War, to be Humane, Must be Total

[moderateamericain]

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.

Yeah but the problem is Terrorist cells don't make up the whole population. Today's warfare is small scale and we do not need Strategic Bombing as a solution anymore. If anythng that will make the Jihadist unite. Rather then keep them killing eachother.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah but the problem is Terrorist cells don't make up the whole population. Today's warfare is small scale and we do not need Strategic Bombing as a solution anymore. If anythng that will make the Jihadist unite. Rather then keep them killing eachother.

Tough bounce....the "West" has invested billions in more accurate bombing technology, but it will never be able to knock on a door and ask "...any terrorists in here?"

[Jerry J. Fortin]

MA makes a lot of sense, especially if his background is what he says it is. I respect that.

That said, the issue with Gaza is such that a ground assault is the only reasonable way to proceed. Air attacks are not as accurate and collateral damage is commonplace. Issues on the ground need to be resolved on the ground.

With all due respect people, the civilian inhabitants of Gaza need to be removed from harms way. At least they should be given the opportunity to preserve their lives and leave. After a suitable time period has transpired the city and entire nation of the Gaza stripe should be razed to the ground. It needs to be pounded into rubble like and artillery practice range and then leveled with bulldozers to fill in the holes. Whatever remains should be pushed into the sea so that no trace of habitation would remain.

[moderateamericain]

Tough bounce....the "West" has invested billions in more accurate bombing technology, but it will never be able to knock on a door and ask "...any terrorists in here?"

Thats the whole reason we put troops on the group and don't strategic bomb.

And to Jerry's Point. What do you plan on doing with the people whos homes and business we destroy? Where do you plan on sending them? More importantly how does that make us any better than Hamas? When we litterly wipe Gaza off the map?

Edited January 11, 2009 by moderateamericain

[jbg]

Thats the whole reason we put troops on the group and don't strategic bomb.

And to Jerry's Point. What do you plan on doing with the people whos homes and business we destroy? Where do you plan on sending them? More importantly how does that make us any better than Hamas? When we litterly wipe Gaza off the map?

A group swim in the Meditteranean, when a few are bleeding, would perhaps be therapeutic. Called the "Great White Solution".

Why should they not integrate into Arab countries? Does the U.S. confine Cuban refugees to camps so they remain human weapons?

[BubberMiley]

I never knew anyone to use strikethroughs in text because they're too cowardly to say things outright.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats the whole reason we put troops on the group and don't strategic bomb.

That's the whole reason we use tactical bombing and close air support instead.

[Moonlight Graham]

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?

There are many freedom-loving demoratic countries in Europe that aren't English speaking. Japan also blah blah i'm not going to get into this argument. I just don't think English as a language is a strong factor for one to be good/evil.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

But it was worth a shot, in my opinion. As i said, if it didn't work then continue to drop nukes on more populated areas until they do surrender. I just think it was worth a shot.

On a different note & speaking of kamikaze pilots, it just occured to be that its a strange coincidence that the last 2 attacks by a foreign force on U.S. soil involved crashing airplanes into targets.

[Moonlight Graham]

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

I agree. Who cares who served more and where and how? There are Generals who have been brilliant and Generals who have been morons, yet they've shared similar types of 1st-hand war experience. In the end, its your ideas that matter, not the tours you've been on.

[DogOnPorch]

But it was worth a shot, in my opinion. As i said, if it didn't work then continue to drop nukes on more populated areas until they do surrender. I just think it was worth a shot.

On a different note & speaking of kamikaze pilots, it just occured to be that its a strange coincidence that the last 2 attacks by a foreign force on U.S. soil involved crashing airplanes into targets.

No kamikaze attacks occured on Dec 7th, 1941. The first suicide planes weren't until 1944 during the Leyte Gulf campaign and it wasn't an organised affair like at later battles.

Atomic bombs were INCREDIBLY expensive circa 1945...and the trouble with a 'demo' is what if it doesn't explode? Not very impressive...

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

It worked.

---J. Robert Oppenheimer

[jbg]

Atomic bombs were INCREDIBLY expensive circa 1945...and the trouble with a 'demo' is what if it doesn't explode? Not very impressive...

Another good reason not to "demo" was that contrary to popular opinion now there were active peace movements in the Allied countries and the threat of the use of nukes would have ratcheted up the pressure for a "negotiated" settlement rather than clear victory. The way things worked out Japan has a pacifist rather than aggressive government. That's better for all sides.

[moderateamericain]

I agree. Who cares who served more and where and how? There are Generals who have been brilliant and Generals who have been morons, yet they've shared similar types of 1st-hand war experience. In the end, its your ideas that matter, not the tours you've been on.

I disagree. Experiencing war(Gulf war)/ Genocide (africa)/ first hand will change your perspective about life and killing in general. If your divorced from the aftermath your actions have no consquences. I'm not degenerating his service, just that his service did not offer him a realistic scope as pertaining to the subject at hand. IE total Warfare.

Edited January 11, 2009 by moderateamericain

[BC_chick]

I agree. Who cares who served more and where and how?

Actually, they're not debating who served more, where and how. They're debating about the philosophy of war and the efficiency of rules of engagement during conflict.

MA is arguing that even if civilian casualties are unavoidable, specifically targetting them is no different than what terrorists do. BC, as he's said in the past, doesn't see things that way, he think achieving your aim is the most important thing and if targetting civilians expedites that, so be it.

Side note from me: IOW, if BC were born in the Middle East, he'd probably be a Hamas leader or suicide-bomber. Proof positive that Islam is not the only facilitator of sociopathic barbarism. That mindset exists in individuals in every society.

MA - we may disagree on a lot of things, but I commend your values on this subject. A good soldier wants to better the world. Some just get a thrill out of the kill it seems. They're the ones that give men like you a bad name and it's good to see you standing up to them.

Edited January 11, 2009 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree. Experiencing war(Gulf war)/ Genocide (africa)/ first hand will change your perspective about life and killing in general. If your divorced from the aftermath your actions have no consquences. I'm not degenerating his service, just that his service did not offer him a realistic scope as pertaining to the subject at hand. IE total Warfare.

You are making a false presumption at best, and outright ignorance at worst. Your own posts are rife with the emotion of warfare, not the practical methods and consequences. In other words, you and BC Chick should do lunch with Oprah.

[bush_cheney2004]

MA is arguing that even if civilian casualties are unavoidable, specifically targetting them is no different than what terrorists do. BC, as he's said in the past, doesn't see things that way, he think achieving your aim is the most important thing and if targetting civilians expedites that, so be it.

Do you speak for "BC"?

Side note from me: IOW, if BC were born in the Middle East, he'd probably be a Hamas leader or suicide-bomber. Proof positive that Islam is not the only facilitator of sociopathic barbarism. That mindset exists in individuals in every society.

Yes, even in those who have not served at all.

MA - we may disagree on a lot of things, but I commend your values on this subject. A good soldier wants to better the world. Some just get a thrill out of the kill it seems. They're the ones that give men like you a bad name and it's good to see you standing up to them.

Maybe you two should get a room?

[BC_chick]

In other words, you and BC Chick should do lunch with Oprah.

Actually BC, even though I am totally repulsed by your indifference toward human life, I do admire your lack of hypocrisy on the subject. You realise that war is two sets of bad guys where the stronger side comes out on top.

The only thing worse than a sociopathic indifference toward civilian life, IMO, is one where the promoters of barbarism call for death and destruction of anything that moves (war must be total) while hiding behind an air of superiority claiming we're the good guys and that terrorists are the bad guys for targetting civilians.

jbg comes to mind But I'm not mentioning any names. (That one was for you BubberMiley )

Edited January 11, 2009 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually BC, even though I am totally repulsed by your indifference toward human life, I do admire your lack of hypocrisy on the subject. You realise that war is two sets of bad guys where the stronger side comes out on top.

Again, you propose to speak for me. Amazing. Shall I do the same for you?

The only thing worse than a sociopathic indifference toward civilian life, IMO, is one where the promoters of barbarism call for death and destruction of anything that moves (war must be total) while hiding behind a air of superiority claiming we're the good guys and that terrorists are the bad guys for targetting civilians.

I don't think you are qualified to know the difference, and at a minimum, choose to live a lie with one of the "bad guys". That is the most hypocrisy of all.

[BC_chick]

Again, you propose to speak for me. Amazing. Shall I do the same for you?

I don't think you are qualified to know the difference, and at a minimum, choose to live a lie with one of the "bad guys". That is the most hypocrisy of all.

I don't claim to speak for you, I have been following this thread with interest and I've discussed the issue with you in the past. You have, on this thread and before, stated that war is hell and anything goes, including flying planes into buildings. I'm not a mind-reader, sure, but I can READ.

As for my qualifications to know the difference, like you said in your post prior to this one, a mindset like yours is not a military one, it's in general society as well. Who cares if I didn't serve, I don't need to be a doctor either to understand what it feels like to lose or save a patient.

Edited January 11, 2009 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't claim to speak for you, I have been following this thread with interest and I've discussed the issue with you in the past. You have, on this thread and before, stated that war is hell and anything goes, including flying planes into buildings. I'm not a mind-reader, sure, but I can READ.

Then don't do it....I can express myself quite well thank-you-very-much. I don't need a groupie....especially one prone to errors.

As for my qualifications to know the difference, like you said in your post prior to this one, a mindset like yours is not a military one, it's in general society as well. Who cares if I didn't serve, I don't need to be a doctor either to understand what it feels like to lose or save a patient.

But I don't care what you understand...that's your business, ignorant of such things or not. Like MA, you have no idea what my life experience has been, in or out of military service.

[BC_chick]

Then don't do it....I can express myself quite well thank-you-very-much. I don't need a groupie....especially one prone to errors.

Started drinking a little early today did we? Again, I didn't speak for you, put down the bottle and don't read so quickly. Oh, and even if I were a groupie my standards are a lot higher than that.

But I don't care what you understand...that's your business, ignorant of such things or not. Like MA, you have no idea what my life experience has been, in or out of military service.

Nope, I sure don't.... I'm only going by the things you've written on this board.

[bush_cheney2004]

Started drinking a little early today did we? Again, I didn't speak for you, put down the bottle and don't read so quickly. Oh, and even if I were a groupie my standards are a lot higher than that.

Nope...I don't drink, but your inferences depict a lost cause. Attacking me won't change that.

Nope, I sure don't.... I'm only going by the things you've written on this board.

That's right...you don't really know jack, but for some reason, that which I have written is far more important to you.

[moderateamericain]

Bc you right I don't know your life experience but I do know my own. For the record on a lot of things I do agree with you on. But in this particular subject I do not. When we first pushed into Iraq the Iraqi's that had the guts to stand up to us, were given a choice give up or die. Those that choose to meet allah. We litterly bulldozed there bunkers and buried them alive. In Africa, people were little starved skeletons. People missing arms or legs. Barely surviving from one day to the next. The "militia" nothing more than armed thugs who took what they wanted, killing who they pleased. Life was one day at a time. We just sat there and watched mass murder. It may not have made it into the news. But we all knew what was going on at night. Total warfare. they would throw bodies into the Sea and laugh as sharks ate them. When I went over as a civilian I saw the aftermath of an IED. Not pretty. Anyways my point is this, Total warfare has killed off cultures, Shattered countries, and destroyed lives. The south was destroyed by Sherman, Hitler All but destroyed the Jewish culture in Europe, The Romans at Carthage, Native Americans in NA. etc etc.

People make up your own minds. I cant make them up for you. BC is one person out of many who post and read here. I always have felt its easier to try and live among people then kill them. Even if sometimes we have to do both.

[jbg]

Actually BC, even though I am totally repulsed by your indifference toward human life, I do admire your lack of hypocrisy on the subject. You realise that war is two sets of bad guys where the stronger side comes out on top.

The only thing worse than a sociopathic indifference toward civilian life, IMO, is one where the promoters of barbarism call for death and destruction of anything that moves (war must be total) while hiding behind an air of superiority claiming we're the good guys and that terrorists are the bad guys for targetting civilians.

jbg comes to mind But I'm not mentioning any names.

Good line.

But when you get passed the one-liner my point is that as much as we would like, wars do not end until something truly terrible happens. If Hamas would only stop lobbing rockets, Israel could talk.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bc you right I don't know your life experience but I do know my own. For the record on a lot of things I do agree with you on. But in this particular subject I do not.

Humane war is an oxymoron....we each deal with it as we need to. I prefer to understand reality over fantasy.

...In Africa, people were little starved skeletons. People missing arms or legs. Barely surviving from one day to the next.

I have made this point repeatedly to no avail....not as sexy as Jew baiting.

Anyways my point is this, Total warfare has killed off cultures, Shattered countries, and destroyed lives. The south was destroyed by Sherman, Hitler All but destroyed the Jewish culture in Europe, The Romans at Carthage, Native Americans in NA. etc etc.

A continuum of the human condition that I choose not to ignore, in the past, present, and future.

People make up your own minds. I cant make them up for you. BC is one person out of many who post and read here. I always have felt its easier to try and live among people then kill them. Even if sometimes we have to do both.

And that was my job....on a scale that you can only imagine.