Jester;832775 wrote: Well Bryn, koan you guys win, Im done, youve worn me down, Im tired of trying to remind anyone here of how serious this action is against us, it falls on deaf ears, you want NO killing and thats totally unrealistic.
This is two subjects, that by virtue of totally wasting my time will not speak to here in the garden again.
Bryn Im glad you seem to think we are winning, but your view is seriously flawed. Koan, to compare me in any way to Ben Laden is an out and out total insult.
Acc, with much respect over time I say to you that I dont see at all where your coming from? It perplexes me.
For those of you at one time or another chose to see that Im right and said 'Yeah' to yourselves, bless you, few here though you may be.
You'll always be my bro, Far. :yh_flag
Military build-up nears completion
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Military build-up nears completion
I'm not surprised that the comparison I made was found insulting, I'm just surprised that the views expressed were, imo, comparable. I'm somewhat assuming that a few of the rasher comments were made in the heat of the moment. I can only hope.
That's not to say that I think both people are alike in any way other than the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means. The topic here is whether or not war tactics being used are reasonable and that is the only point of comparison I intended to make.
That's not to say that I think both people are alike in any way other than the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means. The topic here is whether or not war tactics being used are reasonable and that is the only point of comparison I intended to make.
Military build-up nears completion
posted by jester
Yes it is, I have a reason to fight them, they are the ones who wontback down and have not backed down and wont let us if we tried to, thats what I mean by it being too late for negotiations until they are beaten.
It is the only way, it is the last option. its not fanatical, its a fact of life or death. If they never started the kill the infedels we'd never of had to match them in ferosiousness, in war your must meet them with the same or more aggressiveness than they give out or you wont win.
And it is war.
Nobody seems to get the fact that they have chosen this path not us, we're just going to have to finish it. If we dont finish it then they will and well all be forced to bow to mecca 5 times a day, I wont ever bow to thier false god, ever.
It's a war against terrorists not nation states or whole populations. There would have been some logic in going in to afghanistan mob handed to get at bin laden butbthat option was igniored in favour of invading iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 911. Bin laden must have pissed himself laughing when he saw the reaction of the US. terrorists want to get an extreme overreaction because they know that will only gain them more support.
This stems from saudi arabia, it is saudi inspired and saudi funded. The best way to stop terrorism is cut the funding and then make sure they are pariahs in to their own communities. Why is it most americans believe saddam had anything to do with 911 at all.
Left alone the two muslim sects would be at each other throats like protestants and catholics. that particular conflict rumbles on to the present day with fanatics on both sides keeping the embers alive and occasionally trying to flare it up again. forget invading the US sunni would rather kill shia and vice versa.
in war your must meet them with the same or more aggressiveness than they give out or you wont win.
In total war like ww2 then yes you destroy your enemy completely or force complete surrender but this is hardly total war. My objection to what's happening is that on both sides you have extremists that seem to want to escalate things. By behaving in the same way as the terrorists you lose any moral authority to condemn their actions. terrorism, believe it or not, is nothing new it's only new to americans.
If we dont finish it then they will and well all be forced to bow to mecca 5 times a day, I wont ever bow to thier false god, ever
It there is only one god you must both worship the same one surely? You're both irrational. Why in the 21st century are we being drawn in to a medieval religious war that the vast majority don't want?
Freedom is destroyed from within not by external enemies. you now allow your government to lock people up without trial and use torture. congratulations you've just lost two of the main features of a free society-freedom from arbitrary arrest and being tortured till you confess, and the right to criticise freely seems to be rather curtailed as well sine it's deemed unpatriotic to complain. Before you complain that those being arrested are terrorists who gets to decide that they are? guilt or innocence, enemy of the state only a police state doesn't use courts to decide instead letting the intelligence agencies decide for you.
The idea that a country like the US possessing the largest and most destructive arsenal the world has ever seen needs to be frightened that iran or all the countries in the middle east might invade you is so pathetic it would be laughable were it not for the fact that so many seem to believe it. As a european I don't see a problem, when it comes to warfare we have a remarkable talent for it. If it comes to total war the middle east has no chance whatever.
It's remarkably easy for terrorists to actually cause terror. You don't need nuclear weapons they're expensive and difficult to make. -a few car bombs in your cities or a hint that something had been added to the water and the US would be paralysed with fear.
Forget iran, worry about pakistan-0ther really do have nuclear weapons and the means and inclination to use them. Iran can just buy one off them. Worry about what will happen when the military dictatorship being supported by the us is finally overthrown and the extremists get hold of them.
How about Saudi arabia? when the present king dies how long will you give the next regime before a popular uprising overthrows it? It would be remarkably easy to attack the oil refineries. Funny how these big bad terrorists haven't done so. Bin laden is bright enough to realise the economic effects of that on the US. economy.
Yes it is, I have a reason to fight them, they are the ones who wontback down and have not backed down and wont let us if we tried to, thats what I mean by it being too late for negotiations until they are beaten.
It is the only way, it is the last option. its not fanatical, its a fact of life or death. If they never started the kill the infedels we'd never of had to match them in ferosiousness, in war your must meet them with the same or more aggressiveness than they give out or you wont win.
And it is war.
Nobody seems to get the fact that they have chosen this path not us, we're just going to have to finish it. If we dont finish it then they will and well all be forced to bow to mecca 5 times a day, I wont ever bow to thier false god, ever.
It's a war against terrorists not nation states or whole populations. There would have been some logic in going in to afghanistan mob handed to get at bin laden butbthat option was igniored in favour of invading iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 911. Bin laden must have pissed himself laughing when he saw the reaction of the US. terrorists want to get an extreme overreaction because they know that will only gain them more support.
This stems from saudi arabia, it is saudi inspired and saudi funded. The best way to stop terrorism is cut the funding and then make sure they are pariahs in to their own communities. Why is it most americans believe saddam had anything to do with 911 at all.
Left alone the two muslim sects would be at each other throats like protestants and catholics. that particular conflict rumbles on to the present day with fanatics on both sides keeping the embers alive and occasionally trying to flare it up again. forget invading the US sunni would rather kill shia and vice versa.
in war your must meet them with the same or more aggressiveness than they give out or you wont win.
In total war like ww2 then yes you destroy your enemy completely or force complete surrender but this is hardly total war. My objection to what's happening is that on both sides you have extremists that seem to want to escalate things. By behaving in the same way as the terrorists you lose any moral authority to condemn their actions. terrorism, believe it or not, is nothing new it's only new to americans.
If we dont finish it then they will and well all be forced to bow to mecca 5 times a day, I wont ever bow to thier false god, ever
It there is only one god you must both worship the same one surely? You're both irrational. Why in the 21st century are we being drawn in to a medieval religious war that the vast majority don't want?
Freedom is destroyed from within not by external enemies. you now allow your government to lock people up without trial and use torture. congratulations you've just lost two of the main features of a free society-freedom from arbitrary arrest and being tortured till you confess, and the right to criticise freely seems to be rather curtailed as well sine it's deemed unpatriotic to complain. Before you complain that those being arrested are terrorists who gets to decide that they are? guilt or innocence, enemy of the state only a police state doesn't use courts to decide instead letting the intelligence agencies decide for you.
The idea that a country like the US possessing the largest and most destructive arsenal the world has ever seen needs to be frightened that iran or all the countries in the middle east might invade you is so pathetic it would be laughable were it not for the fact that so many seem to believe it. As a european I don't see a problem, when it comes to warfare we have a remarkable talent for it. If it comes to total war the middle east has no chance whatever.
It's remarkably easy for terrorists to actually cause terror. You don't need nuclear weapons they're expensive and difficult to make. -a few car bombs in your cities or a hint that something had been added to the water and the US would be paralysed with fear.
Forget iran, worry about pakistan-0ther really do have nuclear weapons and the means and inclination to use them. Iran can just buy one off them. Worry about what will happen when the military dictatorship being supported by the us is finally overthrown and the extremists get hold of them.
How about Saudi arabia? when the present king dies how long will you give the next regime before a popular uprising overthrows it? It would be remarkably easy to attack the oil refineries. Funny how these big bad terrorists haven't done so. Bin laden is bright enough to realise the economic effects of that on the US. economy.
Military build-up nears completion
Spock:
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Military build-up nears completion
Nomad;835345 wrote: Spock:
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
There, Brits tend to moan at you for taking 2 years to get involved - and nb it was only the bombing of Pearl Harbor that pulled you in at all: Lindbergh and the massive rallies against sending your sons to die for the British Empire, as he put it.
Still, I for one an very glad you did get involved. Have you ever seen the plans for what the Nazis were going to do to this island if they did successfully invade? Shudder.
(Couldn't find the post you were referring to...)
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
There, Brits tend to moan at you for taking 2 years to get involved - and nb it was only the bombing of Pearl Harbor that pulled you in at all: Lindbergh and the massive rallies against sending your sons to die for the British Empire, as he put it.
Still, I for one an very glad you did get involved. Have you ever seen the plans for what the Nazis were going to do to this island if they did successfully invade? Shudder.
(Couldn't find the post you were referring to...)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Military build-up nears completion
Nomad;835345 wrote: Spock:
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
The copncept of a just war is one of those philosophical roller coasters of debate that imo leaves you with the conclusion there is no such thing as a just war, you are left with just war. Both GW Bush an osama bin laden would argue there cause is just. So would israel and hezbollah. Both sides in the american war had just causes. You can now spend months arguing about it. Usually it's a moral argument trotted out to persuade people to go to war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
In ww2 the allies deliberately set about the systematic destruction of civilian targets in germany and japan (as of course did the japanese, germany and russians). In the US case they were very critical of both sides to the- point of sanctimony, about the indiscriminate bombing of civilians until they actually got involved and then such niceties went out the window. They kidded themselves they could bomb more accurately than anyone else and not kill civilians and still do so. If you want justification as my ww2 RAF uncle expressed it-they were the bastards that started it.
It's IMO a ludicrous concept, spurious in content and a red herring. War is war, do it if you have to but don't pretend it is the best option.
Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.
I think our involvement in WW2 would be considered justified by any group.
Why would you choose to ignore this ?
The copncept of a just war is one of those philosophical roller coasters of debate that imo leaves you with the conclusion there is no such thing as a just war, you are left with just war. Both GW Bush an osama bin laden would argue there cause is just. So would israel and hezbollah. Both sides in the american war had just causes. You can now spend months arguing about it. Usually it's a moral argument trotted out to persuade people to go to war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
In ww2 the allies deliberately set about the systematic destruction of civilian targets in germany and japan (as of course did the japanese, germany and russians). In the US case they were very critical of both sides to the- point of sanctimony, about the indiscriminate bombing of civilians until they actually got involved and then such niceties went out the window. They kidded themselves they could bomb more accurately than anyone else and not kill civilians and still do so. If you want justification as my ww2 RAF uncle expressed it-they were the bastards that started it.
It's IMO a ludicrous concept, spurious in content and a red herring. War is war, do it if you have to but don't pretend it is the best option.
Military build-up nears completion
Its interesting looking at this set of rules, some points.
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
I am not sure if waiting until War is your absolutely last option is always wise, thats what Britain and France did in 1939, France paid by being invaded and conquered for 5 years, Britain almost suffered the same fate, and certainy the war was the final nail in the coffin of British global power.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Hmmn, yes but of course many governments use this idea to criminalize poltical opponents, and de-legitimize some cause or struggle they may have. It all depends on who your "legitimization" body is.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Hard to disagree with that one, though it depends on how far your grieveances go back, is there a statute of limitation on revenge for suffering in the past?
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
Yes, again it makes sense, though it could also be considered a platform for defeatism and surrender when the odds are against you.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
Again, this would depend on whether you had benefitted from the state of the peace that prevailed earlier, in Europe in the 19th century a general state of peace prevailed, but there were many people (such as those in the Hapsburg Empire, or the British Isles) who didn't like the settlement that the peace represented and determined to change their situation by force.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
I am not sure how you can hope to win a total war against a determined enemy if you eliminate various means of making war based on moral grounds before the war has started, its not a practical way to wage any war.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Again, this would be a position that most people would try to uphold, until the moment when military logic dictates that an attack upon some civilian target was necessary.
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
I am not sure if waiting until War is your absolutely last option is always wise, thats what Britain and France did in 1939, France paid by being invaded and conquered for 5 years, Britain almost suffered the same fate, and certainy the war was the final nail in the coffin of British global power.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Hmmn, yes but of course many governments use this idea to criminalize poltical opponents, and de-legitimize some cause or struggle they may have. It all depends on who your "legitimization" body is.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Hard to disagree with that one, though it depends on how far your grieveances go back, is there a statute of limitation on revenge for suffering in the past?
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
Yes, again it makes sense, though it could also be considered a platform for defeatism and surrender when the odds are against you.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
Again, this would depend on whether you had benefitted from the state of the peace that prevailed earlier, in Europe in the 19th century a general state of peace prevailed, but there were many people (such as those in the Hapsburg Empire, or the British Isles) who didn't like the settlement that the peace represented and determined to change their situation by force.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
I am not sure how you can hope to win a total war against a determined enemy if you eliminate various means of making war based on moral grounds before the war has started, its not a practical way to wage any war.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Again, this would be a position that most people would try to uphold, until the moment when military logic dictates that an attack upon some civilian target was necessary.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military build-up nears completion
posted by galbally
Its interesting looking at this set of rules, some points.
Interesting and the source of endless debate but in essence it is IMO sophistry used by all sides in any conflict usually with the victor writing the winning argument in the history books. If hitler had won-say be getting nuclear weapons first (and he came pretty close) then he would have been able to claim right was on his side, anyone else's opinion would have been irrelevant.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
so if you use economic sanctions against a state (e.g. like iraq) it is unlikely the leaders will be the ones to suffer-presumably the aim is to stir up internal dissent against the govt by targeting civilians in a non lethal way. but if you starve to death or a child dies because the medicine can't be imported (although it could have been if the leader had been prepared to- a) obtain the medicine but choose not to B) give in. who does the child blame?
If a child dies as part of the collateral damage in an invasion who should be held accountable for the death-the attacker or the state's leader that forced the action? Where does the justice lie?
Round and round it goes. I can debate it from all angles as can anyone with half a brain. If you go to war just be sure it worth all the dead and wounded because often the ones that benefit least are the ones doing he fighting and the ones that benefit the most are the ones that started it.
Its interesting looking at this set of rules, some points.
Interesting and the source of endless debate but in essence it is IMO sophistry used by all sides in any conflict usually with the victor writing the winning argument in the history books. If hitler had won-say be getting nuclear weapons first (and he came pretty close) then he would have been able to claim right was on his side, anyone else's opinion would have been irrelevant.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
so if you use economic sanctions against a state (e.g. like iraq) it is unlikely the leaders will be the ones to suffer-presumably the aim is to stir up internal dissent against the govt by targeting civilians in a non lethal way. but if you starve to death or a child dies because the medicine can't be imported (although it could have been if the leader had been prepared to- a) obtain the medicine but choose not to B) give in. who does the child blame?
If a child dies as part of the collateral damage in an invasion who should be held accountable for the death-the attacker or the state's leader that forced the action? Where does the justice lie?
Round and round it goes. I can debate it from all angles as can anyone with half a brain. If you go to war just be sure it worth all the dead and wounded because often the ones that benefit least are the ones doing he fighting and the ones that benefit the most are the ones that started it.
Military build-up nears completion
Galbally;835959 wrote: Its interesting looking at this set of rules, some points.
Principles of the Just War
The only "Just" form of war I can conceive of is a war of resistance against invaders.
Galbally;835959 wrote: The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
Unfortunately, weapons cannot discriminate. In the heat of battle the users of those weapons cannot discriminate either.
Galbally;835959 wrote: Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.
Civilians have always been targets.
Principles of the Just War
The only "Just" form of war I can conceive of is a war of resistance against invaders.
Galbally;835959 wrote: The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
Unfortunately, weapons cannot discriminate. In the heat of battle the users of those weapons cannot discriminate either.
Galbally;835959 wrote: Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.
Civilians have always been targets.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Military build-up nears completion
Chookie;836319 wrote: The only "Just" form of war I can conceive of is a war of resistance against invaders.
Unfortunately, weapons cannot discriminate. In the heat of battle the users of those weapons cannot discriminate either.
Civilians have always been targets.
They are not actually my quotes if you look at the post, I was actually arguing counter to those points, my repsonse to each was in normal type, while the quotes were in bold.
Unfortunately, weapons cannot discriminate. In the heat of battle the users of those weapons cannot discriminate either.
Civilians have always been targets.
They are not actually my quotes if you look at the post, I was actually arguing counter to those points, my repsonse to each was in normal type, while the quotes were in bold.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military build-up nears completion
I have a silly question to throw in at this point.
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
Military build-up nears completion
Bryn Mawr;836351 wrote: I have a silly question to throw in at this point.
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
Well there are a few examples, Judea Ad 79 for instance, also the Romans (under Crassus cleared the slave revolt (which they considered in a similar way to our modern gurellia things I suppose), then the Romans also cleared up the Med from its endemic pirate problem, in much the same way the British did in the 18th century with the Royal Navy. The Turks brook no disent from Kurds, and indeed are now invading other countries to pursue kurds who attack them. The Israelis have been containing the Palestinians for 60 years now, and the British Army and intelligence service also arguably managed to contain if not defeat the IRA through the really dark days of the 1970s. The Spanish have contained ETA without serious moves on independence for the Basque country for 50 years, the French have stopped the Corsicans. The Russians have stopped chechyen seperatists for over a decade now, with overwhelming use of military power, and of course the Chinese in Tibet, I would say that if you closely examine the record, you will find that over history there are numerous examples of states overwhelming causes that used violence, in the modern Era what you have is a general erosion of the ability of States to use unlimited force to coerce movements and peoples, though I actually think that Authoritiarian government is making a big comeback in the world, and they are usually more willing to use military force against terrorist groups with far less moral constraint.
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
Well there are a few examples, Judea Ad 79 for instance, also the Romans (under Crassus cleared the slave revolt (which they considered in a similar way to our modern gurellia things I suppose), then the Romans also cleared up the Med from its endemic pirate problem, in much the same way the British did in the 18th century with the Royal Navy. The Turks brook no disent from Kurds, and indeed are now invading other countries to pursue kurds who attack them. The Israelis have been containing the Palestinians for 60 years now, and the British Army and intelligence service also arguably managed to contain if not defeat the IRA through the really dark days of the 1970s. The Spanish have contained ETA without serious moves on independence for the Basque country for 50 years, the French have stopped the Corsicans. The Russians have stopped chechyen seperatists for over a decade now, with overwhelming use of military power, and of course the Chinese in Tibet, I would say that if you closely examine the record, you will find that over history there are numerous examples of states overwhelming causes that used violence, in the modern Era what you have is a general erosion of the ability of States to use unlimited force to coerce movements and peoples, though I actually think that Authoritiarian government is making a big comeback in the world, and they are usually more willing to use military force against terrorist groups with far less moral constraint.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military build-up nears completion
Galbally;836379 wrote: Well there are a few examples, Judea Ad 79 for instance, also the Romans (under Crassus cleared the slave revolt (which they considered in a similar way to our modern gurellia things I suppose), then the Romans also cleared up the Med from its endemic pirate problem, in much the same way the British did in the 18th century with the Royal Navy. The Turks brook no disent from Kurds, and indeed are now invading other countries to pursue kurds who attack them. The Israelis have been containing the Palestinians for 60 years now, and the British Army and intelligence service also arguably managed to contain if not defeat the IRA through the really dark days of the 1970s. The Spanish have contained ETA without serious moves on independence for the Basque country for 50 years, the French have stopped the Corsicans. The Russians have stopped chechyen seperatists for over a decade now, with overwhelming use of military power, and of course the Chinese in Tibet, I would say that if you closely examine the record, you will find that over history there are numerous examples of states overwhelming causes that used violence, in the modern Era what you have is a general erosion of the ability of States to use unlimited force to coerce movements and peoples, though I actually think that Authoritiarian government is making a big comeback in the world, and they are usually more willing to use military force against terrorist groups with far less moral constraint.
I thought most of those modern ones were my examples. Despite massive use of arms the PKK are still there, the Palestinians are still there, the British could not stop the IRA until they started negotiating with them, ETA is still as strong as it's ever been (never terribly strong but still fighting). Cechnya was more a civil war than a terrorist group. Tibet has never had a terrorist organisation - they were invaded and, until the recent civil unrest, have remained fairly subdued with the government in exile going about it's protest peaceably (as it still does).
None of those examples show a terrorist organisation being defeated by force of arms as they're either still there or came to a negotiated peace. As you say, they were contained by force - in the cases where peace has broken out (EOKA, ANC, IRGUN, etc) it has been a negotiated settlement.
I thought most of those modern ones were my examples. Despite massive use of arms the PKK are still there, the Palestinians are still there, the British could not stop the IRA until they started negotiating with them, ETA is still as strong as it's ever been (never terribly strong but still fighting). Cechnya was more a civil war than a terrorist group. Tibet has never had a terrorist organisation - they were invaded and, until the recent civil unrest, have remained fairly subdued with the government in exile going about it's protest peaceably (as it still does).
None of those examples show a terrorist organisation being defeated by force of arms as they're either still there or came to a negotiated peace. As you say, they were contained by force - in the cases where peace has broken out (EOKA, ANC, IRGUN, etc) it has been a negotiated settlement.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Military build-up nears completion
Bryn Mawr: Only one definite case I can think of: the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s and '60s, where the British army defeated communist insurgents backed by regular forces coming over the border. Took 20 years.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Military build-up nears completion
Bryn Mawr;836351 wrote: I have a silly question to throw in at this point.
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
How about where a significant terrorist organization has actually won? How about the maquis in france or the partisans in yugoslavia. Although we would call them freedom fighters they were murdering terrorists to the germans. French indo china the Viet Minh forced out the french now who was on the side of the just in that one?
The IRA in the 1920's?
Can anyone remind me of a case where a significant terrorist organization has been defeated by force of arms?
The cases I can think of were solved by negotiation of, as in the case of Baader Meinhoff, by police action.
How about where a significant terrorist organization has actually won? How about the maquis in france or the partisans in yugoslavia. Although we would call them freedom fighters they were murdering terrorists to the germans. French indo china the Viet Minh forced out the french now who was on the side of the just in that one?
The IRA in the 1920's?
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;836998 wrote: No war has ever been Just, without exception. None ever will be I should think.
Warfare has been limited in scope, using overwhelming military power hasn't been seen, it's limited by conscience, moralilty and the civilian population surrounding the 'rebelious groups'.
If one country did use overwhelming military force the rebel groups would cease to exist and therefore that group would end.
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it. My point is that your question cant be answered, since no one has really been able to try the full use of overwhelming military power.
Arguably in ww2 the allies did use the full military power at their disposal. It was certainly enough to overwhelm the germans and japanese in to unconditional surrender, at the end civilians were being deliberately targeted, the niceties having gone right out the window. If both sides had had nuclear weapons both would have used them. Personally I'm rather glad the allies beat the germans in that particular race and we owe a great debt to some Norwegian commandos who played a major part in stopping hitler getting there first. it was the germans who used ballistic rockets first remember just imagine if he'd developed them first.
In past times overwhelming force has often been used and whole societies systematically destroyed by the victor. (Imagine being on the losing side to the romans e.g they completely obliterated what is now romania and enslaved most of europe) or how would you like to be o the receiving end of a mongol invasion-biggest land empire the world has ever seen.
All that is different nowadays is the efficiency with which we can kill each other all it needs is a good excuse and enough voters convinced their cause is just.
No war has ever been Just, without exception. None ever will be I should think.
Good grief I agree with you. The victors tend to decide if the war was just or not, winning seems to be a major requisite.
Warfare has been limited in scope, using overwhelming military power hasn't been seen, it's limited by conscience, moralilty and the civilian population surrounding the 'rebelious groups'.
If one country did use overwhelming military force the rebel groups would cease to exist and therefore that group would end.
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it. My point is that your question cant be answered, since no one has really been able to try the full use of overwhelming military power.
Arguably in ww2 the allies did use the full military power at their disposal. It was certainly enough to overwhelm the germans and japanese in to unconditional surrender, at the end civilians were being deliberately targeted, the niceties having gone right out the window. If both sides had had nuclear weapons both would have used them. Personally I'm rather glad the allies beat the germans in that particular race and we owe a great debt to some Norwegian commandos who played a major part in stopping hitler getting there first. it was the germans who used ballistic rockets first remember just imagine if he'd developed them first.
In past times overwhelming force has often been used and whole societies systematically destroyed by the victor. (Imagine being on the losing side to the romans e.g they completely obliterated what is now romania and enslaved most of europe) or how would you like to be o the receiving end of a mongol invasion-biggest land empire the world has ever seen.
All that is different nowadays is the efficiency with which we can kill each other all it needs is a good excuse and enough voters convinced their cause is just.
No war has ever been Just, without exception. None ever will be I should think.
Good grief I agree with you. The victors tend to decide if the war was just or not, winning seems to be a major requisite.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;836998 wrote: No war has ever been Just, without exception. None ever will be I should think.
Warfare has been limited in scope, using overwhelming military power hasn't been seen, it's limited by conscience, moralilty and the civilian population surrounding the 'rebelious groups'.
If one country did use overwhelming military force the rebel groups would cease to exist and therefore that group would end.
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it. My point is that your question cant be answered, since no one has really been able to try the full use of overwhelming military power.
The reason that overwhelming military force is not used against terrorists and that your vision of the overwhelming military force that would be required looks like Armageddon and certainly involves genocide is that terrorists are part of the general population and, faced with overwhelming military force, melt back into the general population.
Unless you persuade the general population that their best interests lie in supporting you rather than the terrorists you cannot win short of genocide - and you cannot do that by using overwhelming military force against the general population.
Until you negotiate with the general population to find out what their grievances are, and where they see justice in the terrorists cause, you will never get their support.
We have two choices - kill, kill and keep on killing, or talk.
Warfare has been limited in scope, using overwhelming military power hasn't been seen, it's limited by conscience, moralilty and the civilian population surrounding the 'rebelious groups'.
If one country did use overwhelming military force the rebel groups would cease to exist and therefore that group would end.
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it. My point is that your question cant be answered, since no one has really been able to try the full use of overwhelming military power.
The reason that overwhelming military force is not used against terrorists and that your vision of the overwhelming military force that would be required looks like Armageddon and certainly involves genocide is that terrorists are part of the general population and, faced with overwhelming military force, melt back into the general population.
Unless you persuade the general population that their best interests lie in supporting you rather than the terrorists you cannot win short of genocide - and you cannot do that by using overwhelming military force against the general population.
Until you negotiate with the general population to find out what their grievances are, and where they see justice in the terrorists cause, you will never get their support.
We have two choices - kill, kill and keep on killing, or talk.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;837152 wrote: Actually its because we arent desperate enough yet, but given the nature of the terror orgs, the time will come when we are forced to use more agressive forms of killing in order to stop it... there is little choice.
We will always disagree on the negotiation part. For me if you arm yourself against me or declare war on me then you die, period, no exceptions. Few are willing to fight to the full measure of what it takes to secure peace.
Kind of suggests you don't really understand what the nature of terror organisations actually is. One thing they are not is a mass movement with easily targeted head and a support base that can be destroyed. If you use overwhelming force against the population all you do is gain them support. US experience of terrorist organisations is actually very limited. Apart from your own home grown nutters up until 911 which is the only attack on the US itself by an outside terror organisation, albeit it an extreme one. Suddenly you are world experts?
Take ireland for example. in 1916 when the british executed ira prisoners after the dublin rising it turned them in to martyrs, the black and tans helped turn the ira in to heroes. The end result would probably have been the same i.e. independence for ireland but an overwhelming force response did little to help matters or save lives. Same with the recent troubles in northern ireland , both sides have to sit down and talk however much they think the other a murdering bastard.
Peace in Palestine will only happen when both sides sit down and talk. there is no military solution where one side will win because the other will give up unless you go in for genocide. Iran and iraq had to sit down and talk to end their war. Syria and israel and egypt had to sit down and talk to each other. War always ends by both sides talking.
We will always disagree on the negotiation part. For me if you arm yourself against me or declare war on me then you die, period, no exceptions.
What you are really saying is that agree and do things my way or else, and you can only do so because you do actually have the overwhelming force available. If that is the only approach you have then warfare is what you will get. No one has actually declared war on yo, terror groups represent no one but themselves. The idea that islamists want to tale over america and destroy your way of life is just paranoid hysteria. Fredom and democracy are destroyed by internal enemies not external. Just take a look at the history of nazi germany. The first thing hitler did when he got the chance was take away the right to a fair trial, the second was find someone to blame for everything. The third was sort out the economy so no I'm not actually suggesting the neocons are nazis.
posted by jester
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it.
It wouldn't work and luckily no one is stupid enough to think it would.
We will always disagree on the negotiation part. For me if you arm yourself against me or declare war on me then you die, period, no exceptions. Few are willing to fight to the full measure of what it takes to secure peace.
Kind of suggests you don't really understand what the nature of terror organisations actually is. One thing they are not is a mass movement with easily targeted head and a support base that can be destroyed. If you use overwhelming force against the population all you do is gain them support. US experience of terrorist organisations is actually very limited. Apart from your own home grown nutters up until 911 which is the only attack on the US itself by an outside terror organisation, albeit it an extreme one. Suddenly you are world experts?
Take ireland for example. in 1916 when the british executed ira prisoners after the dublin rising it turned them in to martyrs, the black and tans helped turn the ira in to heroes. The end result would probably have been the same i.e. independence for ireland but an overwhelming force response did little to help matters or save lives. Same with the recent troubles in northern ireland , both sides have to sit down and talk however much they think the other a murdering bastard.
Peace in Palestine will only happen when both sides sit down and talk. there is no military solution where one side will win because the other will give up unless you go in for genocide. Iran and iraq had to sit down and talk to end their war. Syria and israel and egypt had to sit down and talk to each other. War always ends by both sides talking.
We will always disagree on the negotiation part. For me if you arm yourself against me or declare war on me then you die, period, no exceptions.
What you are really saying is that agree and do things my way or else, and you can only do so because you do actually have the overwhelming force available. If that is the only approach you have then warfare is what you will get. No one has actually declared war on yo, terror groups represent no one but themselves. The idea that islamists want to tale over america and destroy your way of life is just paranoid hysteria. Fredom and democracy are destroyed by internal enemies not external. Just take a look at the history of nazi germany. The first thing hitler did when he got the chance was take away the right to a fair trial, the second was find someone to blame for everything. The third was sort out the economy so no I'm not actually suggesting the neocons are nazis.
posted by jester
For instance, if the US military wanted to and we totally ignored the world and our own laws, we could destroy city after city reducing it to rubble, starting in the south of Iraq and move north, give everyone in each city 7 days to come out unarmed, declare the city and all left in it after that all 'rebel or terrorist' and commence carpet bombing until nothing lived. More than likely they'd try to reoccupy in some way, but we'd just have to shoot on site anyone who tried to re-arm.
The world would be in an uproar. It isnt that it cant work, its that no one has the balls to try it.
It wouldn't work and luckily no one is stupid enough to think it would.
Military build-up nears completion
posted by jester
It would work, but no one is willign to try it, becasue of the uproar. But wait till they attack again on US soil, wow, whatch it then, if they are stupid enough to try it again then , all hell will break loose (depending of course on if we have a strong president or a weak one at the time.)
The Americans will only get pushed so far, I thought 9-11 would be enough, but, we went public instead of covert, big mistake.
No one is pushing you it's more a case of go away and leave us alone. One man's freedom fighter really is another ones terrorist. The definition depends on which side you are on.
I see there is talking of boycotting the beijing olympics, interestingly enough the last time the olympics were boycotted was the moscow one because russia had invaded afgghanistan in support of the elected secular government in their war against the Taliban-those brave freedom fighting mujahadeen. Funny how things change. No doubt the irony of that will escape GW as well.
Terrorism is more to do with the situation in their own countries, If political dissent is not allowed then extremism comes to the fore. The belief that it is all about destroying the way of life of the US is ludicrous. You should worry about your own government not foreign ones.
http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/tableof.htm
Cutting the money supply would be a lot more effective and cost less lives. Stop buying saudi oil.:sneaky:
All US sabre rattling is going to do is heat up the cold war again. If the US did invade or attack iran then you will be on your own as a militaristic superpower wh3ether such an act will actually benefit the american people is a question americans don't seem to be asking themselves.
It would work, but no one is willign to try it, becasue of the uproar. But wait till they attack again on US soil, wow, whatch it then, if they are stupid enough to try it again then , all hell will break loose (depending of course on if we have a strong president or a weak one at the time.)
The Americans will only get pushed so far, I thought 9-11 would be enough, but, we went public instead of covert, big mistake.
No one is pushing you it's more a case of go away and leave us alone. One man's freedom fighter really is another ones terrorist. The definition depends on which side you are on.
I see there is talking of boycotting the beijing olympics, interestingly enough the last time the olympics were boycotted was the moscow one because russia had invaded afgghanistan in support of the elected secular government in their war against the Taliban-those brave freedom fighting mujahadeen. Funny how things change. No doubt the irony of that will escape GW as well.
Terrorism is more to do with the situation in their own countries, If political dissent is not allowed then extremism comes to the fore. The belief that it is all about destroying the way of life of the US is ludicrous. You should worry about your own government not foreign ones.
http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/tableof.htm
Cutting the money supply would be a lot more effective and cost less lives. Stop buying saudi oil.:sneaky:
All US sabre rattling is going to do is heat up the cold war again. If the US did invade or attack iran then you will be on your own as a militaristic superpower wh3ether such an act will actually benefit the american people is a question americans don't seem to be asking themselves.
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;839181 wrote: Bud, if I had my way we woudlnt be buying any arab oil. Nottadrop! hey that would make a great bumpersticker, or a great web address:
www.noddadropofaraboil.com
excuse me I must go get that domain name registered...why aren't we using the oil in america?
www.noddadropofaraboil.com
excuse me I must go get that domain name registered...why aren't we using the oil in america?
Smoke signals ftw!
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;839181 wrote: Bud, if I had my way we woudlnt be buying any arab oil. Nottadrop! hey that would make a great bumpersticker, or a great web address:
www.noddadropofaraboil.com
excuse me I must go get that domain name registered...
How about www.notadropofbloodforaraboil.com ?
www.noddadropofaraboil.com
excuse me I must go get that domain name registered...
How about www.notadropofbloodforaraboil.com ?
Military build-up nears completion
Omni_Skittles;839188 wrote: why aren't we using the oil in america?
As Jester said, you're saving that for when the Arabs run out
As Jester said, you're saving that for when the Arabs run out
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Military build-up nears completion
Bryn Mawr;839269 wrote: As Jester said, you're saving that for when the Arabs run out :-)lol i kinda figured that. why not though right?
Smoke signals ftw!
Military build-up nears completion
Omni_Skittles;839273 wrote: lol i kinda figured that. why not though right?
We'll all need something so good tactics.
We'll all need something so good tactics.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;839318 wrote: Where did I say that?
My memory is better than my search ability - I withdraw the attribution.
My memory is better than my search ability - I withdraw the attribution.
Military build-up nears completion
Omni_Skittles;839188 wrote: why aren't we using the oil in america?
Follow the money. Industry and empire always go together. Look at the companies that are gaining financially and those who advocate using US military might to protect US "interests". As a general rule those who actually do the fighting benefit the least and once the flag waving is done very little thanks.
posted by jester
Well to be perfectly honest it sounds like something I'd say, but as I recollect our reserves are no where near the ability to outlast theirs, so I doubt I'd have said that one.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html
Be nicer to canada
Follow the money. Industry and empire always go together. Look at the companies that are gaining financially and those who advocate using US military might to protect US "interests". As a general rule those who actually do the fighting benefit the least and once the flag waving is done very little thanks.
posted by jester
Well to be perfectly honest it sounds like something I'd say, but as I recollect our reserves are no where near the ability to outlast theirs, so I doubt I'd have said that one.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html
Be nicer to canada