Yes, the goal of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his. That about sums it up. When we have planes that gain altitude each time they fire (AC-130 Spectre Gunship) to weapons that can be launched from behind things and hit their target within centimeters (hellfire missles) we have the ability to win fast. Its not fair, but war isn't fair, on the other hand, its moral because we try to only killed armed combatants.
American Hostage Beheaded
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Frank HaganThe West has applied morality to warfare ever since Augustine formulated the rules for it back in the 4th century. "Just war" is the foundation of our current attempts to make war between combatants on the field of battle, limit warfare to the battlefield, avoid raping and abusing women and children, etc. It is a Western concept, though, and trying to "play by those rules" against an opponent that does not can be troublesome.
Other cultures have similar ideals that are expressed a bit differently, but I'm not as familiar with them as I am with our culture."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
-
Originally posted by -Oz-the goal of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his.
True, Buddha, no civilized human should desire to torture an enemy for
pleasure, but damnit when they're beheaded innocent people, its reallly
hard not to be praying a slow, drawn out death befalls upon these people."How can someone be so distracted yet so focused?"
- CComment
-
Originally posted by -Oz-Yes, the goal of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his. That about sums it up. When we have planes that gain altitude each time they fire (AC-130 Spectre Gunship) to weapons that can be launched from behind things and hit their target within centimeters (hellfire missles) we have the ability to win fast. Its not fair, but war isn't fair, on the other hand, its moral because we try to only killed armed combatants.
We're no longer fighting a conventional war and most of our high tech weapons are not going to help us win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Without the support of the Iraqis the enemy can't win - no matter how much support they get from Iran and Syria. Isreali tactics are not going to work here. We need some good old French counterinsurgency. Census and id cards will be our weapons of choice if we want to win. We can win this war. The Guerrillas are violating one of Mao's most sacred tenets - don't piss off the people - we're not doing to bad at violating that one ourselves. However, all we have to do is treat the Iraqis better than the enemy.
I just hope the American people have the stomach for this. We are going to be there for decades if we intend to win. To me that mean leaving Iraq as prosperous and stable as Germany or Japan. We did pretty good rebuilding them we can at least do the same for Iraq.Last edited by Buddha; 09-24-2004, 01:06 AM."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
-
I sound like a hawk in these posts, but I'm not. I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq (in part because I feared the estimates of 100,000 dead in Baghdad would turn out to be correct, along with the 25,000 in American casualties in the "Battle of Baghdad".) Saddam is a bad, bad guy, and he was shooting at our pilots every day, but I didn't see enough in our vital national interest to incur those kinds of numbers. And I don't like the idea of nation building.
But, once you are committed, the worse you can do is simply "get out", or publish a time-table for withdrawal (you can certainly HAVE a time-table, you just can't publish it when guerilla warfare is going on). The Iraqi people will be far worse off under the heel of the islamic fascists applying Sharia (or however its spelled).
Iraq's population is very well educated, and democracy may work there. Polling there now shows that 58% overall believe there will be a good outcome of the elections coming up, and a similar percentage are "glad" or "thankful" that the former regime is gone. That bodes well if the terrorists, many of whom have come in during the aftermath of the "catastrophic success" of the invasion, are put down.
But Buddah, re-read the history of the post-war German insurgency. I seem to remember some very draconian measures being taken any time they poked their heads above the rubble. With Iraq now controlling whether we can flatten a city like Fallujah, I don't think we can take those measures without making a complete sham out of the idea of soverignity. (Spell check?)Comment
-
But Buddah, re-read the history of the post-war German insurgency. I seem to remember some very draconian measures being taken any time they poked their heads above the rubble. With Iraq now controlling whether we can flatten a city like Fallujah, I don't think we can take those measures without making a complete sham out of the idea of soverignity. (Spell check?)
But counterinsurgency is less about draconian measures and more about intelligence and organization. It's about isolating the insurgents and removing their support.
Personally I also think turning over sovereignty was a bad move with insurgency on the rise."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
-
Originally posted by BuddhaYour absolutely right. Post war Germany was pounded into submission it isn't like the Army had any experence with counterinsurgency nor does it train for it today either.
But counterinsurgency is less about draconian measures and more about intelligence and organization. It's about isolating the insurgents and removing their support.
Personally I also think turning over sovereignty was a bad move with insurgency on the rise.
I've heard that behind the influx is Iran. I can't help but think that if we could re-live the late 70's, we might not be in the situation we are in now.Comment
-
Germany is one valid analogy, Vietnam is (in my opinion) a less valid one.
But perhaps best of all might be Ireland.
A group of armed individuals unafraid to apply lethal force and terror liberally, resisting an occupation which is felt justified even by a significant number (or majority) of locals.
And how was the current state in Ireland reached? By firing hellfires at members of Sionn Fein?
For what it's worth, and mostly because I feel I'm being mis-painted by several people here, I make the following stances:
Saddam: Iraq is better off without him. Glad that family is in the ground.
UN: Doing their job very well, obviously. If only the cowboy had listened to them.
Abu Ghraib: What did we expect, really? So much for our white hats.
The US military: Apart from the prisons, doing a fantastic job at executing their orders. It's the people GIVING their orders I have a problem with.
The trend to dehumanize and actively demonize a people in the media: disappointing to see that a trick played by propagandists on the weak-minded still works after all these millenia. Anyone who thinks the enemy isn't teaching their people that we're the evil ones, with just as much conviction, is horrifyingly deluded. That's the reason morality has no place in war, except for the shepherds to use as a tool on the mindless flock.
And finally, coming back to the main thread of my conversation with Frank:
The question of 'black hat' vs 'white hat' in this conflict: The terror of executing a string of unarmed individuals. The terror of 'shock and awe' as a city explodes around you in a show of overwhelming force, and is left in ruins with thousands of innocent dead. Each side hits the other with the psychological weapons they believe will do the most damage, and lead to demoralization and surrender. Such is war. Do you really expect me to credit claims of high morality in such a theatre? Do you really expect me to observe such a difference?Ok, you guys start coding.
I'll go find out what the customer wants.Comment
-
Originally posted by CourtlyFor what it's worth, and mostly because I feel I'm being mis-painted by several people here, I make the following stances:
Saddam: Iraq is better off without him. Glad that family is in the ground.
UN: Doing their job very well, obviously. If only the cowboy had listened to them.
Abu Ghraib: What did we expect, really? So much for our white hats.
The US military: Apart from the prisons, doing a fantastic job at executing their orders. It's the people GIVING their orders I have a problem with.
We are prosecuting the people responsible for Abu Ghraib; do you really think the terrorists are prosecuting their people for not upholding standards of human dignity?
Originally posted by CourtlyThe trend to dehumanize and actively demonize a people in the media: disappointing to see that a trick played by propagandists on the weak-minded still works after all these millenia. Anyone who thinks the enemy isn't teaching their people that we're the evil ones, with just as much conviction, is horrifyingly deluded. That's the reason morality has no place in war, except for the shepherds to use as a tool on the mindless flock.
I also think you may have misunderstood my point about "moral distinctions", and have it confused with morality.
Originally posted by CourtlyAnd finally, coming back to the main thread of my conversation with Frank:
The question of 'black hat' vs 'white hat' in this conflict: The terror of executing a string of unarmed individuals. The terror of 'shock and awe' as a city explodes around you in a show of overwhelming force, and is left in ruins with thousands of innocent dead. Each side hits the other with the psychological weapons they believe will do the most damage, and lead to demoralization and surrender. Such is war. Do you really expect me to credit claims of high morality in such a theatre? Do you really expect me to observe such a difference?
There is a distinction between targeting and killing civilians on purpose, and targeting and killing military leaders. Even if some civilians get killed as part of the "collateral damage."
There is a distinction between playing naked party games, putting underwear on prisoner's heads, and humiliating them, and sawing off a civilian's head slowly.
There is a distinction between a surprise attack that kills 3,000 civilians and a military operation that is telegraphed well in advance, with pauses in the action to allow surrender.
Finally, a thought. My father was a WWII vet, and fought the Germans across Europe. Germany never attacked us, the Japanese did. Yet, instead of fighting Japan, my father was sent to a place considered a greater threat, and walked onto the beach at Normandy (2 months after D-Day) as a staff sargent.
Later on, he was in the Battle of the Bulge where, on the second DAY, 19,000 Americans died in battle along with 20,000 Germans. A single day. He lost his entire company that day. He was the sole survivor.
Should we have pulled out after seeing 39,000 deaths? For a war where we had no compelling national interest? Would it have been better to simply try and contain Hitler?
Had we been there then, would we be as resolute as we are, years later, after seeing the Holocaust pictures? History tells us the price was not too great, but I wouldn't have blamed my father if he didn't think so.Comment
-
Originally posted by CourtlyFor what it's worth, and mostly because I feel I'm being mis-painted by several people here, I make the following stances:
The trend to dehumanize and actively demonize a people in the media: disappointing to see that a trick played by propagandists on the weak-minded still works after all these millenia. Anyone who thinks the enemy isn't teaching their people that we're the evil ones, with just as much conviction, is horrifyingly deluded. That's the reason morality has no place in war, except for the shepherds to use as a tool on the mindless flock.
UN: Doing their job very well, obviously.
Here's where I think you are missing the "moral distinction". Please remember that is not a slam at you personally, or in any way saying someone who misses a moral distinction is not moral. Replace "moral" with "ethical" or the phrase with "better or worse".
There is a distinction between playing naked party games, putting underwear on prisoner's heads, and humiliating them, and sawing off a civilian's head slowly.
The question is how to end it. America's could "cut and run." Americans soldiers would stop dying in Iraq. We could stop spending money on a war in Iraq. Iraq would fall into civil war. Millions of Iraqis would die. It could even spread throughout the Middle East and cause a global depression. Or we clean up the mess we made. We make the sacrifices here at home. The financial burden will be enormous. We would have to cut spending across the board and raise taxes. Every American would have to tighten their belts. Even worse many more Americans would die in Iraq. We can expect no support in either decision from any nation. There's no easy way to end this.
Will we over come our self-interest? I hope so.
These are my opinions, to those who are offended I apologize. I should've kept my mouth shut to begin with as planned.Last edited by Buddha; 09-25-2004, 10:06 AM."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
-
Originally posted by BuddhaIt's the failure of morals and ethics to find a peaceful solution that results in war. War is the ultimate failure. In any war, it is self-interest that drive the decision making.
Originally posted by BuddhaFor every American who lost his head in Iraq, I'm sure I could find a few hundred dead Iraqi children who have died because of this war. Iraq may not have been a nice place to live under Saddam Hussein but it probably not as bad as it is right now. Every decision made in Iraq involves life and death from the Army blowing away a terrorist with a missile to Iraqis mothers simply going shopping for food to feed their children. There is no brightside to this. It's war. We can only reclaim our morality by ending it.
I've heard statements that the UN sanctions were responsible for 500,000 child deaths over 10 years, but I can't find any stats that support that. UNICEF does say that child mortality increased from 51 per 1000 births to 131 per 1000 births between 1985 and 1999, and had the rate of improvement prior to the UN sanctions held stable over those years, including the reduction in number of deaths of children under 5 to disease and malnutrition, then there would have been 500,000 more children under 5 who survived. UNICEF clearly blamed the sanctions for those deaths. (I think they are overstated, but its hard to get any solid data).
You could make the argument that every decade that Saddam stayed in power, half a million people died. Again, I think its fast and loose with the facts, but not too far from your idea that for every American, hundreds of children died due to our involvement.
Originally posted by BuddhaThe question is how to end it. America's could "cut and run." Americans soldiers would stop dying in Iraq. We could stop spending money on a war in Iraq. Iraq would fall into civil war. Millions of Iraqis would die. It could even spread throughout the Middle East and cause a global depression. Or we clean up the mess we made. We make the sacrifices here at home. The financial burden will be enormous. We would have to cut spending across the board and raise taxes. Every American would have to tighten their belts. Even worse many more Americans would die in Iraq. We can expect no support in either decision from any nation. There's no easy way to end this.
Will we over come our self-interest? I hope so.
These are my opinions, to those who are offended I apologize. I should've kept my mouth shut to begin with as planned.Comment
-
^ Dunno how much help it'll be to ya Frank (or anyone else); its for this year. ^"How can someone be so distracted yet so focused?"
- CComment
-
Originally posted by Frank HaganIts a statement most would agree with, in principle. Iraq isn't one of these cases, but there are times when war is unavoidable because of the actions of others.
Originally posted by Frank HaganI think that's overstated, but its hard to find hard stats to compare it with.
Originally posted by Frank HaganI don't think it will take much sacrifice for us to continue to correct the problems there. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a country rich in natural resources and political stability is the most important thing to try in instill. The infrastructure is already improved over pre-1985 days, and 58% of the population have a hopeful outlook for their country. If the elections are held in January, and we are able to assist with more humanitarian aid while their economy is re-built, I think our presence there will be less than in Germany after WWII, or Japan. Maybe 10 years.
Only two ways to fix the problem cut spending or raise taxes. We're at war we better do both and give our soldier everything they need.
I think in 10 years we could have Iraq under control however I doubt we will be leaving. We have other interest in the area, namely Syria and Iran. We'll need to return the favor for their insurgents. Elections in January? Doubt that too.
Just a little note: Please check my numbers here on the economy because I'm pulling them from memory. Can't access half of the internet."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
-
American defense spending has always been higher than other countries; even France, who may have spent more than the British, kept defense spending at about 3% of their GDP (they have started to shave it a bit now below that level.)
There's a handy chart of defense spending as a percentage of GDP at http://www.learner.org/channel/works...cs/dspend.html and it shows we have never been as low as we have been in the last 10 years (in the post-WWII era). I haven't actually averaged the chart out, but I think "peacetime" years averaged would be about 4% - 5%. It never dipped below 7% from 1945 to 1972. Then it was in the high 4% and low 5% range most years until the 1980s.
Our current spending in the low 3% range is what's "out of whack", at only 16% of the total budget. Its hard to argue that increasing it to its historic levels would be a bad thing, although you don't want to repeat Lyndon Johnson's "guns and butter" mistakes of the 1960's.Comment
-
Originally posted by Frank HaganOur current spending in the low 3% range is what's "out of whack", at only 16% of the total budget. Its hard to argue that increasing it to its historic levels would be a bad thing, although you don't want to repeat Lyndon Johnson's "guns and butter" mistakes of the 1960's."Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - BuddhaComment
Comment