|
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2002 : 05:49:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The drug "war"
Nowadays you just can't get any good drugs 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Yep, I think the Drug war deserves to be considerd the top of the useless war's list.
|
 |
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 06:02:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But I would take issue with your last item of "The current bombing of Afghanistan" as being pointless. Yes, I'm sure we angered many people with some of our mis-placed missles and bombs. Innocent people died. But take a hard look at recent developments. The Arab and Pakistani militants who rushed to join the Taliban are now in danger of their own lives. Afghanis know that the "outsiders" were the worst of the lot and are now hunting them down and killing them. The casualties from misguided U.S. munitions is nothing compared to the reprisals that Afghanis will bring down upon anyone who was caught on the "wrong" side.
Civil wars are very messy affairs and in Afghanistan, that is exactly what we have waded into.
(:raig
This is a case where I think the detractors to the war in Afghanistan are astonishingly off the mark. There really was not an alternative of do nothing, and the alternative of try obsessively to go after the offenders criminal justice style, would make us look weak, and become even more vulnerable to further attacks. Bin Lauden appears to have thought we would respond with further Somalia and Beirut style appeasement, but such a move would have been disastrous.
Really our choice was a punishing all out attack on countries harboring those responsible. A set of attacks that would make clear ancient Roman style what happens to those that defy Rome. Carthaginian destruction. Or the much more careful response we have employed. Other options would have amounted to appeasement. Europeans should be thankful we have been so restrained. WWII Dresden style bombing of all the cities of countries involved may actually have been more effective in discouraging other countries from sponsoring future attacks. Really US restraint has been commendable.
I think W is a nitwit and a moron. But in this case I think he took the best of his (acceptable) available options (even if massive retaliation would have had a certain therapeutic value) :-) .
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 20:54:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Europeans should be thankful we have been so restrained. WWII Dresden style bombing of all the cities of countries involved may actually have been more effective in discouraging other countries from sponsoring future attacks. Really US restraint has been commendable.
If you are using sarcasm here, you should have used on of those smileys to mark it. If not I can't even beign to imagine how utterly removed from reality you are to make such a horrible statements.
I don't know what is worse the disregard for human lifes your idea shows or the shortsightedness. Even if you were completly heartless and were willing to sacrifice millions of innocent life on your quest for vengance, you would have to realize that starting WWIII would ultimatley endanger your own life.
|
|
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 21:19:16 [Permalink]
|
Disregard for human life. Not at all. The bombing we did in WWII was necessary to do the job. In the end the nukes on Japan almost certainly saved American lives. The bombing of Germany was sadly less effective in knocking Germany out of the war, but it was part of the cost Germany paid for making war on us and others. And to the extent it stopped German production (which rose in spite of the bombing, but almost certainly rose less than it would have without it) it saved Americans and even more Russian lives.
If such all out bombing was necessary to prevent future attacks on the US, or on our vital interests. I would be all for it.
As it turns out it probably will not be. That's a good thing. But lets not use total blinders when we look at this world. It's not a nice place. If we respond to serious attacks on the US, with gestrues, or attempts to mess around with courts, we are basically just asking for more of the same.
If nations understood total destruction was the cost of harboring or helping terrorists that attacked the US, they would not do it. As it happens it appears we can stop terrorists with less drastic means. Great.
The big risk of course is that other nations will think our relatively surgical response to 9/11 means we don't have the will to really respond aggressively if we have to. Really deterring other nations from harboring terrorists requires that they understand its suicide. Failure to make that very clear will result in real danger to Americans. And the next state sponsored attack may kill millions not thousands, if they find the right weapons. It's far more likely to happen if states think they will not suffer annihilation as a consequence.
Edited by - igrokit on 02/27/2002 21:38:34 |
|
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 23:56:14 [Permalink]
|
Even the Allies in WWII considered the bombing of Dresden a draconian, albeit considered necessary, action done in retaliation for the bombing of London and other cities by Germany. One thing that history has shown is that carpet bombing of cities does not intimidate or break the morale of the people, on the contrary, it strengthens them. One need only look to 9/11 to see that. Besides, if your intent is to win the population of a nation over to your point of view bombing them isn't the way to go.
[quote]The big risk of course is that other nations will think our relatively surgical response to 9/11 means we don't have the will to really respond aggressively if we have to. [/quote]
Aggressiveness doesn't have to mean laying down a long stick of MK-82s. During WWII and later wars we had to drop lots of bombs to ensure we hit the target, not so today. Precision munitions have literally revolutionized warfare. Ask the Taliban and Al-Queda if our precision attacks by air and ground forces weren't aggressive enough. During the war with the Soviet Union, Afghan fighters felt safe and secure inside their mountain tunnels - do you think Bin Laden feels safe inside a cave now?
[quote]A set of attacks that would make clear ancient Roman style what happens to those that defy Rome. Carthaginian destruction. [/quote]
Remember, Rome was sacked because anyone not Roman hated Rome for its centuries of oppression. We aren't ancient Rome, nor can we act like them without suffering the same fate.
Edited by - physiofly on 02/28/2002 00:03:01 |
|
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 05:29:10 [Permalink]
|
Oh boy. Well I can see we will not agree on much about history.
First on Dresden, you are actually thinking about postwar allied opinion. During the war the only thing they really questioned about setting up these firestorms was the most effective way to do it.
Second…mass bombing. It certainly is one revisionist view of history that mass bombing strengthens a countries war effort. But it's almost certainly a false view. Germany could have produced a lot more war goods, but the bombing made it a lot harder. The resources the Germans lost from the bombings, and had to produce to deal with the bombings, replacement food housing and supplies, the transport to move them ect ect..all came right from the war effort. In Japans case, had we not flattened their cities, and really flattened them, and not then shown we could level them with destruction beyond their prior dreams, they would not have surrendered, and we would have fought a vicious battle over that whole island. It would have been horribly bloody.
It can be argued that only the nukes were necessary, but we did not really know those would work until well into 1945. And the demonstration that we were willing to destroy their cities generally was surely necessary, they were not going to surrender unless they faced total annihilation.
On Rome you are also pretty far off the mark (IMHO of course). To say that the various barbarian tribes would not have sacked Rome, that they did it out of anger, instead of desire for Rome's riches, is preposterous. The reason for their conflict with Rome had more to do with Rome becoming weak enough to attack, and the wealth inside the empire there for the taking when Rome lacked the will and the might to defend it.
Most of the civilized world was shocked and horrified when the first (well first since the 4rth century BC) foreign sacking of Rome took place in 410AD (Roman troops had sacked Rome to varying degrees numerous times…..but that is a separate issue). They thought it presaged the downfall of the only civilization they had ever known. They were right, although Rome still had some life left in it at that point. Wealth and weakness are a bad combination in states, and one that invites invasion. When Rome was at its imperial zenith, many states could be rich and weak, because they enjoyed the protection of Rome, which was actually like America, usually a pretty liberal power for those within its system. Even the mad rulers usually left the running of the empire itself to fairly capable men. Oddly the Republican period of Rome tended to have a much worse record of running the provinces and protectorates. I think you would be surprised what a liberal power the Roman Empire was in many ways.
As to the fall of Rome, that's awful complicated and even Gibbons is unable to really explain it in his massive work. We could start a whole thread on the fascinating subject if you want, but I am not sure that a post on this war is the place to start on that. On a tangent, as to if the US will fall I will answer yes, of course eventually. But the when is unclear. Rome took about 300 years of decline to completely collapse. The factors in the US fall will be complex. But I think a lack of will to defend our interests will have a lot more to do with it, than people angry that we were willing and able to do so.
Well now that I have pointed out our historical disagreements on to what I think was your main point. I think your main point was that carpet bombing of civilian populations may not be necessary in this war. On that I agree. And I really did not mean to say that it was a nice thing to carpet bomb civilian centers. Just that if it is necessary for the war, we should do it. I think our rather careful approach has been masterful in this war. I am stunned W has been capable of it. Indeed I applaud US restraint in Afghanistan. We have freed that people from awful oppression, with a staggeringly small |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 06:32:04 [Permalink]
|
First about the Dresden bombing.
The bombing was not aimed to traget production centers or anything closely connected with the war effort. It was aimed at civilians. At the living quaters of the poor and the refugees because they were packed denser there. Different sources give a different body cout ranging from 135.000 to 250.000. It was pure retaliation.
I won't go into the whole Nuke thing here, because i can already see that we would not agree and it does not really matter in this issue.
Let's put the whole issue of sacrificing innocent lives aside here and pretend I agree with you that saving one American live is worth killing dozens or hunfreds of innoncents.
The point here is that it would not work. Terrror Bombing Afghanistan and every other nation that the US thinks is connected with 9/11 the way you described it would lead to World War III rather then to a victory in the War on Terror.
The reaction Amercia made in response to 9/11 was the maximum they could get away with. Maybee in the first few days and weeks when everybody was still unders shock and was completly in favor of the whole thing they could have done more.
You have seen yourself how big the network of bin laden is. He has got bases almost everywhere. Should the US attack Saudi-Arabia? That was where most of the terrorists came from, where they get there money and where they had at least before last september support of both parts of the population and the government. What do you think would happen next?
Do you think that massive terror would really keep people from supporting terrorists? Even the bombing of Afghanistan, that was seen as justified and humane by most, has probably gained Bin-Laden more support then he lost in Afghanistan.
People like the pakistani dictator can see that siding against the US at this point would be suicide, but it is not him that really matters in the War on Terrorism. The common man on the street fanatic, who is less hampered by rational thought and selfpreservasion then the leaders of the nations, is the enemy you have to convince to stop supporting Terrorists.
|
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 23:18:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Second?mass bombing. It certainly is one revisionist view of history that mass bombing strengthens a countries war effort. But it?s almost certainly a false view. Germany could have produced a lot more war goods, but the bombing made it a lot harder. The resources the Germans lost from the bombings, and had to produce to deal with the bombings, replacement food housing and supplies, the transport to move them ect ect..all came right from the war effort. In Japans case, had we not flattened their cities, and really flattened them, and not then shown we could level them with destruction beyond their prior dreams, they would not have surrendered, and we would have fought a vicious battle over that whole island. It would have been horribly bloody.
Who would these revisionist be? Could they be the United States Air Force, The Royal Air Force and The Canadian Air Force? All have concluded that the bombing of WWII was not effective in reducing German production capacity. The main reason was simple nobody could hit anything. A bomb within a mile of an aiming point was concidered close.
The main benefit of the bombing was to attract German military reasouces away from other areas and devote it to the defence of Germany. But that goal could have been accomplished in a smarter less costly way to our selves.
Even at the end of the war the Germans had more than enough equipment, but no way to get it to where it was needed or enough people that were trained enough to use it. The 'New' recruits were either boys or old men.
Was the bombing in the end justified? I think no. It needlessly cost the live of thousands of Canadian pilots. This is particularly so concidering that after 1942 the war was already lost by the Germans to the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
jec96
Skeptic Friend
USA
61 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2002 : 09:05:43 [Permalink]
|
Having participated in some of the above mentioned Charlie Foxtrots, I can clearly say that when the US (at least) political system gets their heads out of their fourth point of contact and realizes the negatives can outweigh the positives in some situations, we can avoid alot of these messes.
-Panama, 2nd Rangers
-Desert Shield/Storm Eagle Troop, 2/2 Cav
_Somalia I was not there, but I lost some good friends because some washington dickheads got cold feet after they sent in the Rangers...note: shock troops do not make good cops or food escorts!
I am sick of it...after I had to visit the 18 year old new bride of one of my guys in Iraq, and tell him that not only had he never seen his newborn son, but never would, I decided that my current enlistment was it, Somalia confirmed it. Don't mean to be negative, but can't think of how you put a "happy face" on this.
-It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 02:17:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Igrokit:
Oh boy. Well I can see we will not agree on much about history.
Its not your view of history that I have a problem with.
So your problem with the 9/11 attack is just the motive not the action? Bin Laden choose the right action, but did not attack enough cities and kill enough civilians?
Most crimes have a motive and the attacks on German and Japanese civilians probably had the honorable motive of trying to win the war for the allies. But they are still crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I do agree that the US showed more restraint than most other WWII nations. They usually aimed for targets of military value. (For the poor chaps in the air I have nothing but respect.)
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 03:31:14 [Permalink]
|
Forgive me, Igrokit, if I find it difficult to grasp the notion that an all out bombing campaign against a nation such as Afganistan would pound the people into calm submission. Even the US friendly middle class is not far from the edge of religious fanaticism, considering religion is a refuge for the disinfranchised.
Imagine that the religious suddenly banded together, and began random persecution against those people more skeptically inclined. Your job was taken from you. Later, indiscriminate killing, (bombs, perhaps), took your family. I see very few of us in this forum sitting back, and saying, "you're right!" With nothing left of my previous life, I, for one, would intensify the violence of my resistance.
And, that is the problem with US foriegn policy. We tend to act in a manner that protects what we call our national interest. Unfortunately, that 'national interest' is concerned with little more than whether we are going to afford that Sunday drive, or that maybe we may have to tighten our national belts a bit to help out our next door neighbor who was recently downsized out of his job.
In the meantime, these disillusioned fanatics in some little third world nation must work weeks or months, (that is, if they can even find a job), just to bring home what we earn in a day. At the same time, we tell them how evil they are, as we play footsie with some other despot, because what he has is considered to be within the realm of our 'national interest'.
No, the events of 9/11, or any other terrorist act against the US is NOT our fault, and we do have the right, and the duty to defend ourselves. However, we are doing little to prevent this type of thing from happening, again--Unless, of course, we think that killing and/or imprisoning every person on the face of the planet that just may try to attack us, and diminishing our own personal freedoms is a reasonable option.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
_Adam_
New Member
Australia
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2002 : 08:39:33 [Permalink]
|
Just so ya know... I have a copy of Gibbon's book back home. It's not really a good book at all, I suspect it is only famous because it is huge. It's written from a terribly Christian perspective.
People suck. I hate people. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2002 : 10:36:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People like the pakistani dictator can see that siding against the US at this point would be suicide, but it is not him that really matters in the War on Terrorism. The common man on the street fanatic, who is less hampered by rational thought and selfpreservasion then the leaders of the nations, is the enemy you have to convince to stop supporting Terrorists.
As far as I know, the "War on Terror" would have to be one of the only wars that is not against a nation or a people. It is war against a completely new enemy. One who could be walking past you on the street.
This is what makes it frightening and practically unwinable. If you chop off one of the tentacles, a new one will simply grow back.
Down here in backward land, we simply cannot comprehend what you guys are going through. However from what I can see, no amount of bombs or traditional war efforts are going to stop terrorists. The money may be spent better in stepping up security. Who knows??????
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2002 : 11:07:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As far as I know, the "War on Terror" would have to be one of the only wars that is not against a nation or a people. It is war against a completely new enemy. One who could be walking past you on the street.
Ever heard of the "War on Drugs"? It has the same fundamental flaw: You can't win it!
If you make war on a city, a people or a nation with a clear objective in mind you can always hope to achive it.
With the "War against Terror" you are fighting a sympton not the cause and your treatment makes it even worse. But if the decision-makers mis-identify the cause like "They attacked us because they are evil." or "They hate us because of our freedoms.", you have no hope of achieving anything.
|
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2002 : 15:03:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ever heard of the "War on Drugs"? It has the same fundamental flaw: You can't win it!
If you make war on a city, a people or a nation with a clear objective in mind you can always hope to achive it.
With the "War against Terror" you are fighting a sympton not the cause and your treatment makes it even worse. But if the decision-makers mis-identify the cause like "They attacked us because they are evil." or "They hate us because of our freedoms.", you have no hope of achieving anything.
Is a war on drugs really the same as a war on terrorism? The drug problem, as such, is a user problem. The supplier is out to make a buck and both parties want the "war on Drugs to fail" The police are an outside third party trying to stop the relationship the other two want.
The war on Terror, at least has the hope of success in that the 2 parties see each other as enemies. Not that I actually think there is too much hope that the war on terror will be successful. There is even a reasonable chance it will fail totally and produce even more terrorists.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
