War, to be Humane, Must be Total

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Not sure what you understand based on that previous post about "Total Warfare", including your olfactory preferences.

[sharkman]

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.

This post disgusts me.

Moonlight, detonating a nuke in the middle of nowhere to demonstrate to the Japanese wouldn't have worked, since when they dropped the first one on Hiroshima, Japan kept fighting. I don't know why some people keep making the mistake of projecting reasonable thought onto people who are willing to kill themselves to kill the enemy. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor showed the US they were in the fight of their lives, but 60+ years later we have developed selective memories.

They had the same sort of disease of being willing to blow up as many of the enemy as they could when they blew themselves up by crashing their planes into ships. You can't demonstrate anything to this sort of philosophy, you can only kill them in as high numbers as you can until you break their will to fight. You have to be more willing to kill them than they are you.

The misplaced notion that you treat the enemy humanely when they were torturing POWs and Chinese civilians is laughable. Some will not listen to humane treatment, they will only exploit it to kill more.

This is part of the problem in the middle east. Many Palestinians and Arabs from surrounding countries are quite willing to die to defeat Israel. To be a martyr in paradise is the highest honor. That mindset can not be defeated with education. Humane thought is weakness to them. Peace is just a chance to stockpile more weapons. I don't think even Japan used civilians as human shields, then paraded their mangled bodies in front of an easily manipulated media. This is a new level of evil.

Edited January 8, 2009 by sharkman

[sharkman]

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.

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

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.

You make some good points about Gaza, but consider this. Israel is trying to avoid killing civilians. In response, Hamas stockpiles their weapons and shoots their rockets in areas of high civilian populations, like schools and mosques. If you are going to take out the rocket launchers, some civilians will be hit, Hamas has guaranteed this. Hamas also makes no such attempt to spare civilian Israelis with their attacks.

In this context, there will never be peace. Israel gave more land in the hopes of peace, and Hamas uses this new land to launch attacks from. The rest of the world may not get this, but Israel does.

That is why civilian casualties in Gaza are excused in by some around here. We understand their deaths are mostly because of Hamas and then used by Hamas to manipulate people like you.

[White Doors]

You make some good points about Gaza, but consider this. Israel is trying to avoid killing civilians. In response, Hamas stockpiles their weapons and shoots their rockets in areas of high civilian populations, like schools and mosques. If you are going to take out the rocket launchers, some civilians will be hit, Hamas has guaranteed this. Hamas also makes no such attempt to spare civilian Israelis with their attacks.

In this context, there will never be peace. Israel gave more land in the hopes of peace, and Hamas uses this new land to launch attacks from. The rest of the world may not get this, but Israel does.

That is why civilian casualties in Gaza are excused in by some around here. We understand their deaths are mostly because of Hamas and then used by Hamas to manipulate people like you.

And the Geneva conventions agrees with us. Civilian deaths fall squarly on the shoulders of the defenders using them as human shields.

[JB Globe]

wow, then perhaps you can explain why there aren't rockets launched from the westbank then?

For the obvious reason that Hamas isn't in power in the West Bank, and Hamas is part of this problem along with Israel. Hell you could throw Fatah into the mix for being so inept at governing that they helped create the conditions whereby a group like Hamas would gain popular support in Gaza.

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.

I don't need a self-righteous Goy lecturing me on what it means to Jewish. If you are in fact a 14-year-old boy, and can't resist personalizing what should be a non-personal discussion, than you're going on my ignore list.

[sharkman]

Do you threaten ignore list responses often?

[moderateamericain]

Not sure what you understand based on that previous post about "Total Warfare", including your olfactory preferences.

Have you ever served in the Military?

[DogOnPorch]

bc-2004 served in the USN aboard nuclear submarines.

[bush_cheney2004]

bc-2004 served in the USN aboard nuclear submarines.

Thanks for the assist DOP. To MA's larger point, we were screened by shrinks to make sure we understood exactly what "total warfare" would mean for the enemy.....and for our families back home.

[DogOnPorch]

Anytime, my friend.

[jbg]

Do you threaten ignore list responses often?

Those threats scare the living daylights out of me.

[tango]

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

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. 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?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

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.

Only if that's all you know how to do, and fortunately most of us have evolved. We know war crimes when we see them on our tv.

Some human beings now also know how to talk, make nice, make peace.

Not your strength clearly, but not your job either ... fortunately.

[moderateamericain]

bc-2004 served in the USN aboard nuclear submarines.

So basically BC sat in a tin can and drove around underwater and pretended to fire other tin cans on a weekly basis. Yeah...thats real warfare..let me tell ya. Squibies get as close to warfare as a 12 year old. At least the chair force can see a little bit of what they are killing. But guess what. 1Brig/2-325/82. Got to see all the fun. You can talk about war and how great it would be to stop terrorism by using total warfare but until you have seen the results of it firsthand you can not trully begin to understand what you are talking about.

I guess my real point is, dont even think of Entropy based warfare until you absolutely have to.

Edited January 9, 2009 by moderateamericain

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, I believe BC-2004 operated on both types of nuclear submarines (hunter/killer & missile boat) as well as experimental deep diving types. He mentioned he was also involved in the operation of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure that's a position so easily belittled.

Either way, I certainly have nothing against you and we shouldn't be exchanging harsh words. So I am to understand you served in the USMC in Lebanon? The closest I've ever gotten to war is the IRA setting off a bomb about a block away from me. Scary enough...but Lebanon '82 must have been insane.

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

Ho-Ho-Ho-Green Giant

[moderateamericain]

Actually, I believe BC-2004 operated on both types of nuclear submarines (hunter/killer & missile boat) as well as experimental deep diving types. He mentioned he was also involved in the operation of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure that's a position so easily belittled.

Either way, I certainly have nothing against you and we shouldn't be exchanging harsh words. So I am to understand you served in the USMC in Lebanon? The closest I've ever gotten to war is the IRA setting off a bomb about a block away from me. Scary enough...but Lebanon '82 must have been insane.

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

Ho-Ho-Ho-Green Giant

No my Bro is USMC. I was Army. and i was a bit too young for lebanon. saw Africa, Eastern Europe and 1991 ME. Also have made two trips to current Iraq as a civilian

[DogOnPorch]

No my Bro is USMC. I was Army. and i was a bit too young for lebanon. saw Africa, Eastern Europe and 1991 ME. Also have made two trips to current Iraq as a civilian

Pleasure knowing you better.

[JB Globe]

Do you threaten ignore list responses often?

Only three times so far, and only to posters who can't stop making personal insults.

[bush_cheney2004]

So basically BC sat in a tin can and drove around underwater and pretended to fire other tin cans on a weekly basis. Yeah...thats real warfare..let me tell ya. Squibies get as close to warfare as a 12 year old. At least the chair force can see a little bit of what they are killing.

I wish it was that benign...unfortunately....or fortunately depending on your point of view....those "tin cans" have tactical missile launchers which were used to great effect if "real killin" is what you want. An SSBN raises the anti quite a bit, making your understanding of "total warfare" quite trivial in comparison. Other missions shall go unmentioned unless I want a visit from the FBI.

But guess what. 1Brig/2-325/82. Got to see all the fun. You can talk about war and how great it would be to stop terrorism by using total warfare but until you have seen the results of it firsthand you can not trully begin to understand what you are talking about.

And how is that "understanding" working out for 'ya?

I guess my real point is, dont even think of Entropy based warfare until you absolutely have to.

Nonsense...history and applied physics laughs at such sentiment. "Entropy" is the natural order of things, even in warfare.

[moderateamericain]

I wish it was that benign...unfortunately....or fortunately depending on your point of view....those "tin cans" have tactical missile launchers which were used to great effect if "real killin" is what you want. An SSBN raises the anti quite a bit, making your understanding of "total warfare" quite trivial in comparison. Other missions shall go unmentioned unless I want a visit from the FBI.

And how is that "understanding" working out for 'ya?

Nonsense...history and applied physics laughs at such sentiment. "Entropy" is the natural order of things, even in warfare.

Your brand of killing does not make you a warrior. It makes you proficent on a computer. As far as I'm concerned I got more respect for a Terrorist than any tin can wanna be warrior computer nerd in a boat that can fire from 50 miles out and sneak away. Then you got the gumption to tell these fine people that its okay to frag a city of people because the end justifies the means? I could tell you about art, and quote Artist, and look at paintings. But unless ive been a painter it does not mean shit. Real war, and not the computer screen kind, involves the killing of someone that is 20 yards away from you. So when you clear the area and strip them of weapons and explosives so some other Tango does not turn it into a high explosive, you get to see what your work does first hand. You see the repercussions of what you do. On a submarine you get to say Oh well.

[sharkman]

Good grief MA, you belittle yourself with the pissing contest about who's military service is better.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your brand of killing does not make you a warrior. It makes you proficent on a computer. As far as I'm concerned I got more respect for a Terrorist than any tin can wanna be warrior computer nerd in a boat that can fire from 50 miles out and sneak away. Then you got the gumption to tell these fine people that its okay to frag a city of people because the end justifies the means?

I never claimed to be a "warrior" with anything approaching your false bravado. Most military veterans on this forum do not denigrate the service of others.....thank you for your service. That being said, you have no idea what my service entailed beyond Hollywood make believe.

I could tell you about art, and quote Artist, and look at paintings. But unless ive been a painter it does not mean shit. Real war, and not the computer screen kind, involves the killing of someone that is 20 yards away from you. So when you clear the area and strip them of weapons and explosives so some other Tango does not turn it into a high explosive, you get to see what your work does first hand. You see the repercussions of what you do. On a submarine you get to say Oh well.

Yet millions of people don't worry about your "handywork" nearly as much compared to what was mine, which speaks directly to "Total Warfare". Mine was a cold war with only one horrific ending....we used "high explosives" just to get the party started. Nobody ever wants to see the repercussions of that. Many would rather be dead already. Oh well indeed.....

[moderateamericain]

Good grief MA, you belittle yourself with the pissing contest about who's military service is better.

No im tired of reading peoples post who think its okay to casually toss aside lives, do you know why they do that? Because they don't have to live with the consquences of it. There is no responsibility involved. They make flippant remarks like "we should just blow em all up". Coming from a Military man thats even worse.

[jbg]

No im tired of reading peoples post who think its okay to casually toss aside lives, do you know why they do that? Because they don't have to live with the consquences of it. There is no responsibility involved. They make flippant remarks like "we should just blow em all up". Coming from a Military man thats even worse.

Read the opening post, and tell me which wars have ended, in modern times, for good without an attack that devastates civilians?

I wish it weren't true but it is.

[moderateamericain]

Read the opening post, and tell me which wars have ended, in modern times, for good without an attack that devastates civilians?

I wish it weren't true but it is.

War always effects civilians, but what your proposing is total war. Im not saying fight with an arm tied behind your back. Im saying that specifically targeting civilian infastructure to expediate a war is against everything we stand for. If in the process of winning the war civilians get killed accidently is one thing. Its going to happen. But delibertly targeting them. Is just wrong. I would rather go to Jail then firebomb a church.

[bush_cheney2004]

War always effects civilians, but what your proposing is total war. Im not saying fight with an arm tied behind your back. Im saying that specifically targeting civilian infastructure to expediate a war is against everything we stand for. If in the process of winning the war civilians get killed accidently is one thing. Its going to happen. But delibertly targeting them. Is just wrong. I would rather go to Jail then firebomb a church.

Then go to jail...because you are wrong. Strategic bombing was specifically designed to inflict wholesale damage on an entire population, not just military targets....in an effort to destroy the very will to fight.

Edited January 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004