War, to be Humane, Must be Total

moderateamericain · January 12, 2009

Humane war is an oxymoron....we each deal with it as we need to. I prefer to understand reality over fantasy.
I have made this point repeatedly to no avail....not as sexy as Jew baiting.

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

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

Bush, Should we or should we not strive to make are selves better than we once were? Should we not try to find a better way then the Romans or Hitler. Should we not strive to do better from Generation to Generation. Should we not strive to avoid war as much as possible? You call that Fantasy. I call your Reality living in the past. Do i think we can eliminate war like some fuzzy headed Prom Queen. no. Can we put ourselves in position to make sure our wars are small ones. yes. I don't know why you think this is wrong to push for a world where total war is unnecessary? Where Genocide is something of the past? Do we really need Nuclear power to impose are will? Are we that simple that are grand philosophy is.."don't do that or ill blow you up!" I think America is better than that. I think we need to push for a future where are children's children don't have to worry about their whole city being wiped out. And for what? Religion? Democracy? I know you think I am a Dreamer. But know that I've looked into the eyes of People my unit killed. I can tell you right now I didn't do it to defend democracy or just a Christian way of life. I did it to protect and secure my families future and to protect the guys in my outfit. I am sorry if my values offend your sensibilities. I cherish the right to feel how ever i want. Because I have earned it.

Edited January 12, 2009 by moderateamericain

bush_cheney2004 · January 12, 2009

Bush, Should we or should we not strive to make are selves better than we once were? Should we not try to find a better way then the Romans or Hitler. Should we not strive to do better from Generation to Generation. Should we not strive to avoid war as much as possible? You call that Fantasy. I call your Reality living in the past. Do i think we can eliminate war like some fuzzy headed Prom Queen. no.

We already do that...and in many cases....war is the mechanism to do so. Our nation was founded this very way. My ancestors were set free largely due to a war, the worst war in American history. Don't preach to me about what is good or bad.

Can we put ourselves in position to make sure our wars are small ones. yes. I don't know why you think this is wrong to push for a world where total war is unnecessary? Where Genocide is something of the past? Do we really need Nuclear power to impose are will? Are we that simple that are grand philosophy is.."don't do that or ill blow you up!"

Competition for resources will always foment wars. Nuclear weapons are just another manifestation of the same thing, and actually set boundaries we have chosen not to cross...yet.

I think America is better than that. I think we need to push for a future where are children's children don't have to worry about their whole city being wiped out. And for what? Religion? Democracy? I know you think I am a Dreamer.

America is what it is...denying its violent past, present, and future is childish. That I present this stark reality earns your scorn, but you have to deal with it your own way. If lashing out at me helps you deal with it....bring it on.

But know that I've looked into the eyes of People my unit killed. I can tell you right now I didn't do it to defend democracy or just a Christian way of life. I did it to protect and secure my families future and to protect the guys in my outfit. I am sorry if my values offend your sensibilities. I cherish the right to feel how ever i want. Because I have earned it.

As have I....in spades....never spouting about such silly notions as religion, apple pie, or Chevrolet. You are not any more righteous than the rest of us who have served for our own reasons. Especially if we are still alive to talk about it.

Ontario Loyalist · January 12, 2009

bc-2004 served in the USN aboard nuclear submarines.

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

DogOnPorch · January 12, 2009

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

Like what...?

---------

ugh...

BC_chick · January 14, 2009

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.

If you're going to quote me and change my text whereby you change my meaning, you need to show a reference. "There fixed it for you" comes to mind as many posters do. Do not misquote me please.

As for Hamas starting the war, did it ever occur to you that Gazans could say "well, Israel started it with the blockade." Israelis can then say "well, you couldn't be trusted not to have weapons." Gazans respond "well, you removed your settlements, but kept us in a virtual prison by controlling our airports, ports..." Israel says "yeah, but you're terrorists."

We could go on like that for about 1400 years with who started it.... that's not the point. The point is, you, jbg, see yourself as holding a moral superiority over Palestinians because you think your side is the "good guys" for not shooting at civilians, but in another breath you say "war must be total."

Does the same go for Gazans who feel "war must be total" because in their opinion Israel started it? I'm pretty sure you would think they're barbaric savages, no?

As much as disagree with BC2004 on this, at least he is capable of removing his moral superiority and claim that all is fair in war and let the stronger side win. You, OTOH, are offensive, hiding behind a veil of superiority while espousing the tactics that are normally attributed to terrorists.

You are no different than them, just that they believe in killing in the name of Allah and you believe in killing in the name of democracy.

Edited January 14, 2009 by BC_chick

jbg · December 13, 2009

You are no different than them, just that they believe in killing in the name of Allah and you believe in killing in the name of democracy.

The difference, as you well know, is that the killers in the name of Allah are aiming to kill people who have little or nothing to do with the conflict. By contrast, the Hamas/Gazan leaders are specialists at mugging for the media by means of launching attacks from densely populated civilian areas, giving the Israelis little choice but to respond in a way that endangers civilians.

And yes, I unabashedly consider the Israelis to be the "good guys" compared to the Gazans.

KeyStone · December 14, 2009

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.

I don't know if you are the original author of this, but assuming you agree with this, I am sure you agree that the Nazis were doing the humane thing by trying to exterminate the Jews? It's only those cursed inhumane allies that got in the way and allowed the Jews to continue to suffer?

The problem with this reasoning, is that it assumes that never being born or being killed, is better than having a life that involves suffering and/or war. So, by extension, the genocide of a struggling people is humane, according to the very flawed logic in your above statement.

wulf42 · December 15, 2009

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.

I have always said that war should be a last resort, but if you are going to go then go all out and crush your enemy with a massive decisive blow from which he cannot recover.Going to war with a limited ROE is suicide and a recipe for defeat.

Oleg Bach · December 15, 2009

If war is hell then peace is heaven. Those that choose war over pleasure and beauty are a sick bunch. Those that insitute the idea the war is an exceptable human activity..are ALWAYS those that quietly hold all of humanity in loathing and utter black contempt. They justiy the buisness of war by the idea that humans can be sacraficed like sheep because they are unworthy of life - THOSE types of people that are in positions of leadership or in positions of tacit influence should resign their positions immediately - How can we tolerate having a mother or father that is to protect us from harm that continues to harm us? That parent is not fit for the job of parenting - nor is a leader that quietly causes unneccesary death to his or her own people - Merry Christmas - and you are fu*king fired! If you hate - you have no place sitting in the big chair or on this earth for that matter...now git!

wulf42 · December 15, 2009

If war is hell then peace is heaven. Those that choose war over pleasure and beauty are a sick bunch. Those that insitute the idea the war is an exceptable human activity..are ALWAYS those that quietly hold all of humanity in loathing and utter black contempt.

Then why does every Country on Earth have a Military? I guess all of Humanity is screwed huh? there will always be a Hitler waiting to make a power grab and wreak destruction on other's..(Al Qaeda) War then becomes a must in defense, only way to stop a schoolyard bully is to punch him square in the nose!

Edited December 15, 2009 by wulf42

eyeball · December 15, 2009

only way to stop a schoolyard bully is to punch him sqaure in the nose!

Wouldn't shooting him in the head be more humane though?

jbg · December 16, 2009

I don't know if you are the original author of this, but assuming you agree with this, I am sure you agree that the Nazis were doing the humane thing by trying to exterminate the Jews? It's only those cursed inhumane allies that got in the way and allowed the Jews to continue to suffer?

The problem with this reasoning, is that it assumes that never being born or being killed, is better than having a life that involves suffering and/or war. So, by extension, the genocide of a struggling people is humane, according to the very flawed logic in your above statement.

The problem with your very flawed logic is that the Jews were threatenining no one before the Holocaust.

wulf42 · December 16, 2009

The problem with your very flawed logic is that the Jews were threatenining no one before the Holocaust.

The Jews are not threatening anyone now! They only respond to threats made against them and as well as they should!

KeyStone · December 18, 2009

The problem with your very flawed logic is that the Jews were threatenining no one before the Holocaust.

The debate is not who started what, or who is morally unblemished.

The debate is which is more moral, complete annhialation, or measured responses.

Given that the whole 'moral' debate is really just an attempt to defend genocide against the Palestinian people, and does not apply to any other instances, I thought I would see if anyone though that a complete obliteration of the Jews was more moral than continued persecution. As expected, no one viewed that in a moral light.

Incidentally, I don't think the Palestinians were threatening anyone before they were evicted from their homeland.

KeyStone · December 18, 2009

The Jews are not threatening anyone now! They only respond to threats made against them and as well as they should!

They don't threaten? Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes?

Is it a threat when they bulldoze a home of a Palestinian for a minor building infraction, so that they can build a palatial mansion for a Jew where the home used to be?

I don't know about you, but when someone forces me from my home, destroys infrastructure necessary for basic survival, and denies me the right to earn a living for my family, I consider that a threat.

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2009

They don't threaten? Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes?

So has France (Chirac).....big deal.

Is it a threat when they bulldoze a home of a Palestinian for a minor building infraction, so that they can build a palatial mansion for a Jew where the home used to be?

Nope...that is urban renewal Mideast style.

I don't know about you, but when someone forces me from my home, destroys infrastructure necessary for basic survival, and denies me the right to earn a living for my family, I consider that a threat.

So when should First Nations begin their attacks on Hamilton?

M.Dancer · December 18, 2009

They don't threaten? Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes?

No, they haven't suggested any such thing, including nukes.

naomiglover · December 19, 2009

No, they haven't suggested any such thing, including nukes.

It's getting tiring having to point out your mistakes, time and time again.

Last update - 00:00 07/11/2008

Barak to Rice: All options are on the table regarding Iran nukes

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035342.html

and

Last update - 00:00 10/01/2008

Israeli envoy to U.S.: All options are on the table regarding Iran

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/943594.html

DogOnPorch · December 19, 2009

What sort of nuclear weapons does Israel have?

wulf42 · December 19, 2009

They don't threaten? Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes?

Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map....so i can certainly see why the Israeli's

are a little defensive when it comes to Iran! If Iran makes a move against Israel then Iran is going to cease to exist, that choice is up to the Iranians.

KeyStone · December 21, 2009

Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map....so i can certainly see why the Israeli's

are a little defensive when it comes to Iran! If Iran makes a move against Israel then Iran is going to cease to exist, that choice is up to the Iranians.

Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Arguably, Ahmadinejad has predicted, and stated what should be, but at no time has he 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

This lie has been repeated 'ad infinitum' through the mainstream media, and through our Western politicians, but it simply is not true, and is an egregious distortion of the truth.

M.Dancer · December 21, 2009

Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Arguably, Ahmadinejad has predicted, and stated what should be, but at no time has he 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

This lie has been repeated 'ad infinitum' through the mainstream media, and through our Western politicians, but it simply is not true, and is an egregious distortion of the truth.

Not so much a lie but a difference of opinion regarding an idiom he used. Something like one claiming he threatened to mop the bleeding the floor with their 'eads while the other claims that he meant he was going to punch the daylights out of them.

In either case, the idiom used means that the existance of israel would cease to be...whether wiped out or simply, removed from the pages of time...

M.Dancer · December 21, 2009

It's getting tiring having to point out your mistakes, time and time again.

Have they not suggested that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran, including nukes?

Please cite where Israel mentions that using nukes is on the table.

Instead of proving the topic is too difficult for you, don't post and leave us guessing.

KeyStone · December 21, 2009

Not so much a lie but a difference of opinion regarding an idiom he used. Something like one claiming he threatened to mop the bleeding the floor with their 'eads while the other claims that he meant he was going to punch the daylights out of them.

In either case, the idiom used means that the existance of israel would cease to be...whether wiped out or simply, removed from the pages of time...

There is a pretty big difference between predicting something will happen, hoping something will happen, suggesting something will happen, and actually suggesting that you will bring this something about.

I can make the following statements:

Ahmadinejad will be assasinated

Ahmadinejad should be assasinated

Neither of these statements suggest that I intend to kill him.

Israel is looking for excuses to villify Ahmadinejad, so that they continue this ridiculous double-standard of crying foul when other nations in the Middle East get nuclear weapons, and the Wester powers, are only too happy to comply with the farcical translations and interpretations.