Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Rethinking the rules of war


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:19:00 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This post made me so sad.


~hugs~

quote:

I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain.


The first step, I think, is to ditch the question of military gain; militaries don't kill for fun.

If a nation has standards, and service(wo)men that are willing and able to uphold them by virtue of attitude and training, and the nation is willing to face the requirement that you put actual boots on the ground, in the line of fire, when you want to accomplish a military goal that may involve killing, then one can have fewer civilian casualties and more successful mission outcomes.

We Gorbangers have this little aphorism: What makes a Warrior? It's the Codes.

When one starts a war, one is signing orders, including death warrants; some of those warrants will be for the people effectuating those orders. This is an important part of the equation. Boots on the ground, and an ear to it, a feel for the job. A well trained scout sniper can die from enemy fire the same as anyone else. We lost a couple of ours. But those can tell when something is up. Survey the area. Figure out who the enemies are. Verify hostile intent. Take out the target(s). And hopefully get out alive. Without killing everyone in the area.

In any war, civilians die, too; the question is how many.

Our SF units arrested several dozen high profile targets in Afghanistan, most of them armed, many among civilians, few without guards, and there were no civilian casualties, nor friendly losses during those operations. The sniper corps has, as far as I know, no confirmed civilian casualties, and very few kills that didn't have solid positive confirmation of hostile intent. For the most part, the most significant complaint has been that one of the units exposed itself to unneccessary risk in one instance, pursuing an enemy into a potentially dangerous area to shut down an IED operation that had taken out 10% of the unit a few days prior; there was no indication civilians were put at unneccessary risk.

Now, I often complain about Norwegians' delicate sensibilities: we tend to forget we didn't send in the boyscouts.

We sent in the finest professional killers we have; and they're a damned fine bunch.

It's a shame when they die.

But it would be shameful to forget that it's what they are, in the final analysis, there to do, if the job demands it. That's one of the things that set that job apart from other jobs: it's the one job out of the lot that, as part of the job description, may require you to die to uphold your professional code of conduct. Now, the job isn't killing civilians. That's a mistake. Mistakes happen, yes. But we don't set out to deliver an inferior product. We teach them to deliver according to the standards of their profession, even if it kills them. Because that's the job. If they can't do it, they can't have it. We can't say "well, it's okay to deliver an inferior product, because more of them would die to deliver the product we need", because in the end they're there to deliver, and we shouldn't order anything we don't need delivered to spec.

Chances are, if it's worth killing for, it's worth dying for, and there are brave souls willing to do that when it is called for- let them.

Don't diminish the cost they're willing to pay by foisting it onto civilians.

That's my general feeling about it.

If it's fucked up, I'll blame it all on the sleep meds in the morning.

quote:

Not only do I believe that, but I need to believe that.


I've heard it said that most people have things they need to believe in, for whatever reason.

I've also heard it said sometimes belief isn't enough.

quote:

The alternatives are far too horrifying and repulsive to contemplate.


Welcome to my world: I've contemplated such things a long time.

The good thing is, it doesn't get any easier if you don't let it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:32:09 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: imin2bdsm

Just a few notes to contribute to the discussion.

LIST OF WARS 1990 to 2007 with approximate numbers of DEAD:

----------------------------- ...

The majority were NOT started by the UK and the US.




I did not state that the US or UK -started- the majority of the wars, in the first place, I was speaking of involvement in some form or another, including outright invasion. And, not to be dismissive of or in any way downplay the smaller conflicts, I was, without making it clear enough, speaking of the major conflicts. Also, I was speaking of one recognized sovereign nation attacking another nation likewise considered, not civil wars or insurgencies or any other form of internecine warfare, even though I agree that those can sometimes be the nastiest of all.

At least some of the conflicts in your list could be claimed as defensive wars by one or several participants, which certainly is not the case for any US involvement of whatever sort since WWII.


The second invasion of Iraq is conspicuously absent from your list, in any event.

105,000 deaths, through 2009, is the lowest number I've seen on that one so far.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 10:56:01 PM >

(in reply to imin2bdsm)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 11:25:50 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Of course, the treaty that ultimately emerged from the Paris Peace Conference was not, despite his efforts, quite what he or the Germans had hoped for.

The most acute take on the treaty came from French commander Marshall Foch: "This isn't peace. It's an armistice for 20 years."


Another adroit statement to that effect came from the British brigadier general Archibald Wavell; "After the 'War to end War' they seem to have been pretty successful in Paris at making a 'Peace to end Peace.'"

David Fromkin used this quote, with minor change, as title of his excellent book on the end of the Ottoman Empire and WWI in the ME and aftermath; A Peace To End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 11:33:23 PM >

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 12:37:43 AM   
PunisherNOLA


Posts: 50
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific.



This, it seems to me, is the essence of war.


This post made me so sad. Not because I naively believed that war is fought over ethical principles or just causes (it can be though most of the time it's not) but more because of the possibility that it might be close to the mark.

The 20th century transferred war from the battlefields and trenches of World War 1 into people homes, with the invention of aerial combat and aerial bombing, the latter making large scale civilian casualties inevitable. Targets no longer had to be military, strategic or industries supporting the war effort, they simply had to be standing and populated. The almost unlimited number of potential civilian targets vulnerable to aerial bombing makes them virtually impossible to defend.

This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain. The only instrument available to do that is the Geneva Convention, though I am open to other ways of creating and enforcing international law on this issue.

Not only do I believe that, but I need to believe that. The alternatives are far too horrifying and repulsive to contemplate.


ETA: While there has been a lot of discussion about the Palestinian situation in this thread can I remind people that it is merely one example of the complexities of this issue, and not the subject of the thread itself. The thread was inspired by the appalling situation in Gaza and other places such as Syria and Afghanistan. It is about avoiding civilian casualties everywhere.
My hope is that we can focus on finding ways to prevent any civilian area anywhere into a battlefield, and avoid the resultant carnage


In every war, both sides believe they are fighting for just causes... Or there would be no war. I don't believe it's naive to think this is a truism, there's always a reason for the war. You and I sitting at home watching it unfold on our favorite 24/7 newscycle may see it differently, but the combatants always think they're fighting for a just cause.

The problem I see with trying to enforce the Geneva Convention or whatever International Law we concoct concerning the rules of war is they can only be enforced after the fact, such as the Nerumberg Tribunals. (And even that, it would be argued by some was nothing more than the winners dictating what "justice" is upon the losers. A case of might makes right if you will.) What I mean is they won't prevent civilian casualties, it would at most make the cost of inflicting them higher after the fact. The battlefield is where you find your enemy, whether it be that rocket launcher next to the local bakery, or a brigade level force defending a bridge.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 3:36:39 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific.



This, it seems to me, is the essence of war.


This post made me so sad. Not because I naively believed that war is fought over ethical principles or just causes (it can be though most of the time it's not) but more because of the possibility that it might be close to the mark.

The 20th century transferred war from the battlefields and trenches of World War 1 into people homes, with the invention of aerial combat and aerial bombing, the latter making large scale civilian casualties inevitable. Targets no longer had to be military, strategic or industries supporting the war effort, they simply had to be standing and populated. The almost unlimited number of potential civilian targets vulnerable to aerial bombing makes them virtually impossible to defend.

This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain. The only instrument available to do that is the Geneva Convention, though I am open to other ways of creating and enforcing international law on this issue.

Not only do I believe that, but I need to believe that. The alternatives are far too horrifying and repulsive to contemplate.


ETA: While there has been a lot of discussion about the Palestinian situation in this thread can I remind people that it is merely one example of the complexities of this issue, and not the subject of the thread itself. The thread was inspired by the appalling situation in Gaza and other places such as Syria and Afghanistan. It is about avoiding civilian casualties everywhere.
My hope is that we can focus on finding ways to prevent any civilian area anywhere into a battlefield, and avoid the resultant carnage


Tweaks, war is a terrible thing, thats why we need to keep speaking out. Conflicts are taking place worldwide one way or another and sadly civillians have always been a target. Not just by armed forces but also by terrorists and insurgents.

And you are right....It is sad, very sad.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 3:39:29 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I love those that brag to be well read, despite playing hard and lose with the facts of what they actually claimed. Your claim about the UK and US being responisble for the majority of wars since 1990 is incorrect.


Prove it.

And no, I can't prove my assertion with absolute certitude either, but as I said, I'm not limiting it to actual invasions, but including funding or supplying or in some way instigating or encouraging various events. There is not a single South American country that has not suffered negatively in some fashion from the northern busybody. Likewise there is hardly a ME country that has not been influenced, in fact actually having been mapped out by the UK, France, and the US. And yes, jousting and jostling with Russia had some bit to do with it. But the primary concern was with control of the oil fields.


quote:

It is revisionist to make an absolute claim Iran would have modernised without the overthrow of Mossedagh. At best it is your ASSERTION and no more than that.


If it came across as an absolute claim, it was unintentional. But I do think it to be less than honest, and displaying questionable integrity, at the least, to constantly harp on ME countries' putative 'natural tendency' towards violence and fanaticism when their affairs have constantly been interfered with, often enough violently, from Western powers, along with Russia's various attempts at influence and of course their invasion of Afghanistan.

I do know that there is a large faction of Iranian people who are well disposed to normalizing relations with other countries, Western nations included, and virtually every Iranian that I've come across in person (mostly at the uni) is pretty level headed and interested in learning what there is to learn here, carrying on a normal life, etc. Haven't met a single jihadist among them yet, but of course that could be just a streak of good luck.


quote:

The same applies to Iraq. Talking of Iraq, the notion that the British helped Saddam overthrow Kaseem (sic.....I assume you meant Qasim) is no more than that, but I digress. If you were truly well read on the issue you would know Qasim came to power himself following the 1958 coup when King Faisal ( a friend of the British) was overthrown. So even if you are right that the US and the UK were involved in overthrowing Qasim, the books you claim to have read would show you that Iraq was far from civillised at the time. Lets not forget this was at the height of the cold war.


Sorry, it's been a good while since I read of that episode, but yes, Qasim (whose name I've seen spelled about 5 different ways by foreign policy folks, in different books and articles, etc., glad you set them all straight on the definitive spelling there) actually came to power in '58, and several unsuccessful coup and/or assassination attempts occurred before he was finally ousted in '63.

Of course it is necessarily speculation as to what the region would be like today had the inhabitants been allowed to fight their own battles, allowed to experience the democracy some of the countries were growing towards or actually implementing, and leaders so elected, without being overthrown by outside forces, etc.,

But it is utterly tiresome to hear of all this that and another claims and judgements made about people of the region from others whose countries have been directly and indirectly responsible for the largest part of the turmoil occurring there for many decades.









Typical....... You make an absurd claim and when challenged ask me to prove it..... its your claim sunshine, not mine.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:30:19 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

PunisherNOLA
The problem I see with trying to enforce the Geneva Convention or whatever International Law we concoct concerning the rules of war is they can only be enforced after the fact, such as the Nerumberg Tribunals. (And even that, it would be argued by some was nothing more than the winners dictating what "justice" is upon the losers. A case of might makes right if you will.) What I mean is they won't prevent civilian casualties, it would at most make the cost of inflicting them higher after the fact. The battlefield is where you find your enemy, whether it be that rocket launcher next to the local bakery, or a brigade level force defending a bridge.

.
These are some valid points raided here, but not any insuperable problems. The world has come a long way since Nuremburg. For instance, we now have an International Criminal Court based in Holland, which is a permanent body and ideal for trying war crimes cases. Dutch-based tribunals have already done so in cases arising out the Balkan wars, and various African wars both internal and cross-border.

However, the process for referring cases to the ICC is slow and cumbersome, often taking many years before the ICC has jurisdiction and a trial occurs. This process could be expedited by granting the ICC power to investigate and arraign war criminals on its own, which would be a vast improvement on the current arrangement. This would also go some way towards countering the 'victor's justice' argument. Also, there is a tendency for countries to protect their war criminals from prosecution, or to stage show trials resulting in acquittals for war criminals. Allowing the ICC to powers to initiate prosecutions would counter this tendency. It is of critical importance for the integrity of the process that justice is applied equally across the board, and that there is no favouritism or countries immune to prosecution.

Your other point - that justice occurs after the crime - is not something I would favour altering. This is what happens in the criminal justice system of almost every country I can think of. Prosecuting people in advance of a crime is not a policy I would care to defend.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/20/2012 4:35:59 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to PunisherNOLA)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 5:49:27 AM   
PunisherNOLA


Posts: 50
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
.
These are some valid points raided here, but not any insuperable problems. The world has come a long way since Nuremburg. For instance, we now have an International Criminal Court based in Holland, which is a permanent body and ideal for trying war crimes cases. Dutch-based tribunals have already done so in cases arising out the Balkan wars, and various African wars both internal and cross-border.

However, the process for referring cases to the ICC is slow and cumbersome, often taking many years before the ICC has jurisdiction and a trial occurs. This process could be expedited by granting the ICC power to investigate and arraign war criminals on its own, which would be a vast improvement on the current arrangement. This would also go some way towards countering the 'victor's justice' argument. Also, there is a tendency for countries to protect their war criminals from prosecution, or to stage show trials resulting in acquittals for war criminals. Allowing the ICC to powers to initiate prosecutions would counter this tendency. It is of critical importance for the integrity of the process that justice is applied equally across the board, and that there is no favouritism or countries immune to prosecution.

Your other point - that justice occurs after the crime - is not something I would favour altering. This is what happens in the criminal justice system of almost every country I can think of. Prosecuting people in advance of a crime is not a policy I would care to defend.


We're in agreement with all of that, I was really trying to address the point of your original post about discussing ways to lessen the civilian casualties that happen in the course of a given war, and that's that I don't think the Geneva Convention Treaties or the ICC are going to prevent them from happening, but rather take the appropriate measures after the fact.

Actually, I have no real ideas when it comes to lessening civilian casualties. I honestly don't think they can be lessened to any significant degree.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:18:28 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

I honestly don't think they can be lessened to any significant degree.


Using the Gaza conflict as an example, considering that 70% of the casualties there are civilians, I'm pretty confident that number can be substantially reduced. The first step is to use means that actually are surgical in their precision, such as snipers, rather than rockets. Even the regular soldiers are reasonably effective in distinguishing between combattants and civilians when properly trained.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to PunisherNOLA)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:23:28 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
I think that you are unwittingly playing into the hands of the defense industry in even considering the concept that there is now or in the future any such thing as the possibility of war or war actions without essential civilian casualties.

I'll go you one further than that. I have always been deeply skeptical of any attempt to sanitize war. I have never experienced war for myself. But I have heard enough other renditions to know that the last thing on earth it is is clean, pretty, and civilized. Personally I fear that by attempting to put lipstick on that pig we forget what a godawful ugly pig it is.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:27:25 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Aswad, in the last incursion into Gaza, IDF snipers targetted civillians, sometimes on purpose. Recently Hamas snipers targeted Israeli civillians.

The rules of engagement need tightening up.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-in-gaza-killing-civilians-vandalism-and-lax-rules-of-engagement-1.272379

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:43:15 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Aswad, in the last incursion into Gaza, IDF snipers targetted civillians, sometimes on purpose. Recently Hamas snipers targeted Israeli civillians.


As you say, quality would've been good, both with the IDF and Hamas. That's what I mean when I said Norway sent its finest professional killers to Afghanistan. We didn't send those that could kill the most people, but the finest quality people we had, those that can do a quality job, even when that job is killing. I'm assuming the UK did the same.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 4:49:25 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		It isnt looking good for the ceasefire that was spoken of. A ground attack would be a disaster for both sides I think. Sadly the civillians will cop the brunt of it.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 5:25:14 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline 		Yeah, apparently Israel is considering the offer made by Hamas, but they're taking their sweet time. It hasn't been looking good since Israel first set forth their general position on diplomacy, which goes something like this: "If you'll just bend over, I'll start raping your ass while we talk about consent and limits."

For me, that seems like a red flag if there ever was one.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 5:27:30 PM   
PunisherNOLA


Posts: 50
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

I honestly don't think they can be lessened to any significant degree.


Using the Gaza conflict as an example, considering that 70% of the casualties there are civilians, I'm pretty confident that number can be substantially reduced. The first step is to use means that actually are surgical in their precision, such as snipers, rather than rockets. Even the regular soldiers are reasonably effective in distinguishing between combattants and civilians when properly trained.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



As long as the valid military targets are hidden amongst the population, no, they cannot be substantially reduced. As long as one country just lobs hundreds of rockets into the other without regard for where they hit, no, they cannot be substantially reduced. When one of the sides is using the civilian casualties for PR purposes, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.

For snipers and regular soldiers to be able to distiguish between enemy combatants and civilians, they have to be close enough to enable them to do so. If they could get that close at will, then by all means eschew the rockets in favor of rifles. Barring that, you use what you have. What you don't do, is allow those military targets to stand no matter where they are.

THAT, is war. As JeffBC said, even if you put lipstick on the pig, it's still a pig.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 5:43:18 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline 		As brutal and awful as it would be, IMHO, I think war should go back to the pre 1900's when, if you were at war with another country....all bets were off.

It sounds awful (and couldn't be done today without being labeled a butcher but)....it's sure get people's attention pretty damn quick.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 5:53:45 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

As long as the valid military targets are hidden amongst the population, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.


Bollocks. We took out plenty of valid military targets hidden among the civilian population in Afghanistan without anywhere near the level of civilian casualties seen in Gaza (and with most of the civilian casualties being caused by the insurgents, not ourselves).

quote:

As long as one country just lobs hundreds of rockets into the other without regard for where they hit, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.


This is, obviously, something one might want to reduce.

quote:

When one of the sides is using the civilian casualties for PR purposes, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.


I don't know about you, but I would consider PR for the other side to be something to avoid creating.

quote:

For snipers and regular soldiers to be able to distiguish between enemy combatants and civilians, they have to be close enough to enable them to do so.


That's the job description.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to PunisherNOLA)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 6:14:08 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

As brutal and awful as it would be, IMHO, I think war should go back to the pre 1900's when, if you were at war with another country....all bets were off. It sounds awful (and couldn't be done today without being labeled a butcher but)....it's sure get people's attention pretty damn quick.


Fine with me. I'm the guy that said I don't have a problem with "to the victor go the spoils" either, in principle. It's either/or, really. If they want to mop the floor with the people of Gaza, they should stop pussyfooting around and get on with it. But if they aren't ready to kill over a million minors, they need to start looking for another strategy than the one they're pursuing, because that's where the finish line is at. Don't step up if you can't keep up, as the saying goes. Hamas has their back to the wall and are willing to do whatever it takes, after all.

Back when the USSR was in Afghanistan, they gave serious thought to using mass nuclear bombardment. It wasn't humanitarian issues that stopped them. The entire civilian population of Afghanistan was considered an acceptable loss in that scenario. What stopped them, apparently, was that they still wouldn't succeed. So they pulled out. And GWB learned much the same lesson later, having not paid too much attention the first time around. What eventually worked, to the limited extent it did work, was to change the strategy. Anyway, the real problem with going back to pre 1900s, is that humanity will come to an abrupt end in our lifetime if that happens in any large scale conflict.

Israel does seem to be looking to kill some folk, but they ain't looking to end the war, is what it looks like to me.

And why would they? It's not a big deal to them. Occasionally, a few people get killed, yes. But on the balance, it's an election campaign tool, more than anything else. They've even cut funding to the projects that could lead to a total immunity to rockets from Hamas, some of those projects being shut down entirely. Clearly, it's not a priority to stop those deaths. Mostly, those deaths are a convenient excuse. Terrorism is not a new challenge, nor one that's very difficult to deal with, except when one starts turning it into a circus.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 9:13:50 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		FR

There are two sure ways for the Palestinians to attain peace and not lose.
1. Convert to Judaism. The Israeli population will stop their war of attrition if the Palestinians are Jews.
or
2. Convert to Christianity. (Just to spite the Israeli's.)

In both scenario's the USA will stop supporting Israel with weapons and finances.

ETA: Well, actually there are other ways too:

3. Convert to Hinduism,
or
4. Convert to Buddhism,
or
5. Convert to Sikhism.

< Message edited by Rule -- 11/20/2012 9:17:13 PM >

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/20/2012 9:31:10 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Wars are not fought under the MoQ rules, and terrible things happen when they are fought. Innocent lives are lost. This isn't new, they didn't have all these computerized toys and pilotless planes in WWII, and the cities still got bombed. This isn't going to change as long as wars are fought.


I agree with what Punisher wrote here.

This is a great topic tweaky.

I really am torn on this one, WAR by it's very nature really means one side is going to win and another side is going to lose.
I would think that WAR should be the very LAST option available.

Once you go to WAR, often all bets are off.
Ideally I would like to see more energy put into working out a settlement or agreement, so that WAR itself can be prevented.

I am older than you, and just hearing the word WAR has always made me sad.
I don't expect war to be anything but ugly.

Throughout history there have been very few wars were innocent people have not been killed, war by definition is horrific, brutal and ugly.

< Message edited by Marini -- 11/20/2012 9:41:58 PM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to PunisherNOLA)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094