predecessor King Ronnie were >not in the midst of their reign of TERROR. We didn't have a lets >kick some butts attitude then like we do now. >Caryn Oh yeah, that's right, we forgot that George Bush is responsible for every evil and war of this century, before he was in office and even before he was born. But what other fiendish plans do you expect from such an evil supergenius?
jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (03/30/91)
bee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) wrote: > gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >> Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the >> current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. > Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just > all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... That sarcasm looks a bit silly if you remember what the winners of WW1 did within the next five years. Britain and France stomped all over the Middle East to enforce the Sykes-Picot agreement and forced through the Treaty of Lausanne and gave Venizelos the green light to invade what was left of Turkey. The US, Britain, France and Japan launched the War of Intervention against the Soviet Union. Italy turned into a Fascist state. US oil companies started their proxy Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. They just forgot to give this lot a catchy label like "New World Order". -- -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
bbs@NCoast.ORG (XBBS System) (04/02/91)
cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton In article <1991Mar27.224813.20137@swbatl.sbc.com> prater@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater) writes: >Don't be ridiculous, King George and predecessor King Ronnie were >not in the midst of their reign of TERROR. We didn't have a lets >kick some butts attitude then like we do now. "TERROR"? Well, I GUESS, at least for Republican Guards anyway.... :) I wonder what kind of "attitude" that Senor Sandino thought we had...? :) cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton "These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"
elliot@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Elliot Wilen) (04/06/91)
I suppose this really belongs in soc.history, but since it's apparently considered par for the course to post articles about Cambodia in alt.desert-storm, my comments below should pass muster without much difficulty. In article <NELSON.91Mar27155322@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes: >In article <bee.670089091@s.ms.uky.edu> bee@ms.uky.edu (E. Gilliam) writes: > > gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > > >Some have asked what I mean by "the next war." > >Victory always creates a thirst for more victory. When the > >current high wears off, it'll be time to look for another hit. > > > Yeah, I can see that. Like, after World War I. We were just > all over the world, satiating our thirst for another victory... > >But if you'll go back and read his article, Gordon notes that it's the >Military-Industrial Complex that's calling the wars he talks about, >and the MIC didn't come to the forefront of American politics until >after WWII. On the contrary. During the thirties and early forties, it was widely believed that American involvement in World War I was directly due to the machinations of arms manufacturers and Wall Street. This conspiracy theory was used by both conservative isolationists and (especially after the Nazi-Soviet pact) leftist intellectuals to argue that the United States should avoid involvement in the wars in Europe and China. Some continued to oppose US aid to the Allies on these grounds even after the defeat of France. --Elliot Wilen elliot@ocf.berkeley.edu !ucbvax!ocf!elliot elliot%ocf@ucbjade