quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

They don't still use swords do they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

They don't still use swords do they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Modern Americans mostly would be shocked to learn that one of Roosevelts key advisors (one of his nephews; name escapes me) openly- in the press, for Gods sake- advocated killing a million Japanese civilians to "break their will" before landing a ground invasion (which advice may well have been acted upon had we not dropped nukes on- lets use the word again- civilians). We firebombed  Tokyo, a city of millions of people living in paper houses. And it wasn't a racial thing (we also firebombed, for example, Dresden)- it was, simply that we were fighting to win.

Limited wars are senseless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

They don't still use swords do they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Modern Americans mostly would be shocked to learn that one of Roosevelts key advisors (one of his nephews; name escapes me) openly- in the press, for Gods sake- advocated killing a million Japanese civilians to "break their will" before landing a ground invasion (which advice may well have been acted upon had we not dropped nukes on- lets use the word again- civilians). We firebombed  Tokyo, a city of millions of people living in paper houses. And it wasn't a racial thing (we also firebombed, for example, Dresden)- it was, simply that we were fighting to win.

Limited wars are senseless.

Wars are senseless full stop but I hope we've moved on somewhat from those times and now at least make some effort to distinguish between those going about their daily lives and those that are a threat. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
My son-in-law is an Afghan vet and basically agrees, I think, with your friend. We learned nothing from Nam, imo: here we are, again, fighting limited wars with insane rules governing contact with the enemy, allowing the enemy sanctuary behind political lines, etc etc.

Modern Americans mostly would be shocked to learn that one of Roosevelts key advisors (one of his nephews; name escapes me) openly- in the press, for Gods sake- advocated killing a million Japanese civilians to "break their will" before landing a ground invasion (which advice may well have been acted upon had we not dropped nukes on- lets use the word again- civilians). We firebombed  Tokyo, a city of millions of people living in paper houses. And it wasn't a racial thing (we also firebombed, for example, Dresden)- it was, simply that we were fighting to win.

Limited wars are senseless.

quote:

The concept of absolute war was a philosophical construct developed by the military theorist General Carl von Clausewitz and features in the first half of the first chapter of his book On War. After this, Clausewitz explains that absolute war is practically impossible because it is not directed by political motives and morality, and thus he names war with these additional moderating influences as real war. In his explanation of absolute war Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will". However, war itself does not contain inherent moral or political aspects. Rather, such conditions (for instance, the laws of armed conflict) are placed on war by those who fight it, and exist because the intelligence of the civilised nations involved exercises greater influence on their methods of fighting war than does their instinctive hostility (that is, the passion of hatred). Absolute war therefore, can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Modern Americans mostly would be shocked to learn that one of Roosevelts key advisors (one of his nephews; name escapes me) openly- in the press, for Gods sake- advocated killing a million Japanese civilians to "break their will" before landing a ground invasion (which advice may well have been acted upon had we not dropped nukes on- lets use the word again- civilians). We firebombed  Tokyo, a city of millions of people living in paper houses. And it wasn't a racial thing (we also firebombed, for example, Dresden)- it was, simply that we were fighting to win.

Limited wars are senseless.

Wars are senseless full stop but I hope we've moved on somewhat from those times and now at least make some effort to distinguish between those going about their daily lives and those that are a threat. 

Well, yes we do; and thats the problem. Until the general population of an invaded country loses the will and/or ability to support their native soldiers- until they in fact cease to do so- they are indeed the enemy. Unpleasant, cold fact.

I think you'd agree that self-defense at a national level is not senseless. The question, to me, is and always has been: where does self-defense start? In the American oater it started when the bad guy actually reached for his gun. IMO, if his intentions were known, shooting him in the back while he walked across the floor to retrieve the gunbelt he left in Miss Kitty's room would have been fine.

IMO, for another example, Israel is entirely justified in bombing Iran now instead of waiting until the nukes are en route.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Well, yes we do; and thats the problem. Until the general population of an invaded country loses the will and/or ability to support their native soldiers- until they in fact cease to do so- they are indeed the enemy. Unpleasant, cold fact.

I think you'd agree that self-defense at a national level is not senseless. The question, to me, is and always has been: where does self-defense start? In the American oater it started when the bad guy actually reached for his gun. IMO, if his intentions were known, shooting him in the back while he walked across the floor to retrieve the gunbelt he left in Miss Kitty's room would have been fine.

IMO, for another example, Israel is entirely justified in bombing Iran now instead of waiting until the nukes are en route.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UPSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
My son-in-law is an Afghan vet and basically agrees, I think, with your friend. We learned nothing from Nam, imo: here we are, again, fighting limited wars with insane rules governing contact with the enemy, allowing the enemy sanctuary behind political lines, etc etc.

Modern Americans mostly would be shocked to learn that one of Roosevelts key advisors (one of his nephews; name escapes me) openly- in the press, for Gods sake- advocated killing a million Japanese civilians to "break their will" before landing a ground invasion (which advice may well have been acted upon had we not dropped nukes on- lets use the word again- civilians). We firebombed  Tokyo, a city of millions of people living in paper houses. And it wasn't a racial thing (we also firebombed, for example, Dresden)- it was, simply that we were fighting to win.

Limited wars are senseless.

TS,

We certainly did present racial stereotypes about the Japanese during WWII through films of the period. We fire bombed probably half of Japan and dropped two nuclear bombs on them. Dresden aside, it is doubtful we would have done the same on the European theater - I mean, after all, we had German POW's being held Southern U.S. states allowed to freely walk around in movie theaters and cafes off limits ("Whites Only") to Black-American G.I.'s returning from war with the Germans (and Japanese-Americans locked up in camps).

Afghanistan is not a Vietnam, the numbers for U.S. casualties do not work out, and war indeed does require rules. There is no absolute war and partly because strategic warfare is subordinate to political strategy - warfare seeks the end of political aim.

Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crime for which the Western Allies have never been charged because they were the victors. The United States master of propaganda it is, enjoys teaching the little kiddies and adult population that Jerusalem was some fantastic war crime beneath any secular consideration of the United States or Great Britain. When in actuality Jerusalem no more diminishes the moral and strategic veracity of the so-called Crusades than Hiroshima or Nagasaki diminishes that of the Allied cause. Frankly, the Crusading powers as a whole, given to illiteracy and ignorance, and lacking a "professional military" and professional officer corps, are less morally accountable for Jerusalem than the Allies for Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

But the slaughter of non-combatants intentionally, be it Jerusalem or Nagasaki, is criminal and amoral. War must be governed by rules, and the 20th century is now known by historians and scholars as the single most bloody 100 years within recorded human history. An epic barbaric time period.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war  

quote:

The concept of absolute war was a philosophical construct developed by the military theorist General Carl von Clausewitz and features in the first half of the first chapter of his book On War. After this, Clausewitz explains that absolute war is practically impossible because it is not directed by political motives and morality, and thus he names war with these additional moderating influences as real war. In his explanation of absolute war Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will". However, war itself does not contain inherent moral or political aspects. Rather, such conditions (for instance, the laws of armed conflict) are placed on war by those who fight it, and exist because the intelligence of the civilised nations involved exercises greater influence on their methods of fighting war than does their instinctive hostility (that is, the passion of hatred). Absolute war therefore, can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

In every group there are different personalities that is the nature of groups. I don't think finding moderate Taliban leaders will be easy but you'll find people fighting with the Taliban do so for various reasons such as fear or misunderstanding of other positions, divide and conquer is nothing new. There were people in the Nazi regime who were a help to the allies, some people have no real options at a point in time and so go along with things they don't agree with 100%, they do so because it's the closest position to their own they can find. It's those people you have to find because if you don't try to engage with these people to convince them they could be better off in a different situation then you'll be there forever; killing these Taliban that appear from the shadows by putting down hoes and picking up guns. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
They don't still use swords do they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UPSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

Well I have always had a childhood dream of being an Airforce pilot.  If I could physically do it I would fly today in operation Iranian freedom.  There is nothing more I would love to do then bombing all of Iran's WMD facilities and command and control. ;) McCain must have been such a problem for you guys to attack last year.  You couldn’t label him a chicken hawk because he actually served in Vietnam and supported the surge and the AFgan wars. Now if one doesn’t serve in the military going by a liberal’s logic then they shouldn’t be allowed to deploy American forces overseas or support such actions like Mr Obama and Mr Clinton ;)   Now I understand why you liberals like to perv my profile.  By making this about me you change the topic.

The last solid evidence Mr. Bin laden was anywhere going by DNA was in Afghanistan.  There have only been rumors of Bin Laden being in Pakistan northern tribal areas.  However that didn’t prevent US forces from using Drones to search for the possibility that bin laden was in N Pakistan.  So VP Cheney and Prez Bush were actually sending US forces to look for Bin Laden in N Pakistan typically using Drones.   They tried to do it with as little press as possibile so not to cause internal problems in Pakistan.  Those little facts makes your little story and attack against bush meaningless.   Next time try a little harder and use some facts then what you say might actually make some sense.

MS,

You and any other man or woman who have never served in the military are in full right, and not at all out of order, to express your viewpoints on war or military campaigns as they involve one's country and national interests.

I think what might bother HippieK, and rightly so, is that there are often people who seem to subconsciously feel that while wars might be necessary, they themselves are too important to fight in them. I don't know you personally nor well enough on this board to even hazard a guess if that is or is not you.

I do find it interesting, and even ironic, that as civilization has supposedly become more civilized, gone are the days when nobility were the knights offering protection to lords and peasantry, and gone are the days kings sat mounted on the battlefields. Today it is usually the poor who fight the wars and consequently provide the protection for the rich. But maybe I digress....

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

In every group there are different personalities that is the nature of groups. I don't think finding moderate Taliban leaders will be easy but you'll find people fighting with the Taliban do so for various reasons such as fear or misunderstanding of other positions, divide and conquer is nothing new. There were people in the Nazi regime who were a help to the allies, some people have no real options at a point in time and so go along with things they don't agree with 100%, they do so because it's the closest position to their own they can find. It's those people you have to find because if you don't try to engage with these people to convince them they could be better off in a different situation then you'll be there forever; killing these Taliban that appear from the shadows by putting down hoes and picking up guns. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Ever heard of "salting the earth"? If the death of your enemy is the goal....  Clausewitz had nothing original or even novel imo.

quote:


Ever had any martial arts? The first real lesson is usually an explanation of why, in almost all fights, the participants not only pull their punches but also deliberately do not take the most effective move available to them in the first place. The subconcious reasoning is "If I don't hurt him too badly maybe he'll take it easy on me too".

quote:


I reject it. You use a fist, I want a gun. I can certainly, even easily, be killed; but I cannot be defeated.
Our enemy also rejects it.

quote:

if we were to take 21st century liberals and press back to the 1940's we would have lost WW II.