The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[Brasscasing]

WOW, that is a heck of an assumption to make!

Not really. It's contained in their report...

..."The facts compiled in this review confirm our initial observations: the MSF trauma centre was fully functioning as a hospital with 105 patients admitted and surgeries ongoing at the time of the US airstrikes; the MSF rules in the hospital were implemented and respected, including the ‘no weapons’ policy; MSF was in full control of the hospital before and at the time of the airstrikes; there were no armed combatants within the hospital compound and there was no fighting from or in the direct vicinity of the trauma centre before the airstrikes.

What we know is that we were running a hospital treating patients, including wounded combatants from both sides – this was not a ‘Taliban base.’"...

http://kunduz.msf.org/pdf/20151030_kunduz_review_EN.pdf

Gee, by your comments Brasscasing you would think Abu Ghraib and the US Forces pissing on corpses never happened....

My comments neither mention, refer or allude to Abu Ghraib or US Forces pissing on corpses.

I don't believe you could reasonably come to your conclusion based on anything I've written in this topic (or any other topic I suspect).

Brass

[Brasscasing]

We'll see if the investigation(s) will provide any proof of that .

Indeed.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

Except sometimes civilians get targeted EXPLICITLY - such as the fire bombing of Dresden. That was by no means collateral damage.

Background:

..."As the two fronts began to near, the Western Allies began to consider plans for using strategic bombing to assist the Soviet advance. In January 1945, the Royal Air Force began to consider plans for the widespread bombing of cities in eastern Germany. When consulted, the head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris, recommended attacks against Leipzig, Dresden, and Chemnitz."...

..."During talks in Yalta, the Deputy Chief of the Soviet General Staff, General Aleksei Antonov, inquired about the possibility of using bombing to hinder German troop movements through hubs in eastern Germany. Among the list of targets discussed by Portal and Antonov were Berlin and Dresden. In Britain, planning for the Dresden attack moved forward with the operation calling for daylight bombing by the US Eighth Air Force followed by night strikes by Bomber Command. Though much of Dresden's industry was in suburban areas, planners targeted the city center with the goal crippling its infrastructure and causing chaos."...

Why Dresden:

..."The largest remaining unbombed city in the Third Reich, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and a cultural center known as the "Florence on the Elbe." Though a center for the arts, it was also one of Germany's largest remaining industrial sites and contained over 100 factories of various sizes. Among these were facilities for producing poison gas, artillery, and aircraft components. In addition, it was a key rail hub with lines running north-south to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as well as east-west Munich and Breslau (Wroclaw) and Leipzig and Hamburg."...

These are excerpts from an historically accurate synopsis...

 http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/aerialcampaigns/p/World-War-Ii-Bombing-Of-Dresden.htm

Civilians weren't specifically targeted at Dresden although it was known that the casualty rate would be high. Welcome to total warfare.

Peeing on bodies mininizes collateral damage?

That's the second time you've brought this up in relation to my comments. The acts of two individual soldiers who were court martialed for their misdeed do not represent the actions of the entire western military or even their unit. It's not really relevant

MSF does not agree with your assertion.

...It would not be in DWB's best interest to admit they were allowing Taliban use of their compound/building as a safe haven to conduct military operations. That's why we have conflicting reports as to what actually happened...

Of course there is. But where does one crime excuse another by the other party? Is that part of International law of warfare?

No crime by the US Air Force has been established. The investigations will determine if culpability is to be assigned.

So we hang people of the basis of attacks on hospital ships yet an attack on a hospital itself is excusable? Your logic double take is quite astounding. And I suspect the civilians saved by MSF would not agree with your assertions.
No one else cares for them after all.

In the real world there is no culpability until guilt is assigned. That's done through proper investigation. As I've already stated if the pilot was taking fire from that building, even if it was a hospital, he would be justified in returning fire. NATO, US ROEs make that clear.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

My Lai -  Was that a legitimate target Brass?

You misunderstand the definition and meaning of Collateral Damage vs. War Crime...

..."Collateral damage is a general term for unintentional deaths, injuries, or other damage inflicted incidentally on an intended target. In military terminology, it is frequently used where non-combatants are unintentionally killed or wounded and/or non-combatant property damaged as result of the attack on legitimate military targets."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

..."A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_

I trust this clears up your confusion.

Brass

[BillyB]

US won't even name the hospitals they have accused Russia of damaging.

It's not the US doing the accusing, it's the doctors working in Syria. Russia admits to bombing in the areas of the hospitals and even accused some of the hospitals to be fake. Between the doctors and Russia, somebody is lying.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202340


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/three-syrian-hospitals-bombed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

Civilians weren't specifically targeted at Dresden although it was known that the casualty rate would be high.

Civilian casualties were predicted to be high because the bombers weren't specifically targeting military/strategic targets either. Carpet bombing at it's finest.

[deccie]

How about this from Harris himself on the topic of city bombing....
 "The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

Seems rather unambiguous.

As for the rest I will reply when I can Brass but a half million dollars has been stolen at one of the business we are dealing with here and the proverbial shit has hit the fan this morning.

Ironically the manager sent from Moscow to sort out the stealing mess has himself stolen - and then run for it.

[deccie]

You misunderstand the definition and meaning of Collateral Damage vs. War Crime...

..."Collateral damage is a general term for unintentional deaths, injuries, or other damage inflicted incidentally on an intended target. In military terminology, it is frequently used where non-combatants are unintentionally killed or wounded and/or non-combatant property damaged as result of the attack on legitimate military targets."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

..."A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_

I trust this clears up your confusion.

Brass

The difference can come down to disclosure. Something the military is very bad at. Look at how the dead were initially referred to as the initial reports came out in Mai Lai as an illustrative example.  Who will know whether something is collateral damage or a deliberate war crime unless disclosure happens? I'm not confused - you are just delusional. The US has sought to justify torture in recent times...  and rendition... and now drone strikes solely based on metadata.
Yep, they are really trying to avoid that collateral damage.  Metadata is so infallible..

[Brasscasing]

How about this from Harris himself on the topic of city bombing....
 "The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

Seems rather unambiguous.

So is this Memo from Sir Harris to the Air Ministry ...

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.
The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things"...

Neither his quote or memo changes the fact that you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

Collateral damage had nothing to do with strategic bombing initiative policy during WW2. Both the Axis and Allied Air Forces were intentionally targeting cities. Not accidently targeting them.

There were two After Action justification inquiries conducted...

..."Marshall inquiry

An inquiry conducted at the behest of U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, stated the raid was justified by the available intelligence. The inquiry declared the elimination of the German ability to reinforce a counter-attack against Marshal Konev's extended line or, alternatively, to retreat and regroup using Dresden as a base of operations, were important military objectives. As Dresden had been largely untouched during the war due to its location, it was one of the few remaining functional rail and communications centres. A secondary objective was to disrupt the industrial use of Dresden for munitions manufacture, which American intelligence believed was the case. The shock to military planners and to the Allied civilian populations of the German counterattack known as the Battle of the Bulge had ended speculation that the war was almost over, and may have contributed to the decision to continue with the aerial bombardment of German cities.[126]

The inquiry concluded that by the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as "defended".[7] By this stage in the war both the British and the Germans had integrated air defences at the national level. The German national air-defence system could be used to argue—as the tribunal did—that no German city was "undefended".

Marshall's tribunal declared that no extraordinary decision was made to single out Dresden (e.g. to take advantage of the large number of refugees, or purposely terrorize the German populace). It was argued that the intent of area bombing was to disrupt communications and destroy industrial production. The American inquiry established that' the Soviets, pursuant to allied agreements for the United States and the United Kingdom to provide air support for the Soviet offensive toward Berlin, had requested area bombing of Dresden to prevent a counterattack through Dresden, or the use of Dresden as a regrouping point after a strategic retreat."...

..."U.S. Air Force Historical Division report

A report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) analyzed the circumstances of the raid and concluded that it was militarily necessary and justified, based on the following points:[7]
1.The raid had legitimate military ends, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
2.Military units and anti-aircraft defences were sufficiently close that it was not valid to consider the city "undefended."
3.The raid did not use extraordinary means but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
4.The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
5.The raid achieved the military objective, without excessive loss of civilian life."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

 

As for the rest I will reply when I can Brass but a half million dollars has been stolen at one of the business we are dealing with here and the proverbial shit has hit the fan this morning.

Ironically the manager sent from Moscow to sort out the stealing mess has himself stolen - and then run for it.

Good luck. I hope you catch your man.

Brass

[mendeleyev]

One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities. Previous generations understood (correctly) that to defeat an enemy you had to demoralize his citizenry as well as kill his army. The concept of a "just" war was whether war was warranted morally, not for collateral damage.

Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate. I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.

By the same token, not since WWII have we had a "just" war where innocents such as the Jews, the retarded, the handicapped, and those condemned as political prisoners were being exterminated.

[raba6999]

One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities. Previous generations understood (correctly) that to defeat an enemy you had to demoralize his citizenry as well as kill his army. The concept of a "just" war was whether war was warranted morally, not for collateral damage.

Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate. I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.

By the same token, not since WWII have we had a "just" war where innocents such as the Jews, the retarded, the handicapped, and those condemned as political prisoners were being exterminated.

That post is beyond moronic! Name me just 1 "modern" war that was long and drawn out? In the conventional definition of it, wars these days are very short and relatively "clean" compared to what they have been in the past. I don't think you are not understanding the distinction between war and occupation. Occupation is and always has been the real problem and by nature can only be temporary.

Unfortunately for you, today's combatants understand much better than you the difference and that is precicely what they are counting on. There would be no point carpet-bombing countries or trying to subdue their population since these countries are not at war with "us", they are merely territories where law doesn't apply and that ennemies are using as ground they can conduct operations from.

The aim of these combatants is not victory in the traditional sense of it since there is not real possibility of that, however they have a few objectives:
1) bring western soldiers to them since they cannot really go to them
2) hope that frustration will build within the occupied civilian population and provide them with new recruits and support, that they are not getting on their own.
3) Die as martyrs
4) Get western countries to quarrel between them and demoralize their own populations
5) The vague hope that destabilization and collapse of western society will somehow be the result of objectives 1 to 4.

Western powers have the baddest, sharpest knives money can buy but stabbing molasses will produce no results whatsoever, no matter how many stabs at it you take.

Add to all of this the self-imposed restrictions western nations have (and the U.N.), their lack of taste for suffering, their unwillingness to break "international law" and the fact that they want nothing ressembling a conventional war where the result of the "war" part would be uncertain and you have the perfect melting-pot for today's stew.

I would argue previous generations knew nothing more than today's, but they lived in a world that was "simpler" and where the lines in the sand were clear. As the concept of borders and nations get fuzzier - with the good and the bad that comes with it - adapting has proved to be too much of a challenge for western bureaucrats to pull off.

[Brasscasing]

The difference can come down to disclosure. Something the military is very bad at. Look at how the dead were initially referred to as the initial reports came out in Mai Lai as an illustrative example.  Who will know whether something is collateral damage or a deliberate war crime unless disclosure happens? I'm not confused - you are just delusional. The US has sought to justify torture in recent times...  and rendition... and now drone strikes solely based on metadata.
Yep, they are really trying to avoid that collateral damage.  Metadata is so infallible..

War crimes/atrocities/massacres/murder have happened throughout history. Western nations are not immune to the phenomenon. However, the difference is it's not endemic or institutionalized in our militaries.

The Americans are perhaps the example of the "system working" to a large extent. From My Lai forward acts of this nature have become intolerable to  American society and intense scrutiny is given by media, public and government to events within a military action that even hint of wrong doing.

For instance, the accusations of the Australian army's massacre at Binh Ma during the Vietnam war have never been investigated as a war crime in spite of numerous first person eyewitness accounts (both Vietnamese and Australian soldier accounts) reporting to government and media that civilians were machine gunned and grenaded. It could be argued the Australian government/military of the time covered that incident up as well.

Canada is not immune either.  In more recent times The Somalia Affair rocked our nation.

..."Who will know whether something is collateral damage or a deliberate war crime unless disclosure happens?"...   

Unfortunately, in todays modern society there will be those that are never satisfied with the evidence/conclusions, regardless of the outcome. If the investigation shows there were mitigating circumstances (Kunduz) there will be immediate howls of cover up coming from several quarters, I'm sure.

I'm not confused - you are just delusional.

Nope. You were (I assume now) intentionally trying to blur the line between collateral damage and war crime. You still are.

I doubt you'll find that any of these past or present policies/incidents you're peppering your posts with are relevant to what happened at Kunduz. An example being this...

The US has sought to justify torture in recent times...  and rendition... and now drone strikes solely based on metadata.
Yep, they are really trying to avoid that collateral damage.  Metadata is so infallible..

If you want to start a topic on Gitmo or SIGINT as it relates to metadata or post on one of the numerous topics criticizing American policies, go ahead. I'll contribute if I can.

However, it's just not relevant as it relates to Kunduz. Which, after all, is what we're discussing.

Brass

[Anotherkiwi]

That post is beyond moronic! Name me just 1 "modern" war that was long and drawn out?

Does Vietnam count?  Nearly 20 years from start (November 1955) to stop (April 1975) seems plenty long enough to me.

[BillyB]

One of the reasons for today's modern wars which are long and drawn out, is the lack of civilian causalities.

America dominated Iraq twice and Afghanistan fairly quick. The handful of rebels and terrorists left behind doesn't count for a war lasting a long time.

Our smart bombs and high tech toys often do a good job at destroying buildings, but little to convince a determined enemy to capitulate.

Because of America's deadly accuracy on military targets, Iraqis soldiers surrendered by the hundreds of thousands and when we entered Bagdad, Iraqi citizens cheered on American M1 Abrams tanks rolling through the streets without firing shots. That would not have happened if the American military recklessly targeted civilians.

I applaud the result of bombing German towns and villages, just as I applaud the nukes dropped on Japan. Those actions helped to shorten the wars on both fronts. Yes, people were killed, but more innocent lives were spared by forcing the losers to surrender.

It was actually against Allied policy and considered inhumane to target civilians until later in the war. If bombs hit military targets instead of homes, the war would be shortened much faster. Bomb a ball bearing factory and thousands of airplane and tank engines will not be built. Bomb a house and that military hardware gets built. In the movie Memphis Belle, a true story, the co pilot wanted to recklessly drop his bombs in order to go back to base and get out of the flak. The captain decided not to drop the bombs and to go back to the target, a factory, and hit it. His reasoning is that if they don't get the factory, another mission will have to take place in the future.


The nukes on Japan is not the same as carpet bombing which didn't scare the enemy into surrendering. The nukes were to show Japan America had a new weapon that would tilt the scales of war heavily in their favor. If you were to fight an enemy in hand to hand combat, you may proceed. But if he has a gun and you don't, you're more likely to surrender. Nuking Japan saved lives. Carpet bombing didn't.

Does Vietnam count?  Nearly 20 years from start (November 1955) to stop (April 1975) seems plenty long enough to me.

America never declared war on Vietnam and chose not to advance on Hanoi. America didn't want to win it or end it so eventually it lost public support. Maybe American politicians wanted it to remain frozen. Why? Maybe to test American hardware against Soviets during the cold war.

[raba6999]

Does Vietnam count?  Nearly 20 years from start (November 1955) to stop (April 1975) seems plenty long enough to me.

The Vietnam war is the poster child and the model sought by the present terrorists that proves my points. The US was stabbing at molasses the whole time, stuck in their "rules" about what war is and isn't, their stubborness at respecting some sort of territorial idea that they had in their head that somehow south-vietnam was a standing-on-its-own country... it wasn't except on a map. The ennemy could not be contained by those imaginary lines.

There could not have been an actual face-off between 2 standing armies in Vietnam because the balance of strenght was too loopsided. So refer to objectives 1 to 4 and you will see why the USA lost that one.

[Gator]

There could not have been an actual face-off between 2 standing armies in Vietnam because the balance of strenght was too loopsided. So refer to objectives 1 to 4 and you will see why the USA lost that one.

Your Objectives 1 and 4 had nothing to do with losing Vietnam.

The US could not win in Vietnam in part because  we supported a corrupt  government run by a minority.  The RVN  reneged on its  commitment to hold a referendum about whether to unite with the DRV because the vast majority of the Vietnamese  population would have voted for reunification. 

The "Domino Theory" compelled the US to enter the conflict in support of the corrupt RVN.  Because we were fighting insurgents with  one hand behind our back, the war became protracted.  Support in the US for a protracted war declined.  Although the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the US in the sense that the Communists  lost huge numbers of  forces,  the Tet Offensive gave enough impetus to the anti-war movement in the US to start diplomatic talks for withdrawal. 

The South Vietnamese population suffered heavily during the war  with almost as many civilians assassinated by the Communists as inadvertently killed by the RVN and allied forces (ROK soldiers were brutal).  When the North eventually entered Saigon in 1975.  there was concern about what would happen.   The North came as liberators, not conquerors.   Corruption was quickly eliminated, and the unified country today has improved dramatically.  One could argue the "good guys" won. 

[mendeleyev]

That post is beyond moronic! Name me just 1 "modern" war that was long and drawn out?

Actually your reply is moronic.

How about not only one, but your response makes one question if you are of sufficient knowledge to know the length of these three:

- Vietnam

- Iraq

- Afghanistan

As to your theories about Vietnam not being a real country--that is funny. They did manage to turn out an army capable to throwing out the French, and then the Americans.

[raba6999]

Actually your reply is moronic.

How about not only one, but your response makes one question if you are of sufficient knowledge to know the length of these three:

- Vietnam

- Iraq

- Afghanistan

As to your theories about Vietnam not being a real country--that is funny. They did manage to turn out an army capable to throwing out the French, and then the Americans.

Vietnam was lost by both colonial forces not on the battlefield but on the homefront.  It was much more akin to an occupation of a hostile territory than a war of invasion. My point about it not being an actual country is the fact that the ennemy was using south-China, Cambodia and Thailand to conduct operations from. The USA being unable to act effectively to that fact because of factors that had nothing to do with operational imperatives ultimately contributed to them leaving with their tail between their legs.

The Irak and Afghanistan wars lasted a very short amount of time... I don't understand how you can argue they were long... In both cases regular armies were subdued with minimal effort and casualties to either side.

Is America at war with Irak? No, not since 2003
Is America at war with Afghanistan? No!
Are/were they meddled in a messy occupation? Yes, definitely.

But explain me in your great wisdom how carpet bombing Kaboul would help in any way the actual situation in Afghanistan???

[mendeleyev]

Raba,

You can dice and slice over the terms war and occupation all you want, but your timeline is uninformed.

Is America at war with Irak? No, not since 2003

Allow me to assist with your education. The name of the country is spelled as Iraq. The conflict did not end in 2003, that is when it started. Troops pulled out in 2010. Now, I'm not a math genius (apparently neither are you), but WWII started in 1941 and ended in 1945. That was a world-wide conflict that was over in 4 years. Hmm, if the Iraq conflict began in 2003 and ended in 2010, then that is 7 years in a regional action that was not as all-encompassing.

Is America at war with Afghanistan? No!
Are/were they meddled in a messy occupation? Yes, definitely.

Newsflash Raba, various sides are shooting at each other. Whole armies and massive amounts of manpower and equipment have been inserted into Afghanistan. The timeline there began in 2001 and NATO actions officially ended in 2014. Hmm, again I am not a genius at math, but that seems to be around 13 years. By the way, it was a "war" and not just a messy occupation.

As to your term a "messy occupation" I do not recall Germany or Japan being messy occupations after they surrendered. Oh holy crap, Rabaman, they SURRENDERED! Ah, something neither Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan has done.

You see, until the populace is convinced that resistance is futile, messy occupations continue on forever.

That, by the way, was my point.

[jone]

Mendy,

I know I'm being a pain in the ___ but my take on WWII begins with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In Asia, it certainly began when Japan invaded China in 1937.   It began in Europe with the invasion of Poland by the Nazis in 1939.  Your point of view is from an American perspective.  But by the time we got in, most of the World had already been at war for years.

[Muzh]

Putin's Crash Test: Downed Russian Jetliner Could Signal the President's Next Big Strike

Do Russians really want to buy a bridge? What a bunch of saps.

Already, loyal media outlets have cast Russia’s campaign in Syria as a historical struggle between civilization and barbarism. “We have saved Europe for a fourth time,” boasted Kiselev earlier this month. “First the Mongols, then Napoleon, Hitler—and now we have saved them from ISIS.”(??????  )


Going on past form, Putin is a leader who thrives on the politics of fear. He has been through trial by extremism before—many times—and each time he has answered violence with violence.

http://www.newsweek.com/putins-test-retaliation-metrojet-flight-9268-islamic-state-syria-392297

[Brasscasing]

Mendy,

I know I'm being a pain in the ___ but my take on WWII begins with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In Asia, it certainly began when Japan invaded China in 1937.   It began in Europe with the invasion of Poland by the Nazis in 1939.  Your point of view is from an American perspective.  But by the time we got in, most of the World had already been at war for years.

Not to steal Mendy's thunder...

It was actually Roosevelt who coined the term "The Second World War". However, the term "World War(s)" had been bantered about for years when speculating of world conflict (it should be noted that there are numerous competing claims as to who may have coined the phrase from several news sources and governments).

When the US officially entered WW2 there were several 'official' names offered for the conflict by different organizations. However, "The Second World War" was adopted.

As a result the acronym WW2 was coined and as the wars were still close enough in years in the 40's to be confused, the name "World War 1" or "First World War" was given to the 1914-18 war. Up to that point it (WW1) had been referred to as "The Great War".

Historians and History buffs are always debating as to whether or not the war was a 'world war' before the US entered the fray.

For myself I fall into the 'no it wasn't' camp. My reasoning being that the US and UK/Commonwealth were not at war with Japan before  Dec 41 even though Japan itself had invaded/was waging war on several Asian countries prior to that date.

So the Pacific theatre and European theatres were technically to different wars before Dec 41 although Japan and Germany (and Italy) had signed the Tripartite Pact nearly a year before.

Brass

 

[mendeleyev]

Jone, just to clarify, you are correct. My view of that conflict as a truly all encompassing event worldwide begins in June of 1941 when Hitler sealed his dismal fate with the invasion of the CCCP.

[Gator]

Raba,

I appreciate the model you constructed about wars.  It shows creative thinking.  Nevertheless, you make erroneous statements to force fit your model.  If you wish to keep talking about Vietnam, please research the correct facts.  Some of us were in Vietnam during the conflict and know the facts.

Vietnam was lost by both colonial forces not on the battlefield but on the homefront.

Who were the Colonial forces?  French and the Japanese?   The US had no plans to colonize.   

The French got their ass kicked on the battlefront by the Viet Minh  (Google "Dien Bien Phu"; the NVA attempted the same tactic  against the US at Khe Sanh and failed).   You are correct about the US and the lack of homefront support. 

My point about it not being an actual country is the fact that the ennemy was using south-China, Cambodia and Thailand to conduct operations from.

    -  Cambodia, true. 
    -  South-china,  false (in fact, China and Vietnam have  been hostile off and on for centuries, fought a border war in the 1980s,  and the relationship today is strained) (China did give aid to North Vietnam). 
    -  Thailand, false.  The NVA never entered Thailand.  In fact, the US operated multiple air bases in Thailand for bombing raids of North Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh trail.

So why did you not include Laos?  The Ho Chi Minh trail went through the entire length of southern  Laos.   

The USA being unable to act effectively to that fact because of factors that had nothing to do with operational imperatives ultimately contributed to them leaving with their tail between their legs.

Not sure what  you mean by "operational imperatives."  The US dropped more bombs in Laos than were dropped in Germany in WWII (nothing to be proud of).      The US also crossed the Cambodian border to pursue the NVA (again, nothing to be proud of). 

The point:  the US hit the NVA in these border countries and the NVA suffered huge losses.  Yet, the NVA kept coming.  This speaks of the motivation of the NVA soldiers, unlike the lack of motivation of ARVN consistent with what I wrote in an  earlier post, namely RVN had  a corrupt government run by a minority. 

[Gator]

The Irak and Afghanistan wars lasted a very short amount of time... I don't understand how you can argue they were long... In both cases regular armies were subdued with minimal effort and casualties to either side.

The US and its NATO allies entered Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and their terrorist guests, Al Qaeda.  The Taliban is still fighting.  Longest war in US history. 

So Mendy is correct as below:

Raba,

Newsflash Raba, various sides are shooting at each other. Whole armies and massive amounts of manpower and equipment have been inserted into Afghanistan. The timeline there began in 2001 and NATO actions officially ended in 2014. Hmm, again I am not a genius at math, but that seems to be around 13 years. By the way, it was a "war" and not just a messy occupation.

In Iraq, I agree with you that the regular army folded like a cheap suit. 

[deccie]

  Corruption was quickly eliminated, and the unified country today has improved dramatically.  One could argue the "good guys" won.

I'm not quite so sure corruption has been eliminated and still today there are people trying to leave the country.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-20/government-criticised-over-boat-secrecy/6404950
for just one boat load.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the government in the south was completely corrupt.