Jump to content

War, to be Humane, Must be Total


jbg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tactically, that's the only source that matters.

I'm going to assume that you don't believe that the Israeli military hasn't attempted cover-ups before, after all, ALL militaries do. Hell, all INSTITUTIONS do.

But it's entirely within the realm of possibility that Israeli soldiers mistook fire coming from neighbouring buildings as fire coming from the school, hence why it was hit.

Of course, we have no idea of knowing what happened because of the media ban on Gaza, which has been in place for 2 months.

Israel Puts Media Clamp on Gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/mi....html?ref=media

"And so for an 11th day of Israel’s war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it waited in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering, but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel, where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups financed mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume that you don't believe that the Israeli military hasn't attempted cover-ups before, after all, ALL militaries do. Hell, all INSTITUTIONS do.

Yep..it's in the job description. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

But it's entirely within the realm of possibility that Israeli soldiers mistook fire coming from neighbouring buildings as fire coming from the school, hence why it was hit.

Of course....the IDF fragged it's own soldiers today. War is hell.

Of course, we have no idea of knowing what happened because of the media ban on Gaza, which has been in place for 2 months.

It's not a football game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it seem like it to you, not knowing what dead and idying look like?

They look a lot like the victims in the video. Arab TV is more sensational and a lot less credible too. Anyone remember the videos of theey palestinians funerals, where they paraded the coffins and then ferried them back to the begining of the line...one fell and it was empty...or in Lebanon where the victims were laid out for thecamera then they got back into their SUVs and went to the next atrocity. AP unwittingly showed the same victim a 3 different attack sites...unlucky guy ...

I think that the issue here is the fact that western media tends to sanitze and censor what it reports so it isn't so graphic, and you just basically substantiated my argument by claiming that "Arab TV is more sensational". :rolleyes:

The big question is whether your deliberately or by nature this obtuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the issue here is the fact that western media tends to sanitze and censor what it reports so it isn't so graphic, and you just basically substantiated my argument by claiming that "Arab TV is more sensational". :rolleyes:

The big question is whether your deliberately or by nature this obtuse.

Why do we hear the screeches of the fish wives whose children allegedly are killed by Israelis and don't see their pride when another of the family blows him or herself up in Israel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that wars do not seem to end for good without a March to the Sea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or similar thrashing. WW I, for example, fdid not really end but blended into WW II since the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires were hardly reconciled to defeat. The Paris Peace Accord in Viet Nam was violated almost as soon as the ink was dry. There are other examples, no doubt.

You keep comparing the present 'war on terror' (Israel vs hamas, World vs Taliban, World vs Al Queda etc) as a war just like WWII, Vietnam, US Civil War.

I suggest the two are nowhere even remotely comparable. In the case of Israel vs Hamas, there is no 'state' with wich the IDF can conduct 'war' and therefore there is no military or industrial or supply base, hell not even a revenue base to direct the IDF against. All the examples of successful wars you produce are high level 'state vs state' wars, wherein there is something to attack; The enemy supplies, the enemy revenue stream, the enemy military.

Hamas has none of those things - their whole source of power is the support they recieve from the people in Gaza or Lebanon.

Your argument is that in order to destroy Hamas the people of Gaza must feel the pain of supporting Hamas. Much like the people of the CSA suffered for supporting the CSA through Shermans march to the sea.

You are not advocating purposeful killing of anyone and everyone, but you are saying civilian casualties should not be a hindrance to IDF actions nor should we condemn the IDF and Israel for civilian casualties that result from their particular march to the sea.

In the case of the bombings of Germany and Japan, a case can be made that such action was very important (You would say directly led to) the surrender of both nations. In the case of Germany you are wrong and in the case of Japan you are wrong too. You see, despite all the indiscriminate bombings by the allies Germany didnt surrender because Dresden got smoked. They surrendered because thier entire country from East to West was occupied by allied armies and there was nothing they could do to change it. In Japans case, the emperor got on the radio and told them to endure the unendurable realizing that Japan was doomed to be occupied by the all powerful allies.

The indescriminate bombings were instrumental but nowhere near the decisive things you think they were. Apparently, if the Germans had done a far more effective bombing campaign against British in 1940/41 the British would have tossed in the towel and surrendered.

IF, as you claim, it is the infliction of suffering and more suffering and more suffering upon civilians that results in victory, then mere occupation of Gaza by the IDF will have no result. You claim that the civilians of Gaza must be made to suffer and suffer some more that will result in Hamas surrendering. The invasion and occupation will not have the result you hope for unless the IDF makes civilian lives miserable for that, in your view, is the only way to stop them from supporting Hamas.

And it is you who is the rightious man!

Edit to add:

When Al Queda flew the planes into the towers and inflicted some suffering on Americans, did you, as an American, even consider for 2 seconds that - you know , maybe the terrorists are right? Maybe we should just put an end to it all and give up?

No. Instead you became angry and support prosecuting war against terrorists without regard to anyone who gets killed on the way to that end.

So why would Palestinians be any different?

This invasion of Gaza may give temporary resipite from Hamas rockets but thats all it will achieve. Nothing more. The term that comes to mind is

'wood shifting'.

Edited by Peter F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JBG,

I know what point your trying to drive at. But your perception of what you ask for is Horrific. Entropy based warfare should be the most absolute last thing an army should unleash on any society. Ill give you a prime example of why it should not in a minute. Entropy Warfare takes on 3 "idea's" if you will, they are Disruption, Friction, and Lethality. Usually depicted as Bubbles (not really important) but at OCS they talk about it. In the overlap portions you have. Disorganization (Friction and Disruption) Critical Function Destruction (Disruption and Lethality) and finally Maneuver Attrition (friction and Lethality). In the overlap of all three is Maximum Entropy. You cant look at attrition based Factors. The idea behind Entropy warfare is to give you a Balanced view of the Friction and attrition caused on a society.

Now Here is the skinny. While used in certain situations its effective (think South Carolina Militia in the Revolutionary war Disruption of supply lines and Friction (attrition was not really the goal)). When we go for Maximum use of Entropy. It blows up in are faces. Chaos ensues because discipline breaks down as troops violate laws and such. Sherman s troops in Georgia are still cursed in the south today because of the damage it did to the economy. It took years for the south to get even remotely caught up to the rest of the country. Another example of Inflicting Entropy Warfare on Someone. Post war Germany world war one. The sanctions put on Germany bankrupted the country which in turn bankrupted us. Which led to the rise of the Nazi Party.

As a former soldier, I will tell you right now, for no reason other than the very most dire consequences would i employ total warfare. If you need to use Entropy warfare the correct way is to use part of the model. Not to maximize the destruction of your enemy.

Thank you.

I better get an a on this report. :lol:

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please spare me the "the great Israeli altruists pulled out of Gaza because they love peace" routine. Stop moving the goalposts - Israel withdrew from Gaza because it was incapable of occupying the area anymore, and they were loosing lots of money trying to do so.

I suppose I'm supposed to pretend that the blockade on Gaza which has completely crippled the economy, and meant that most people there now require foreign food aid to survive, accounts for nothing?

To which of course, the genius' at Hamas responded with:

It is irrelevant as to why Israel pulled out of Gaza, just that they did.

Since the hue and cry and defence of terrorism from western leftists was the 'occupation' one would think that if that was valid, the terrorism would have stopped once the occupation did - of course, it did not.

If anything, it got worse.

It is apparent that in your mind it is because of the 'blockade' now - talk about moving goalposts..

If that is true, perhaps you could explain to us why Hamas is not launching rockets into Egypt too?

Thanks

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the issue here is the fact that western media tends to sanitze and censor what it reports so it isn't so graphic, and you just basically substantiated my argument by claiming that "Arab TV is more sensational". :rolleyes:

The big question is whether your deliberately or by nature this obtuse.

Neither. By sensational they become less substantial. Fact is dead bodies are shown on western media and you're simply whining because they don't suit your preconceived notion of what a body should look like...and it is not relevant except for propaganda purpuses to show the same body from ten different angles ten different times.

And you should be careful of what you see...a picture is wrth a 1000 words...sometimes the words lie....

French TV apologises over footage mix-up

PARIS: France’s public broadcaster was forced to apologise to viewers yesterday after it mistakenly used amateur footage shot in 2005 to illustrate a report on the current Gaza conflict.

France 2 television on Monday broadcast part of an amateur video presented in a voiceover commentary as showing the fallout from an Israeli air strike on a civilian area in Gaza on January 1.

Dating from September 2005, the video, which has been widely circulated on the Internet, actually shows civilians wounded in the accidental explosion of a pick-up truck loaded with Hamas rockets at a rally in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Alerted by the French website LePost.fr, France 2 admitted its mistake yesterday and made a formal apology to viewers in its midday news broadcast.

“It is an error on our behalf.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...mp;parent_id=21

Another case in point. A wounded child being brought to a hospital 2 different times by 2 different "fathers".

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0eToeOx9YrgMg...d_baby_daughter

http://www.daylife.com/photo/07HqgalbyofnJ..._Shifa_hospital

Western Media...being used for propaganda regardles of the consequences to the child victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither. By sensational they become less substantial. Fact is dead bodies are shown on western media and you're simply whining because they don't suit your preconceived notion of what a body should look like...and it is not relevant except for propaganda purpuses to show the same body from ten different angles ten different times.

Your responses simply bespeak a comprehension problem on your part, and discussing this issue has become a real exercise in futility. Until you can grasp the concept of "sanitize" and "censor" in terms of how they apply to the media, and how violence, bloodshed, and death are portrayed in the western media, you're wasting my time.

And you should be careful of what you see...a picture is wrth a 1000 words...sometimes the words lie....

Oh, indeed, I should be very careful... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your responses simply bespeak a comprehension problem on your part, and discussing this issue has become a real exercise in futility. Until you can grasp the concept of "sanitize" and "censor" in terms of how they apply to the media, and how violence, bloodshed, and death are portrayed in the western media, you're wasting my time.

Oh, indeed, I should be very careful... :rolleyes:

How Sid Ryan of you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the hue and cry and defence of terrorism from western leftists was the 'occupation' one would think that if that was valid, the terrorism would have stopped once the occupation did - of course, it did not.

That's because the occupation didn't stop. As I said earlier, don't think for a second that as soon as Gazans were left without Israelis in their territory they didn't immediately think of their brothers in the West Bank, who are still under occupation. You can't do this thing half-assed: you have to end the occupation completely, not just a fraction of it. Small gestures like this and dismantling the occasional small settlement aren't going to convince anyone Israel is serious about getting back to the roadmap. JUST LIKE Israelis weren't convinced when Hamas suspended suicide bombings but continued with rocket attacks. Not exactly a show of good-faith there.

It is apparent that in your mind it is because of the 'blockade' now - talk about moving goalposts..

How so?

The blockade is a main component of this, at least before there was an economy of sorts, now everyone lives on handouts.

If that is true, perhaps you could explain to us why Hamas is not launching rockets into Egypt too?Thanks

No problem!

Hamas isn't launching rockets at Egypt simply because Egypt hasn't been occupying Palestinians for the last 40 years. Had Egypt been doing so, they would probably be the subject of some kind of violence from Hamas. Hamas has been critical of Egypt, but in the grand scheme of things this one action is not worth them going after Egypt and pissing off the only other neighbor they have. And Egypt has been much better about letting in humanitarian supplies as well. Even when the border was breached a year ago, they let half of Gaza's population cross the border unchecked to get food, fuel and other supplies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhh... Egypt is 'blockading' Gaza too..

Anyways:

That's because the occupation didn't stop. As I said earlier, don't think for a second that as soon as Gazans were left without Israelis in their territory they didn't immediately think of their brothers in the West Bank, who are still under occupation. You can't do this thing half-assed: you have to end the occupation completely, not just a fraction of it. Small gestures like this and dismantling the occasional small settlement aren't going to convince anyone Israel is serious about getting back to the roadmap. JUST LIKE Israelis weren't convinced when Hamas suspended suicide bombings but continued with rocket attacks. Not exactly a show of good-faith there.

wow, then perhaps you can explain why there aren't rockets launched from the westbank then? I mean that is the part that is 'occupied' right? Truth is, you will find another excuse for the terrorism as soon as Israel jumps through your next hoop. You don't care, you are just at pains to look like an 'honest broker' presumably akin to white guilt, except for you apparently, it is Jewish guilt.. strange, but not unheard of. There are other people who are intellectually dishonest like you as well, like Noam Chomsky. Personally, I'll take the Alan Dershowitz view on this.

Thinking of their brothers in the west bank.. lol, are you for real? Hamas and Fatah had a civil war - brutally slaughtering each other not one year ago.... and you think Hamas who controls the gaza strip, gives two figs about Fatah which controls the West bank?

Are you being serious? Or do you not give a hoot to your credibility?

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

Your argument is completely insane. In order for less people to die, we must kill more people quicker? I don't think so. In war we should defend ourselves, but also respect human life, especially innocent human life. You really have no idea how to be humane

The a-bombs at the end of WWII were handled poorly and inhumanely. What should Truman have done? 1st, detonate an a-bomb in the middle of nowhere (not on a well-populated city) but where its fearsome results could be known to the Japanese, and give the Japanese 24hr to surrender or another will be dropped. If no surrender, drop one on a small town(preferebly a military installation actually) and give another 24h warning. If no surrender, then drop on larger and larger populated areas until surrender occurs. That would have resulted in much less civilian death yet yielded the same result.

Maybe it would have taken more time this way, maybe a few more days, but if the U.S. and allies drew back its troops into defensive positions during this time there would have a minimal military casuality during that extra time taken.

Also, for someone claiming to be "humane" and the "resident left-wing yank", your signature saying "Freedom speaks English" is so freaking bigoted and xenophobic it disgusts me.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they want war, they want Israel to invade and make them all martyrs and to piss off the rest of the Muslim war and in an effort to trigger an all-out showdown with Israel. And Israel is all too happy to oblidge. Sure 6,000 rockets is not good, but they caused on FOUR deaths. In return, Israel has gone and killed several thousand people. Violence begets violence, and this "incursion" will only lead to more rocket attacks and suicide bombings in the future, or perhaps something WORSE...

I agree. This solves very little. Israel may get rid of the rockets and some of Hamas, but it will stir more hatred and violence among Arabs in the region and elsewhere toward Jews/Israel, resulting in more deaths and suicide strikes in the future. Its simple math.

You cannot defeat an ideology with bombs & missle strikes.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union.

There was not yet a war. (It's also unclear just what Union army you think was sufficient to militarily occupy a state so large and populous as North Carolina, with an entire frontier also to garrison at a time when Lincoln had only just asked for forces to be assembled.)

During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Shouldn't you learn something -- anything -- about these events before pontificating on them?

The "island-hopping" strategy in the Pacific was undertaken precisely for the purpose of gradually securing the ability to strike Japanese mainland cities. (Um, except Midway, which, you might recall, was a Japanese attack, not an Allied one. :rolleyes: ) The African campaigns were undertaken substantially because those were the only places where the Germans and (at the outset) the Italians were not sufficiently fortified to block the landing of troops. (See Dieppe.) More to the point, however, the Allies undertook the bombing of civilians before their attacks on Egypt and Italian East Africa; the first of those African offensives beginning a month after the British renounced their erstwhile notional commitment to bombing only military targets. By the time the war in Africa heated up and dragged in the Germans fully, the British (and Americans) had been devoting massive resources to the wholesale destruction of German cities for some time.

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting.

As just shown, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible.

Since both sides clearly intend to be the ultimate victors, following your advice means total war from all sides. Funny, though, how total war tactics by the other guys are so standardly taken as evidence of their evilness, while you characterize only the "good guys" as being humane in their massacres of civilians.

I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately.

Then you are advocating neither (i) total war nor (ii) what the Allies and Sherman did.

If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

Of course. So we should say that the Germans were being humane in their bombing of Rotterdam. It was every bit as humane as the bombing of Dresden, after all...

Yet somehow I doubt that's your intention. Rather, as your choice of examples and your postings on other threads demonstrates, this sort of thinking isn't meant to excuse attacks on civilians generally -- no, no, the bad guys are still bad because of their attacks on civilians. It's just that the good guys are good because of their attacks on civilians. Our total war is humane. Their total war is terroristic.

The whole thing could have been much shorter, more honest, and have spared us the history tour through a parallel universe, if you had just said: My side is Good, so it's not an atrocity when we do it. No single slogan could more aptly capture most of MLW's current glib dismissal of civilian casualties in Gaza, quite frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck does than mean??? No it isn't. War is the EXACT OPPOSITE of peace. War is death, murder, suffering, disease, poverty etc. Peace is exactly that - peace.

I think it means you may want to read more books.....instead of making up your own fiction about WW2 and atomic weapons. Hint: Google "War is peace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, all of you are wrong. JBG's point is to break the will to fight (Entropy), not to slaughter everyone. The problem is, he does not understand how to explain it correctly. The rest of you are wrong in that when used correctly; Entropy is effective in ending wars quickly. IE Less people killed. By example of this I give you world war one. Which was far less Intrusive on the daily lives of people compared to World War 2. (Im not saying both did not affect lives, but not to the same degree)

On the other Hand JBG you don't realize the level of destruction and Chaos your proposing by total warfare. Its too easy to lose control of your troops and with the sophistication of are Lethality that could really cause some major damage. More so, than we even desire. I guess the only thing I can say is go somewhere like Kosovo/Mogadishu/Bosnia/etc where Total Warfare has occurred and you will see the true horror of what your propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... More so, than we even desire. I guess the only thing I can say is go somewhere like Kosovo/Mogadishu/Bosnia/etc where Total Warfare has occurred and you will see the true horror of what your propose.

So what? Why should these combatants and associated "civilains" escape such a fate. This is not Warfare 2.0, a new and improved version that is more pleasing to our sensibilities.

If Hamas proposes to blackmail Israel with rocket attacks, Hamas and its supporters better stand ready to face the music. If there be "patriots" in Palestine, now is their chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? Why should these combatants and associated "civilains" escape such a fate. This is not Warfare 2.0, a new and improved version that is more pleasing to our sensibilities.

If Hamas proposes to blackmail Israel with rocket attacks, Hamas and its supporters better stand ready to face the music. If there be "patriots" in Palestine, now is their chance.

Please don't talk to me as if I don't understand warfare. There is no versions of warfare. There's just the dead and those who don't know they are dead yet.The smell of rotting corpses in the the African sun is unmistakable. Or the sharp scent of recently exploded IED. Or how bout the cries of those who lost loved ones. Because no matter what language they speak or color of the skin. Pain still sounds like pain. Screams of agony still sound the same. The smell of the dead does not change. You should know those things before you callously discard lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kitchener: The "island-hopping" strategy in the Pacific was undertaken precisely for the purpose of gradually securing the ability to strike Japanese mainland cities. (Um, except Midway, which, you might recall, was a Japanese attack, not an Allied one.) The African campaigns were undertaken substantially because those were the only places where the Germans and (at the outset) the Italians were not sufficiently fortified to block the landing of troops. (See Dieppe.) More to the point, however, the Allies undertook the bombing of civilians before their attacks on Egypt and Italian East Africa; the first of those African offensives beginning a month after the British renounced their erstwhile notional commitment to bombing only military targets. By the time the war in Africa heated up and dragged in the Germans fully, the British (and Americans) had been devoting massive resources to the wholesale destruction of German cities for some time.

Nice sum-up. Dieppe was a cruel lesson...but, I always thought they knew it would fail. They just wanted to see how bad Dieppe would fail (as on a scale of 1 to 10).

One source I read...forget where...had an interesting twist on the Dieppe raid. Canadian troops in England were apparently quite rowdy, causing drunken fights on occasion...womanising...traffic accidents. You know...bored Canadians. :lol: Anyways, it was suggested that the Canadian 'problem' and what units to choose for the raid was a simple case of two birds...one stone. Not sure if it's actually true, but it wouldn't surprise me, either.

:lol:

-------------------------------------

Well it's Bud the Spud, from the bright red mud,

Rollin' down the highway smilin'...

---Stompin' Tom Conners

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The a-bombs at the end of WWII were handled poorly and inhumanely. What should Truman have done? 1st, detonate an a-bomb in the middle of nowhere (not on a well-populated city) but where its fearsome results could be known to the Japanese, and give the Japanese 24hr to surrender or another will be dropped. If no surrender, drop one on a small town(preferebly a military installation actually) and give another 24h warning. If no surrender, then drop on larger and larger populated areas until surrender occurs. That would have resulted in much less civilian death yet yielded the same result.

Maybe it would have taken more time this way, maybe a few more days, but if the U.S. and allies drew back its troops into defensive positions during this time there would have a minimal military casuality during that extra time taken.

s we well know it would also have given time for anti-war movements (which did exist) to get fully cranked and demand a negotiated, i.e. partial, solution to the problem.
Also, for someone claiming to be "humane" and the "resident left-wing yank", your signature saying "Freedom speaks English" is so freaking bigoted and xenophobic it disgusts me.
Besides English-speaking countries, including Israel, and the Scandinavian countries (and yes Switzerland) where are there countries with true histories of stable, law-abiding democracy and good government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...