I got to wondering about this after watching a trailer for Eye in the Sky, about a woman drone operator who has a 13 year old girl walk into the kill zone causing her great angst and a reevaluation of her career. There have been two or three other movies in the last couple of years following this plot. In addition, there has been criticism of drone warfare because of similar collateral damage like blowing up weddings. There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too. But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale? Or are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?
When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism. If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist. But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war. Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism. If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist. But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war. Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.
Drones are weapons. Terrorism uses weapons. But weapons and terrorism are two different things. What you have done above is attempt to define, compare, and contrast terrorism from war. While that is certainly a worthy topic, I don't think that automatically classifies drones as weapons of terrorism, since any weapon can be used for terrorism. Boots on the ground have even been defined as terrorism.
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism. If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist. But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war. Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.
The use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order
not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 09:20:49 AM
But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale?
Ranged weapons like guns and artillery and later aerial bombs freed us from having to get up close and personal and hack our opponent's arms off with swords and axes and war got a little more "gentlemanly." Someone came up with rules of conduct for war, and we pretend like it's ok as long as things seem "fair." In WWII both sides used to bomb the shit out of each other, resulting in massive losses of life and historical/cultural heritage sites, and we thought that was bad. Think of the children... think of the Louvre. But
drones, well, those go off in primarily rural areas and the victims are mostly dark-skinned, so who cares, right?
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 09:20:49 AMOr are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?
After serving in the Army, it gave me cause to think a lot more on the subject of war and killing, and I realized how awful and unjustified it really is. It's one thing to defend yourself from an attacking enemy, and another to be belligerent. I became more vocal about it. I've been called a number of names, most of them relating to hating America and loving the Taliban. I remember when the issue of chemical warfare in Syria came out and I was mostly nonplussed.
I was told as a liberal war-hater, I should be vehemently condemning these attacks. Well, of course I condemn them, but but not more than any other attack. They used mustard gas, which causes irritated mucous membranes, blisters, and eventually suffocation. Not a great way to go. But neither is being shot in the chest and slowly dying as your lungs collapse. Or having your feet blown off by a mine and slowly bleeding to death. Or drowning when a roadside bomb flips your car into a nearby river. We have this fucked up notion that some means of killing in war are acceptable and others are not, and I think that's even crazy.
Drones, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, they're all awful and have unintended consequences. But putting boots on the ground and shooting them one by one isn't better. It's just less efficient.
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism. If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist. But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war. Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.
This drone warfare is just plain wrong!
I used to swing a pair of .50 machine guns. They can kill at four miles. (Aimed shots at shorter range, of course.) I don't know how many people I killed, but I do know that the locals were highly conversant with the armed folks' movements, so they should have been able to be elsewhere when the shit hit the fan.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
This drone warfare is just plain wrong!
So is making nine Star Wars movies.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:30:10 AMThis drone warfare is just plain wrong!
Would airstrikes/cruise missile strikes be better? Would boots on the ground be better? Drone strikes can have horrible outcomes, as can the other options.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2016, 11:12:51 AMThe use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.
Finally, someone who still remembers what terrorism actually is. That's a rare quality these days.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2016, 11:12:51 AM
The use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.
Well, Joseph, have to disagree with you here. Whether the 'intent' of the US Govt is to 'not' inflict terror, it is inflicted anyway! It's akin to the drunk driver who did not 'intent' to kill those people. I disagree--you proved your 'intent' when getting behind the wheel being drunk. The US is increasing terrorism by the drone program. I understand that the drones make a distinctive noise as it passes over an area, and I understand that that noise is now quite terrorizing to those that hear it. And the drone program simply causes more and more to hate us and our policies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 05, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
So is making nine Star Wars movies.
Can't argue with that!
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2016, 11:34:38 AM
Finally, someone who still remembers what terrorism actually is. That's a rare quality these days.
What is an isn't terrorism is a very slippery concept. It is in the eyes of the beholder. And it is as old as mankind. Terror is built into all armed conflicts and has been used to control the masses forever. It is like trying to figure out what is a religion and what is a cult; eye of the beholder.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2016, 11:32:52 AM
Would airstrikes/cruise missile strikes be better? Would boots on the ground be better? Drone strikes can have horrible outcomes, as can the other options.
No, it would not. How about using a sane policy in the world instead of blunt force all the time??!! But then, the corporations would not be making the profits they are without constant war.
To Tom Foolery:
Yes, war has always been about (and usually won) on an advancements in technology, be it a bow an arrow, an atom bomb, or a drone. In addition to technological advantages, war involves strategies of tricks, deception, surprise, and a prudent deployment of resources. Terrorism is just one more strategy, whether it's done openly as a PR move to draw attention, or redefined as something else that is a little less offensive to those at home. Defining various strategies or technological advancements as fair or unfair can be very subjective, with entirely different perceptions depending on whether you are winning or losing at any given time, or depending on the way you want to spin your own propaganda.
Humans do make a big deal about fairness in war, but as much as we do, when it comes right down to it, how fair is crushing a whole society into submission? That's pretty much what war does, whether it's done in so called self defense, to protect selfish interests, or just a way to bully a set of values onto another group of people.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:35:18 AMWell, Joseph, have to disagree with you here. Whether the 'intent' of the US Govt is to 'not' inflict terror, it is inflicted anyway! It's akin to the drunk driver who did not 'intent' to kill those people.
Intent actually does matter. Intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter and part of the difference between terrorism and military conflict.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:41:11 AMNo, it would not. How about using a sane policy in the world instead of blunt force all the time??!! But then, the corporations would not be making the profits they are without constant war.
The main point of drone strikes is to make a targeting killing instead of using other, much more indiscriminate options.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 10:45:48 AM
Drones are weapons. Terrorism uses weapons. But weapons and terrorism are two different things. What you have done above is attempt to define, compare, and contrast terrorism from war. While that is certainly a worthy topic, I don't think that automatically classifies drones as weapons of terrorism, since any weapon can be used for terrorism. Boots on the ground have even been defined as terrorism.
I don't disagree with most of that. I'm just saying there is not so much difference between walking a bomb into a military base, an act always called "terrorism" in the Western world, is really not all that far removed from a drone strike. In both cases the attacker is using what means they have available to attack an enemy. I don't think the mindset is so simplistic as just, "I'm going to make you afraid." I think if there were an Arabian occupation of America by overwhelming forces many Americans would be labeled "terrorists" for doing what they could to strike back at what they perceived as an oppressive enemy using whatever means they had available to them. I just don't see it as quite so black and white, good guys vs bad guys. There's a little of both in both sides.
We are quick to label any attack by "NOT a technologically advanced foe" as "terrorism". When a small boat pulls up to a ship and blows up, that's terrorism. But really, it's not like they had the option of launching a drone strike against the USS Cole. And Tienanmen Square could technically be labeled a "terrorist" attack by the government of China, but it isn't. And in America we have a tactic called "Shock and awe" technically designed to cause "terror" in the enemy, while it's not described in quite so simplistic means.
All I'm saying is that some of the things labeled as "terrorist attacks" differ from what we do only in technological sophistication.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2016, 11:50:56 AM
Intent actually does matter. Intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter and part of the difference between terrorism and military conflict.
That may be so with the drunk driver--and I have to say I disagree with how 'intent' is used in those cases. But who knows what the actual 'intent' is of our govt. ? I am not sure that the govt wants less war. And I am just as sure that the govt wants the drone to strike terror in the hearts of the 'terrorists'. So, what's the difference?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 05, 2016, 11:58:50 AM
The main point of drone strikes is to make a targeting killing instead of using other, much more indiscriminate options.
Maybe that is the main published point of drones. But what is the actual result of those strikes--and just not on those getting the blunt end of the drone, but of the drone operators as well.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
This drone warfare is just plain wrong!
I agree with your sarcasm. Have one leader slap another with an iron gauntlet, have the second leader slap the first leader back with his iron gauntlet. Then they go outside and kill each other like gentlemen ... they have to do it, not their flunky, and they have to use hand weapons (as in hand tools in carpentry) no ranged weapons. It is a foul even to toss your sword at the other guy hoping to hit him before he gets to close.
So the question is, why didn't humanity realize this millennia ago? Why are we still avoiding a fair fight?
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
That may be so with the drunk driver--and I have to say I disagree with how 'intent' is used in those cases. But who knows what the actual 'intent' is of our govt. ? I am not sure that the govt wants less war. And I am just as sure that the govt wants the drone to strike terror in the hearts of the 'terrorists'. So, what's the difference?
What is the intent? Lots of bullshit on that. Vietnam = Middle East ... just less jungle. The point is that war means profits. And so you don't want victory in war, you want continuous profits. This is why WW II turned into the Cold War so quickly (not that Stalin wasn't scary, but his country was wrecked by Germany for 10 years at least) ... this is why the anticipated post-war depression didn't happen after WW II. And there are other less economic reasons for being at war perpetually or periodically.
To get a victory, you have to psychologically defeat your opposing leadership, and if necessary the society's psychology as well. This is part of the reason for area bombing in WW II (it was a war crime) and using the nukes on Japan (it was a war crime). To defeat the opponent psychologically at the top and bottom. This is also why the US has not won a war since 1945. No opposing leadership has said uncle, nor did their populations. And it wasn't intended that they should, just that they should provide convenient targets for the MIC.
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 12:03:44 PM
I don't disagree with most of that.
I don't think there is much disagreement on a lot of the basics here, either. But somewhere down the line, we differ in perceptions and end up seemingly disagreeing, and I think it hinges on the next comment:
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 12:03:44 PM
I'm just saying there is not so much difference between walking a bomb into a military base, an act always called "terrorism" in the Western world, is really not all that far removed from a drone strike.
Yes, they are both acts of violence. Terrorism and war have that in common. My purpose here is not to define "terrorism" or "war", and as you point out, defining them is often political semantics, so calling drone warfare terrorism is kind of irrelevant. What I'm wondering about is what is wrong with drone technology? It has the advantage of killing at a greater distance, which is what almost every advancement in war technology has done since man first picked up a rock. They are designed to be more surgical in nature, and while the operator screws up however often, that's not anymore of a problem than with an F-16.
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 12:03:44 PM
In both cases the attacker is using what means they have available to attack an enemy. I don't think the mindset is so simplistic as just, "I'm going to make you afraid." I think if there were an Arabian occupation of America by overwhelming forces many Americans would be labeled "terrorists" for doing what they could to strike back at what they perceived as an oppressive enemy using whatever means they had available to them. I just don't see it as quite so black and white, good guys vs bad guys. There's a little of both in both sides.
I agree. Terrorism is a strategy, just like cutting off a supply line. It may or may not involve more terror in the final analysis
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 12:03:44 PM
We are quick to label any attack by "NOT a technologically advanced foe" as "terrorism". When a small boat pulls up to a ship and blows up, that's terrorism. But really, it's not like they had the option of launching a drone strike against the USS Cole. And Tienanmen Square could technically be labeled a "terrorist" attack by the government of China, but it isn't. And in America we have a tactic called "Shock and awe" technically designed to cause "terror" in the enemy, while it's not described in quite so simplistic means.
All I'm saying is that some of the things labeled as "terrorist attacks" differ from what we do only in technological sophistication.
I agree. It's the reason I would like to separate definitions of terrorism and/or war from the questions I have about drone technology.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 01:24:39 PM
What I'm wondering about is what is wrong with drone technology?
Were it used exclusively for warfare, nothing. It's just another technological tool, realistically different from an air strike, mortar strike or missile, except for the precision it offers, which is actually a good thing in warfare. Compared to the way we ended WWII a drone brings you chocolates and flowers before it fucks you. As a military tool, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
Drones are being used increasingly, however, in our already overly militarized police forces. And I don't so much even have a problem with that for surveillance. If our police are truly operating within the role of the "good guys" I want them having as much information as possible before, say, risking their lives to end a standoff or hostage situation. The problem is that's not where it will stop. Cops in America do have a tendency to sometimes bring a tank to a word fight, though. Sometimes quit literally.
To be honest my entire first post appears to be a digression from the spirit of the topic. I have nothing against drones. Hell, I have nothing against drones being used to kill "American citizens" (as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, a terrorist who just happened to have citizenship). If you want to blow up schools and hospitals I hope they do shove a missile up your ass, and I really don't care whether it's delivered by drone, Apache, ship or in person by the clone of Bruce Lee. As long as it gets where it belongs all is right in my world.
Quote from: Baruch on April 05, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
What is the intent? Lots of bullshit on that. Vietnam = Middle East ... just less jungle. The point is that war means profits. And so you don't want victory in war, you want continuous profits. This is why WW II turned into the Cold War so quickly (not that Stalin wasn't scary, but his country was wrecked by Germany for 10 years at least) ... this is why the anticipated post-war depression didn't happen after WW II. And there are other less economic reasons for being at war perpetually or periodically.
To get a victory, you have to psychologically defeat your opposing leadership, and if necessary the society's psychology as well. This is part of the reason for area bombing in WW II (it was a war crime) and using the nukes on Japan (it was a war crime). To defeat the opponent psychologically at the top and bottom. This is also why the US has not won a war since 1945. No opposing leadership has said uncle, nor did their populations. And it wasn't intended that they should, just that they should provide convenient targets for the MIC.
Then I guess, we are mostly in agreement.
Quote from: Baruch on April 05, 2016, 12:58:53 PM
I agree with your sarcasm. Have one leader slap another with an iron gauntlet, have the second leader slap the first leader back with his iron gauntlet. Then they go outside and kill each other like gentlemen ... they have to do it, not their flunky, and they have to use hand weapons (as in hand tools in carpentry) no ranged weapons. It is a foul even to toss your sword at the other guy hoping to hit him before he gets to close.
So the question is, why didn't humanity realize this millennia ago? Why are we still avoiding a fair fight?
For our country I am in favor of making all those old white men who take us to war have to serve in a frontline unit for awhile; and/or force their children to do so. There would be far less war.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 04:42:07 PM
For our country I am in favor of making all those old white men who take us to war have to serve in a frontline unit for awhile; and/or force their children to do so. There would be far less war.
Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 11:35:18 AM
Well, Joseph, have to disagree with you here. Whether the 'intent' of the US Govt is to 'not' inflict terror, it is inflicted anyway! It's akin to the drunk driver who did not 'intent' to kill those people. I disagree--you proved your 'intent' when getting behind the wheel being drunk. The US is increasing terrorism by the drone program. I understand that the drones make a distinctive noise as it passes over an area, and I understand that that noise is now quite terrorizing to those that hear it. And the drone program simply causes more and more to hate us and our policies.
Very bad analogy.
A drunk kills indiscriminately, the US doesn't. The US tries in every way possible it can muster to minimize damage. The fault is not with the US when the enemy hides among the civilians. And this terrorists' tactic is to make you to believe the US is also a terrorist organization, and you have taken the bait.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 09:20:49 AM
There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too.
Yep, here's one right here:
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/71048/
Quote"I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey," a 13-year-old Pakistani boy named Zubair told Congress on Tuesday. Zubair was 12 when he and his younger sister, Nabeela, were injured in a drone strike near North Waziristan last October. "When sky brightens, drones return and we live in fear," Zubair told Rep. Alan Grayson and others at the congressional briefing.
They used to love the sky - now they fear it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 05, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.
My point being that do you think it would be as likely we would go to war if Cheney and Bush had had to serve in a combat role? And being led by the leader is a better system than we have now.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 05, 2016, 05:17:31 PM
Very bad analogy.
A drunk kills indiscriminately, the US doesn't. The US tries in every way possible it can muster to minimize damage. The fault is not with the US when the enemy hides among the civilians. And this terrorists' tactic is to make you to believe the US is also a terrorist organization, and you have taken the bait.
I beg to differ. You need to pull the wool away from your eyes. The USA is not pure as the driven snow. I uses terror when it fights a way--every war, and especially the first one we fought. And that, in itself, is not bad--if you are going to war you want to win it, and terror is one tactic to use. Do you think the Germans or the Russians or the Japanese did not use civilians to hide their military activities? Of course they did. That is one of the first causalities of war--civilians. There is no such thing as a clean war. Not even WWII. Do you not think the 'Shock and Awe' of the Bush administration was not a total declaration of terror tactics???? Was not the civilians involved from the beginning? To think the US does not use terror tactics is to have the deepest of rose colored glasses.
Mind you, I am not anti-USA by nature. I grew up around the US Army and served in it as well. I want my country to be right and right every time. But in this war on terror they are just wrong. Using that term--War on Terror--they can excuse any and every type of military action they want, when they want to and where they want to. And yes, that will cause hatred of the US to grow around the world. And I find it to un-American to do this type of stuff--torture included.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 05, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.
Not enough of them. King Richard III died that way ... all kings and "war" Presidents should die that way. But most of the time, kings led from the rear, same as the US in Vietnam.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 07:23:01 PM
I beg to differ. You need to pull the wool away from your eyes. The USA is not pure as the driven snow. I uses terror when it fights a way--every war, and especially the first one we fought. And that, in itself, is not bad--if you are going to war you want to win it, and terror is one tactic to use. Do you think the Germans or the Russians or the Japanese did not use civilians to hide their military activities? Of course they did. That is one of the first causalities of war--civilians. There is no such thing as a clean war. Not even WWII. Do you not think the 'Shock and Awe' of the Bush administration was not a total declaration of terror tactics???? Was not the civilians involved from the beginning? To think the US does not use terror tactics is to have the deepest of rose colored glasses.
Mind you, I am not anti-USA by nature. I grew up around the US Army and served in it as well. I want my country to be right and right every time. But in this war on terror they are just wrong. Using that term--War on Terror--they can excuse any and every type of military action they want, when they want to and where they want to. And yes, that will cause hatred of the US to grow around the world. And I find it to un-American to do this type of stuff--torture included.
No one is talking about a clean war. But you're comparing apples with oranges: what happened during WW2 and what is happening today requires completely different strategies. Now you have an enemy that hides among the civilians. The US has no choice but to target this enemy among that civilian population, and it will inadvertently kill civilians. But the US does not kill indiscriminately as you are claiming. It's not in their interest to do so as those casualties will produce more terrorists.
Recall it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around, and it did so because the US used Saudi Arabia to position certain troops, which the US had full consent from the SA government. That declaration of war by a group of terrorists is not legitimate from any point of view. It was based purely on some vague religious notion that no religion other than Islam should be present in the "sacred" land. Contrary to the Iraq war, this is not a war of choice on the part of the US.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
My point being that do you think it would be as likely we would go to war if Cheney and Bush had had to serve in a combat role? And being led by the leader is a better system than we have now.
Kingdoms often fell when their leaders weren't up to leading men into combat. I think that means we'd be speaking Arabic right now.
What is war to the shooter is terrorism to the person getting shot at.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 06, 2016, 07:36:29 AM
No one is talking about a clean war. But you're comparing apples with oranges: what happened during WW2 and what is happening today requires completely different strategies. Now you have an enemy that hides among the civilians. The US has no choice but to target this enemy among that civilian population, and it will inadvertently kill civilians. But the US does not kill indiscriminately as you are claiming. It's not in their interest to do so as those casualties will produce more terrorists.
Recall it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around, and it did so because the US used Saudi Arabia to position certain troops, which the US had full consent from the SA government. That declaration of war by a group of terrorists is not legitimate from any point of view. It was based purely on some vague religious notion that no religion other than Islam should be present in the "sacred" land. Contrary to the Iraq war, this is not a war of choice on the part of the US.
Yes, all wars have different strategies and to a lesser extent different tactics. Hiding among civilians isn't that new. We did that in the American Revolution. The US does not kill indiscriminately? Really? What was the Dresden fire bombing??? What was the two atomic bombs in Japan (I happen to think that was necessary, but it could easily be labeled indiscriminate)? What was the Vietnam War? And on and on. I would very much like to think that we don't kill indiscriminately, but the facts say otherwise--and that saddens me. The US also does not torture people--cheney and Bush will attest to that. We don't put people on trial without sufficient evidence or keep them forever locked up without a trial--ask Bush and Cheney, they will attest to that.
I'm well aware of why we took on the 'War on Terror'. The neocons thought they could remake the Middle East in our image. The first part of the Afgan war was to capture or kill Al Qaeda and especially Ben Ladin. But when we had him and them in our sights, we let him go. And Bush then told us he did not matter. They went into Pakistan, and we could not go after them. Bull--at that time we had enough of the world on our side we could have chased them anywhere they went and the world would have supported us. But, instead, Bush and Cheney went into Iraq, with Shock and Awe--which was not indiscriminate killing--right? And what did that have to do with terrorism???? Well, nothing. Except it created the modern day terrorist groups that are against us.
Is terrorism based only on a religion, Islam? Are there other factors in play that feed into the use of a religion such as Islam? I would say so. Islam is part of the problem. But would not economic and social problems also be part of this terror movement? I don't have any full answers, but our govt. should be working on all angles of this thing, not just the acts of terror themselves. The problem is that we simply don't have a strategy for the ME--and without that, all the tactics in the world (such as drones) will not solve the problem.
SGOS, I have no problem with the drone technology. It is simply another tool of warfare. And if one needs to go to war, it is good to have all the tools one needs. It is how it is used that could pose problems. The real question is whether or not this is an appropriate or productive tactic to use for the purposes it is being used for. It is wrapped up in so much secrecy that the general public really can't tell what results the drone program is producing.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 01:06:38 PM
SGOS, I have no problem with the drone technology. It is simply another tool of warfare. And if one needs to go to war, it is good to have all the tools one needs. It is how it is used that could pose problems. The real question is whether or not this is an appropriate or productive tactic to use for the purposes it is being used for. It is wrapped up in so much secrecy that the general public really can't tell what results the drone program is producing.
Right. As with any war technology, the ethics are determined mostly by the implementation. Actually, drone technology is a good idea. I can't speak to how the technology is being implemented. I suspect all reports by the government and the media and take them all with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 06, 2016, 07:44:48 AM
Kingdoms often fell when their leaders weren't up to leading men into combat. I think that means we'd be speaking Arabic right now.
And kingdoms also fell because the leader led them into battle.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 01:03:33 PM
Yes, all wars have different strategies and to a lesser extent different tactics. Hiding among civilians isn't that new. We did that in the American Revolution. The US does not kill indiscriminately? Really? What was the Dresden fire bombing??? What was the two atomic bombs in Japan (I happen to think that was necessary, but it could easily be labeled indiscriminate)?
You are ignoring history. The bombing in WW2 was not done indiscriminately, it was done on purpose. In Germany, because the German people never accepted that they had lost in WW1, so the Allies deliberately bombed German cities so that the Germans would never forget they were to lose this one. In Japan, they wanted to send a similar message knowing that the Japanese were too proud to surrender and only a total defeat would bring them to a surrender. But unlike in Germany, the US had the nukes and had estimated that a similar invasion of Japan that was done in Germany would cost more than one million American lives. The decision to nuke Japan was done on this calculation.
QuoteWhat was the Vietnam War? And on and on.
Again you're ignoring history as you would not lump the Vietnam war with WW2, as they are totally different situations. The US inherited that war from the French who had resisted to leave its former colony, and that resistance had galvanized around a communist party. This was the Cold War, and so far the Russians had captured half of Europe and was a global threat as it was everywhere - in South America, in the Middle East trying to destabilize those governments to turn them into a communist regime. The calculations then in Vietnam was that the communists would unfurl throughout South-East Asia unimpeded. Regardless that the US lost that war, the communists were in no shape to pursue any other war of expansion in South-East Asia. Nevertheless, the USSR attempted one final conquest in Afghanistan in the 1980's but failed, again due to the US role in defeating the Soviets. It had further consequences later on as the US was aiding the Muhajeens who became later on known as Al Qaeda, the same terrorist group who declared war on the US.
QuoteI would very much like to think that we don't kill indiscriminately, but the facts say otherwise--
The facts says otherwise but your knowledge of history is quite lacking.
QuoteI'm well aware of why we took on the 'War on Terror'. The neocons thought they could remake the Middle East in our image. The first part of the Afgan war was to capture or kill Al Qaeda and especially Ben Ladin.
Which part of "... it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around" don't you understand???
QuoteBut when we had him and them in our sights, we let him go. And Bush then told us he did not matter.
It's irrelevant to your claim that the US kills indiscriminately.
QuoteThey went into Pakistan, and we could not go after them. Bull--at that time we had enough of the world on our side we could have chased them anywhere they went and the world would have supported us. But, instead, Bush and Cheney went into Iraq, with Shock and Awe--which was not indiscriminate killing--right? And what did that have to do with terrorism???? Well, nothing. Except it created the modern day terrorist groups that are against us.
First you rail on the US for going into Iraq and Afghanistan, now you rail against the US for NOT going into Pakistan. You're not very consistent in your position.
QuoteIs terrorism based only on a religion, Islam? Are there other factors in play that feed into the use of a religion such as Islam? I would say so. Islam is part of the problem. But would not economic and social problems also be part of this terror movement? I don't have any full answers, but our govt. should be working on all angles of this thing, not just the acts of terror themselves. The problem is that we simply don't have a strategy for the ME--and without that, all the tactics in the world (such as drones) will not solve the problem.
Sure, but it's not only the US which has no solution in the ME, no one else does. The US is stuck between a hard place and a rock. There was a movement to change regime in the ME as it happened during the Arab Spring of 2011, but that devolved quickly into Islamist regimes: Egypt voted for the Brotherhood, an Islamist party; Libya is a failed states as it is swarmed with Islamist factions and terrorist groups, while Syria is on the verge of collapse with dozens of factions fighting it out and ISIS capturing a good part of Syria and Iraq - and you have 3 million Syrian refugees. Iraq is not doing better even though it had a lot of assistance from the US, but what did it do? It elected a Shiite government which has alienated the Sunny minority, pushing them towards ISIS. The rest of the ME is in disarray over Yemen, as it has become the country where Saudis and Iranians are fighting through proxy armies. The Obama administration has kept its involvement in the ME to a minimum so far: in Libya, it provided some assistance to the French; in Syria, it applied pressure to disarm Assad of his WMD's, in Iraq it regularly bombs ISIS position in the hope that the Iraqi army get enough mojo to defeat ISIS. The only bright spot is the deal with Iran, lifting the sanctions in the hope Iran abandons it nuclear weapon ambition - we really don't know how this will turn out. But no one has any real solution to a very complex situation. No one, not even Putin...
Apparently balloons are a problem with drone warfare.
Cool, now I'll have to buy a gross or so of balloons - and helium - just in case...
(http://rs717.pbsrc.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys%20Holidays/Halloween/0012.gif~c200)
(Stromboli contemplates his time in the Navy shepherding 16 nuclear missiles around the Atlantic and Mediterranean; then recalls working on converting dumb bombs to GBU-12 smart bombs at Hill AFB)
Based on personal experience and being hands on with WMDs, I think on balance a drone might actually be less deadly overall in the right hands. The right hands. Which isn't saying 10 years from now downtown Brussels might be targeted by drones owned by the bad people.
Drones can be argued either way- more moral or less moral. More moral because you are targeting specific people or small groups versus massive collateral damage in other ways.
Less moral because now you are actively murdering individuals. You can call it what you want, but taking out the money guy of ISIS with a drone is assassination, pure and simple. The guy driving the drone can actually see what he is killing. I drove a sub capable of inflicting death on millions of people I would never see. More moral (?) because we were theoretically firing in retaliation.
You haven't mentioned assassination. That was also a method of changing things politically back in the day. So the difference between killing specific individuals versus mass slaughter, throw in some collateral damage because shit happens. But drone killing Obama now, that would be an act of terrorism. Rrrriight.
Apples and oranges. The morality of any weapon is academic. I would personally err to the side of a weapon that minimizes collateral and hits a specific, directed target versus nuking Kiev. Been there done that. Carry on.
Quote from: stromboli on April 06, 2016, 06:23:04 PM
(Stromboli contemplates his time in the Navy shepherding 16 nuclear missiles around the Atlantic and Mediterranean; then recalls working on converting dumb bombs to GBU-12 smart bombs at Hill AFB)
I hope you don't have to kill us now...
:holdtears:
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 06, 2016, 06:31:44 PM
I hope you don't have to kill us now...
:holdtears:
No sweat bro. You'd be dead already. :biggrin:
If one wants a perfect system where conflict between countries is handled without anyone getting killed ... it is already available, it is called diplomacy. Unfortunately the seven deadly sins get in the way.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 06, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
You are ignoring history. The bombing in WW2 was not done indiscriminately, it was done on purpose. In Germany, because the German people never accepted that they had lost in WW1, so the Allies deliberately bombed German cities so that the Germans would never forget they were to lose this one. In Japan, they wanted to send a similar message knowing that the Japanese were too proud to surrender and only a total defeat would bring them to a surrender. But unlike in Germany, the US had the nukes and had estimated that a similar invasion of Japan that was done in Germany would cost more than one million American lives. The decision to nuke Japan was done on this calculation.
Again you're ignoring history as you would not lump the Vietnam war with WW2, as they are totally different situations. The US inherited that war from the French who had resisted to leave its former colony, and that resistance had galvanized around a communist party. This was the Cold War, and so far the Russians had captured half of Europe and was a global threat as it was everywhere - in South America, in the Middle East trying to destabilize those governments to turn them into a communist regime. The calculations then in Vietnam was that the communists would unfurl throughout South-East Asia unimpeded. Regardless that the US lost that war, the communists were in no shape to pursue any other war of expansion in South-East Asia. Nevertheless, the USSR attempted one final conquest in Afghanistan in the 1980's but failed, again due to the US role in defeating the Soviets. It had further consequences later on as the US was aiding the Muhajeens who became later on known as Al Qaeda, the same terrorist group who declared war on the US.
The facts says otherwise but your knowledge of history is quite lacking.
Which part of "... it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around" don't you understand???
It's irrelevant to your claim that the US kills indiscriminately.
First you rail on the US for going into Iraq and Afghanistan, now you rail against the US for NOT going into Pakistan. You're not very consistent in your position.
Sure, but it's not only the US which has no solution in the ME, no one else does. The US is stuck between a hard place and a rock. There was a movement to change regime in the ME as it happened during the Arab Spring of 2011, but that devolved quickly into Islamist regimes: Egypt voted for the Brotherhood, an Islamist party; Libya is a failed states as it is swarmed with Islamist factions and terrorist groups, while Syria is on the verge of collapse with dozens of factions fighting it out and ISIS capturing a good part of Syria and Iraq - and you have 3 million Syrian refugees. Iraq is not doing better even though it had a lot of assistance from the US, but what did it do? It elected a Shiite government which has alienated the Sunny minority, pushing them towards ISIS. The rest of the ME is in disarray over Yemen, as it has become the country where Saudis and Iranians are fighting through proxy armies. The Obama administration has kept its involvement in the ME to a minimum so far: in Libya, it provided some assistance to the French; in Syria, it applied pressure to disarm Assad of his WMD's, in Iraq it regularly bombs ISIS position in the hope that the Iraqi army get enough mojo to defeat ISIS. The only bright spot is the deal with Iran, lifting the sanctions in the hope Iran abandons it nuclear weapon ambition - we really don't know how this will turn out. But no one has any real solution to a very complex situation. No one, not even Putin...
Look, Joseph, I'm not really trying to get into a pissing contest with you--just an exchange of ideas.
Ignoring history? Really? History is not a cut and dried subject--not when tackled in a realistic way. Bombing neighborhoods on purpose is not indiscriminate, I guess. But the result was the same. There were many children and babies that had no idea what WWI was about. And the problem was not that the German people did not know they were defeated, but that they knew too well they were. The Versailles Treaty was very, very harsh toward Germany; that caused deep resentment. As for the Japanese nation, I told you that I am in favor of the atomic bomb drops. But a case can be made that a 'warning' drop could have been made other than on a city. I agree with you that we could not afford to invade it as we did Europe. The history of the US is repleat with instances of indiscriminate killing. I started prior to the beginning of our country. The American Indian was always regarded as vermin fit only for extermination. The history of our nation is a bloody one. We have been lied into more wars than any other way of entering war. The Spanish American War, the Mexican War, Vietnam all used lies to get us into them. You use the term 'communists' as a monolithic term. Each so called communist country was a different form of govt. Vietnam was a civil war more than any other kind. Notice that the North did not become vassals of either the Soviet Union or the Chinese after that war. They were fighting a civil war and when it was over, they sought to bring the south into the mold of the north.
When Bush/Cheney entered the Afgan country for the first time after Al Quada, that was not only accepted by the world, but expected. I was for that. I wanted to see them caught and brought to justice. And we could have followed them into Pakistan--that would have been accept and expected. We could and should have then withdrawn from both areas and gone home. But Bush called that action off and then entered Iraq. I think he and Cheney and Co. wanted to remake the ME in the image of a Western Democracy and had plans to do so prior to going into office. So, into Iraq, shock and awe--and murder as far as I am concerned. We tried many a leader for less than those two did in the war crimes trials of WWII.
Look, we are not the most evil country in the history of the world---far, far from it. It is not totally and completely moral or ethical, either. It falls in the middle, even if it is in the high middle. I think the true 'patriot' (I hate that word) is one who questions the leaders intent and actions 24 hrs a day, every day. Just because nobody has a good strategy does not mean we should enter every country with arms and troops. Those are not working--why continue the bloodshed and why not try to figure out something that has a chance of working?
[spoiler](http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/pissing-contest-t.jpg)
AND LET THE GAMES BEGIN.......[/spoiler]
Quote from: stromboli on April 06, 2016, 09:44:22 PM
[spoiler](http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/pissing-contest-t.jpg)
AND LET THE GAMES BEGIN.......[/spoiler]
Hey--I'm the one on the right--has a bigger puddle....................
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 09:34:19 PM
Look, Joseph, I'm not really trying to get into a pissing contest with you--just an exchange of ideas.
Who said it was a pissing contest?
QuoteIgnoring history? Really? History is not a cut and dried subject--not when tackled in a realistic way. Bombing neighborhoods on purpose is not indiscriminate, I guess. But the result was the same.
Not really. I think it's important to know what message we're sending. In WW2, the message was clear: we're going to make sure you know who lost the war. It had a permanent effect - no one thinks of Germany or Japan embarking today on an imperialistic quest to conquer the world. In the war on terrorism, the message is different: you won't terrorize us, and no matter where you hide, we'll find you and destroy you. It's important to understand that, otherwise the strategy won't make sense. And in your case, you see the US has killing indiscriminately, when it isn't so. Yes, in WW2, the US did kill indiscriminately on purpose because of the message. In the war on terrorism, the US isn't as that would be counter-productive.
QuoteThere were many children and babies that had no idea what WWI was about. And the problem was not that the German people did not know they were defeated, but that they knew too well they were. The Versailles Treaty was very, very harsh toward Germany; that caused deep resentment.
Easy for you to say... Well, tell that to the people in France, Belgium, the Netherland who saw 4 years of atrocities, millions died, and their lives completely destroyed. While most German civilians suffered hardly any destruction in their own land.
QuoteThe history of our nation is a bloody one.
Very few countries can boast that their history isn't bloody. Just open your history books.
QuoteVietnam was a civil war more than any other kind. Notice that the North did not become vassals of either the Soviet Union or the Chinese after that war. They were fighting a civil war and when it was over, they sought to bring the south into the mold of the north.
Well, I did mention that the US inherited that war from the French who did not want to release its colony, and the opposition to the French occupation coalesced into the communist party. You can debated forever that it was a mistake, but in spite of that, that war cost the communist block a lot of money and resources, and in the long run, helped to bring down the regime. Now if you're a communist sympathizer, you will disagree with that assessment.
QuoteWhen Bush/Cheney entered the Afgan country for the first time after Al Quada, that was not only accepted by the world, but expected. I was for that. I wanted to see them caught and brought to justice. And we could have followed them into Pakistan--that would have been accept and expected. We could and should have then withdrawn from both areas and gone home. But Bush called that action off and then entered Iraq. I think he and Cheney and Co. wanted to remake the ME in the image of a Western Democracy and had plans to do so prior to going into office. So, into Iraq, shock and awe--and murder as far as I am concerned. We tried many a leader for less than those two did in the war crimes trials of WWII.
I think you're doing too much Monday morning quarterbacking with "we could", "we should".
QuoteLook, we are not the most evil country in the history of the world---far, far from it. It is not totally and completely moral or ethical, either. It falls in the middle, even if it is in the high middle. I think the true 'patriot' (I hate that word) is one who questions the leaders intent and actions 24 hrs a day, every day. Just because nobody has a good strategy does not mean we should enter every country with arms and troops. Those are not working--why continue the bloodshed and why not try to figure out something that has a chance of working?
Easy to say, but in the real world, there aren't easy solutions. Who could have predicted that because the US in 1991 stationed some troops on Saudi Arabia land, the sacred home of Islam, that a small group of terrorists called Al Qaeda was going to declare war on the US and proceed to bomb the TWC in 2001?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 07, 2016, 05:50:12 AM
Who said it was a pissing contest?
Not really. I think it's important to know what message we're sending. In WW2, the message was clear: we're going to make sure you know who lost the war. It had a permanent effect - no one thinks of Germany or Japan embarking today on an imperialistic quest to conquer the world. In the war on terrorism, the message is different: you won't terrorize us, and no matter where you hide, we'll find you and destroy you. It's important to understand that, otherwise the strategy won't make sense. And in your case, you see the US has killing indiscriminately, when it isn't so. Yes, in WW2, the US did kill indiscriminately on purpose because of the message. In the war on terrorism, the US isn't as that would be counter-productive.
Easy for you to say... Well, tell that to the people in France, Belgium, the Netherland who saw 4 years of atrocities, millions died, and their lives completely destroyed. While most German civilians suffered hardly any destruction in their own land.
Very few countries can boast that their history isn't bloody. Just open your history books.
Well, I did mention that the US inherited that war from the French who did not want to release its colony, and the opposition to the French occupation coalesced into the communist party. You can debated forever that it was a mistake, but in spite of that, that war cost the communist block a lot of money and resources, and in the long run, helped to bring down the regime. Now if you're a communist sympathizer, you will disagree with that assessment.
I think you're doing too much Monday morning quarterbacking with "we could", "we should".
Easy to say, but in the real world, there aren't easy solutions. Who could have predicted that because the US in 1991 stationed some troops on Saudi Arabia land, the sacred home of Islam, that a small group of terrorists called Al Qaeda was going to declare war on the US and proceed to bomb the TWC in 2001?
It seems you and I read history differently. And that probably will not change. So, basically, we will simply have to disagree and live with it.
I do like some of your phrases--'communist sympathizer'--I haven't heard that in awhile. :))) Too many people want to look at history and take the easy way out--paint with a large brush. For example, the communist bloc. There really wasn't one. Communism never really existed. Each and every country that was labeled with that title was different. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and even that in it's own way. China was the same--totalitarian--but in it's own way. They were in an alliance because of the old saying--an enemy of my enemy is my friend. And we are not and never have been a democracy. I don't know of any real democratic countries. We are a republic and always have been. With the electoral college, we, as a country have never directly voted for our president. And we are represented by representatives in our various congresses. That's a republic.
In Vietnam we did not 'inherit' the problem from the French--we took it on because we wanted to. Ike started it and it was ramped up by each succeeding president until Johnson lied us into a full blown war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was as valid as the sinking of the Maine as a reason to go to war; both incidents were used to go to war, and were not, in fact, valid.
As for the 'message' of WWII--the real message was survival. It was not a given that the US would survive nor be a victor in this war. We had our hands full just trying to do that--survive. It was not a given that Hitler would run his side of the war so stupidly or that Japan would run out of resources as quickly as they did. We were in real trouble and to think we entered the war to teach Germany and Japan a lesson is a bit of 'Monday quaterbacking' of your own.
History is never one sided--or two sided--but multiple sided. It really does need to be looked at from several viewpoints if one really wants to grasp what was really going on. There is the victor's side, the loser's side and all the participants sides. Then you have to evaluate that mix.
And yes, I have opened my history books. Human kind has a bloody history and we are a bloody animal. No doubt. And I have compared and contrasted with other cultures and other times. I guess I'm too much of an idealist in that I really would like to think the US is an exceptional country and for the right reasons. We are at times. And we aren't at times. I am simply tired of all of our leaders trying to put the problems of the world into sound bytes with little real meaning. For example, there is a history to the countries of the ME and it would be a good thing if our leaders knew what it was. The US public sure doesn't. And I don't as much as I should.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 03:03:48 PM
And kingdoms also fell because the leader led them into battle.
"This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department of your Natural Guard."
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2016, 11:23:36 AM
It seems you and I read history differently. And that probably will not change. So, basically, we will simply have to disagree and live with it.
I do like some of your phrases--'communist sympathizer'--I haven't heard that in awhile. :))) Too many people want to look at history and take the easy way out--paint with a large brush. For example, the communist bloc. There really wasn't one. Communism never really existed. Each and every country that was labeled with that title was different. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and even that in it's own way. China was the same--totalitarian--but in it's own way. They were in an alliance because of the old saying--an enemy of my enemy is my friend. And we are not and never have been a democracy. I don't know of any real democratic countries. We are a republic and always have been. With the electoral college, we, as a country have never directly voted for our president. And we are represented by representatives in our various congresses. That's a republic.
There is no such thing as a "true" democracy or a "true" communist country. It's called the "No true Scotsman fallacy".
But the reality is that there was a communist bloc surrounded by an "iron curtain", a strategy that was symptomatic of the communist regime - why do you need to lock up your own citizens if it is such a great place to live in?
QuoteIn Vietnam we did not 'inherit' the problem from the French--we took it on because we wanted to. Ike started it and it was ramped up by each succeeding president until Johnson lied us into a full blown war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was as valid as the sinking of the Maine as a reason to go to war; both incidents were used to go to war, and were not, in fact, valid.
The history record distinctly show that it was the French government who asked the US to intervene in Vietnam. Sure, the US could have refused but the Ike administration saw in Vietnam another Korean situation. Now had the resistance to the French occupation not galvanized around a communist party, which was financed by North Vietnam, already a communist country, chances are the US would not have gotten involved.
QuoteAs for the 'message' of WWII--the real message was survival. It was not a given that the US would survive nor be a victor in this war. We had our hands full just trying to do that--survive. It was not a given that Hitler would run his side of the war so stupidly or that Japan would run out of resources as quickly as they did. We were in real trouble and to think we entered the war to teach Germany and Japan a lesson is a bit of 'Monday quaterbacking' of your own.
The message was formulated
after the Normandy invasion had succeeded. It was by then a matter of time before Germany would be defeated.
QuoteHistory is never one sided--or two sided--but multiple sided. It really does need to be looked at from several viewpoints if one really wants to grasp what was really going on. There is the victor's side, the loser's side and all the participants sides. Then you have to evaluate that mix.
True, and you should apply this important principle to your claims. Right now, I see you as one who bought the terrorist propaganda line, hook and sinker, that the US is also a terrorist organization, when the reality points otherwise. If the US was killing indiscriminately, it would bomb the area merciless, and millions of civilians would be dead by now, and no other country in the world could stop the US from doing that. The fact says it hasn't happened, as the US has undertaken a policy of destroying the enemy with minimizing the collateral damage. It cannot avoid civilian casualties as the enemy hides among the civilian population.
QuoteAnd yes, I have opened my history books. Human kind has a bloody history and we are a bloody animal. No doubt. And I have compared and contrasted with other cultures and other times. I guess I'm too much of an idealist in that I really would like to think the US is an exceptional country and for the right reasons. We are at times. And we aren't at times.
Whenever you want to subject reality to an ideology, chances are that you will get it wrong. So maybe a little of realism would be the right prescription.
QuoteI am simply tired of all of our leaders trying to put the problems of the world into sound bytes with little real meaning. For example, there is a history to the countries of the ME and it would be a good thing if our leaders knew what it was. The US public sure doesn't. And I don't as much as I should.
Alas, the enemy doesn't get tired. And a democracy is vulnerable as it must seek a consensus, which is time consuming. The enemy is not going to wait for a democracy to get its act together. They will strike whenever they can. Authoritarian regimes have no problem to go fight an enemy as it is not bound to seek any consensus from its population. But politicians in a democracy are in a bind: how much consensus they should seek out, how much time should be spent in getting that consensus, and at the same time, continue a strategy to defeat the enemy. That is not a simple task. That's the price you must pay in a democracy: some truth will be sacrificed.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2016, 09:47:13 PM
Hey--I'm the one on the right--has a bigger puddle....................
Just a couple of piddly puddles...
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2016, 05:25:43 PM
Just a couple of piddly puddles...
Yeah--but that is only a start.................:)
Quote from: widdershins on April 05, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism. If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist. But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war. Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.
There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.
To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.
Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 07, 2016, 01:54:10 PM
There is no such thing as a "true" democracy or a "true" communist country. It's called the "No true Scotsman fallacy".
But the reality is that there was a communist bloc surrounded by an "iron curtain", a strategy that was symptomatic of the communist regime - why do you need to lock up your own citizens if it is such a great place to live in?
The history record distinctly show that it was the French government who asked the US to intervene in Vietnam. Sure, the US could have refused but the Ike administration saw in Vietnam another Korean situation. Now had the resistance to the French occupation not galvanized around a communist party, which was financed by North Vietnam, already a communist country, chances are the US would not have gotten involved.
The message was formulated after the Normandy invasion had succeeded. It was by then a matter of time before Germany would be defeated.
True, and you should apply this important principle to your claims. Right now, I see you as one who bought the terrorist propaganda line, hook and sinker, that the US is also a terrorist organization, when the reality points otherwise. If the US was killing indiscriminately, it would bomb the area merciless, and millions of civilians would be dead by now, and no other country in the world could stop the US from doing that. The fact says it hasn't happened, as the US has undertaken a policy of destroying the enemy with minimizing the collateral damage. It cannot avoid civilian casualties as the enemy hides among the civilian population.
Whenever you want to subject reality to an ideology, chances are that you will get it wrong. So maybe a little of realism would be the right prescription.
Alas, the enemy doesn't get tired. And a democracy is vulnerable as it must seek a consensus, which is time consuming. The enemy is not going to wait for a democracy to get its act together. They will strike whenever they can. Authoritarian regimes have no problem to go fight an enemy as it is not bound to seek any consensus from its population. But politicians in a democracy are in a bind: how much consensus they should seek out, how much time should be spent in getting that consensus, and at the same time, continue a strategy to defeat the enemy. That is not a simple task. That's the price you must pay in a democracy: some truth will be sacrificed.
No, I have not fallen for the propaganda of either the terrorists of any stripe or of our own high school version of our history. It is all much more complicated than that.
Anyway, we are getting close to beating a dead horse. You have your view and I have mine.
Help me here, please. Was there ever a war where no civilians died?
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on April 07, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.
To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.
Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.
Different sides in conflict have different ideologies. Consider Stalin vs Hitler. In certain fundamental respects, if you had to have an ally ... Stalin was your best choice (Hitler broke every treaty he ever made) ... so long as he was under Hitler's thumb. The reverse wouldn't have been true, had the allies gone with Hitler against Stalin (as Hitler hoped). Once Stalin got nukes, he didn't use them. Hitler wouldn't have been so shy if the situation was reversed.
So yes, there are ideological and stylistic differences between NATO vs ISIS, or HAMAS vs IDF. I know which ones I prefer, but that doesn't mean I think this is any different than Stalin Vs Hitler. If there had only been Stalin vs Hitler, I would have still chosen Comrade Stalin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-sMh_DO6I
In WW I and WW II, Russia was my country's ally. 450K civilians of 500K total died at Stalingrad. And we aren't even counting the troops. I care for every person, every combatant ... including the Germans. In that time and that place, if dying had to happen, it had to be Germans. More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on April 07, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.
To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.
Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.
There's a whole lot more to it than "one side deliberately targets civilians, the other does not". For one, a drone doesn't have to find a way to sneak onto a military base to target non-civilians. It is a WHOLE LOT easier to pick your targets with technologically advanced weapons. I'm no expert, but I would lay money down on the notion that the "other side" would take out an accessible military target over a market place every single time they had the opportunity. I think the difference here is more like, "one side had access to military targets, the other does not". And actually I believe most drone strikes, certainly a fair number of them, actually target leadership, not military, mostly because the enemy doesn't have much of a "military" as we would recognize it.
It's important to keep in mind that one side has fortified military bases, anti-aircraft, missiles, jets, attack choppers, drones, ships, radar, several dedicated intelligence agencies, satellites and spends as much on its military as the next 11 countries combined while the other side has "training camps", cars and RPGs. Access plays a HUGE role in target selection. One side has access to any target they find, the other does not.
I am not denying at all that these are bad, bad people. They use their own as human shields. Granted. But I didn't grow up in the ass-crack of the world like they did. I have to think that, to a guy who's going to strap on a bomb and go blow himself up to take out some kids engaged in that most heinous of crimes, "learning", just maybe human life wouldn't mean as much to me as it does from my comfy western point of view.
And finally, which two military bases did the US drop nuclear bombs on to end WWII? Oh, that's right, they were CITIES!
Besides that, these aren't even the people I was necessarily talking about. I did, in fact, actually mention attacks on military targets also being labeled as "terrorist attacks". While all of your points are valid, they are completely irrelevant to the point I was making, that if one were to be given a small amount of data which included only the type of attack and the number of casualties, military, leadership and civilian, one would not only be hard-pressed, given only the facts, to tell "military attacks" from "terrorist attacks", but there would be some attacks labeled as "terrorist attacks" currently which would always seem to be "military attacks", again, given only the facts such as, "It was a bombing, it killed X people, all military."
"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."
Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 08, 2016, 03:00:12 PM
"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."
Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.
That makes sense--it would give him more to slap.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 08, 2016, 03:00:12 PM
"More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II."
Not surprising as the war was fought on their home lands. But there was also the differences in fighting styles. Patton said he'd trade one million artillery rounds for one live GI.
If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war. The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying. They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.
Quote from: widdershins on April 08, 2016, 05:36:20 PM
If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war. The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying. They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.
I think we overestimate how much GB and US are allies ... and we overestimate how much Russia and the US are enemies. De Toqueville was read by many people, and he was spot on, 100 years ahead of his time.
Stalin and the other leaders had their hidden agendas. Stalin would have loved for the Axis to lose ... and all the Allies except him to lose too. The US wanted the same, and got its wish (thanks to geography). One historian has rated that the damage to the Soviet Union done by Germany, was essentially effective but too late. The Soviet Union never recovered from WW II, but limped on for a few decades before expiring from its fatal wounds. But another dictator like Stalin would have killed it too.
Quote from: SGOS on April 05, 2016, 09:20:49 AM
I got to wondering about this after watching a trailer for Eye in the Sky, about a woman drone operator who has a 13 year old girl walk into the kill zone causing her great angst and a reevaluation of her career. There have been two or three other movies in the last couple of years following this plot. In addition, there has been criticism of drone warfare because of similar collateral damage like blowing up weddings. There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too. But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale? Or are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?
I would be cautious in using a fictional situation; made by people/organizations with a usually lefty agenda as a template for any moralizing about lethal violence.
Droning (as a verb); as with any ranged weapon may give you a number of unwanted results. These can be the result of a deliberate policy/decision (i.e. drone the ******* no matter when and where they are), or the size/damage capability of the actual weapon/warhead (9mm bullet vs 250lb HE warhead----the bigger the bang, the more likely you'll snag up others who weren't the intended target), or "technical" issues; i.e. intercontinental drone operation, or even theater operation from several hundred miles away. Any signal delay due to distance between the drone operator and drone, or signal degradation/disruption for whatever reason might induce enough lag between pressing the firing button, and launching the weapon; to allow non targets to enter the impact area (the warhead size issue again). Time of flight of the weapon may also permit others to enter the blast radius.
While I've never participated in any decision/policy making regarding droning; my own experience in making life/death affecting decisions for others suggest policy makers are likely quite sensitive to collateral damage issues. Whether it's counter terrorism, COIN, or whatever.............modern military/intelligence ops are partially made of media warfare, as well as the more traditional political/military aspects. Beyond the simple moral dimension of NOT KILLING people you didn't intend to; policy/decision makers know how important public perception is in getting to a desired end state (commonly referred to as "winning"). Snagging up kids, wedding parties, etc is very bad for the war effort/COIN/CT; from a keeping the locals and home front on our side perspective. One of the biggest policy/decision making modifiers is target value. I'm guessing...................but I assume policy/decision makers would be willing to accept
more collateral "risk" if the target was important enough. WHO is making the decision? What pay grade does the launch call go to? Is there a set of standard launch parameters in place to allow the drone operator to autonomously fire at their discretion? Gets complicated doesn't it?
Size does matter! Smaller is better................and there has been a very definite effort to develop smaller weapons to minimize collateral damage (see paragraph above) on impact. Hellfire antitank missile were/are the default weapon of choice due to availability within US inventory, technical capability (e.g. destructiveness), and accuracy (laser guidance). They have around a 25lb warhead which is highly directional as it's designed to use a molten metal jet to burn through a lot of metal (tanks)..............."but" they do have a 15 to 20 meter blast radius when they go off. You get quite a lot of bits and pieces flying off in all directions, and as with any explosion the air compresses so densely it becomes a semi/near solid that can pulp soft objects and/or seriously **** up lungs and other internal organs, even if all the fast moving bits 'n pieces miss soft squishy things. Additionally, the explosion blows off a lot of stuff from the target/target site which in turn becomes more fragmentation. The media hasn't really caught on to it, that I know of, but there has been a transition to the Griffin missile system for a number of launch platforms. It's about half the size of a Hellfire and equally accurate. Accuracy----laser guided systems are accurate..............they do and will fail sometimes. Atmospheric obscurants (dust, fog, smoke, etc) can cause a REAL problem with the seeker head being unable to track the laser, the guidance/steering fins can fail one way or another, there are A LOT of REALLY small electronic bits and pieces inside the missiles. Ever have your comp just quit working on you? Missiles can have that **** happen too! Be glad your comp doesn't have a 25lb warhead in it when that ****** goes south..................be very upsetting to your family and neighbors!
Gets complicated doesn't it. In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.
QuoteGets complicated doesn't it. In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.
That's what I would have thought.
Quote from: Flanker1Six on April 21, 2016, 12:28:54 PM
Gets complicated doesn't it. In the end; droning is far more accurate, and less destructive than aerial bombing, or indirect fire by artillery/mortars..........but it's still destructive.
I once had a vet show me a video on his computer from an attack chopper that was watching some people. The moment they saw an RPG they opened fire. But they had a setting wrong and the projectiles (are they still "bullets" if they explode and go right through Superman?) went somewhere else. They were so far away that the insurgents didn't even notice. They fixed the setting and opened fire again. One man hid behind the truck and they shot him right through the engine block. So, they do have more accurate ways to take people out, but I'm sure drones are a whole lot more "present" and cost effective than filling the skies with Black Hawks 24/7.
Quote from: widdershins on April 08, 2016, 05:36:20 PM
If I remember correctly it was this "difference in fighting style" that sparked the Cold War immediately after the war. The Russians were pissed that it was all their people fighting and dying. They had the perception that we didn't care about Russian lives and were more than happy to send them to the slaughter while we sat back and did the safer shit, which probably wasn't too far from the truth.
That was the line Stalin pitched. I've spoken with Russian history professors about this and one of the things they were taught was that Dieppe and D-day were both raids of about equal size.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 08, 2016, 03:18:54 PM
That makes sense--it would give him more to slap.
One school of thought says that getting the men "back in the saddle" quickly after a shell shock event actually promoted their recovery.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 27, 2016, 04:22:33 PM
One school of thought says that getting the men "back in the saddle" quickly after a shell shock event actually promoted their recovery.
I spose. Don't think that would work with most of the soldiers of today. And I doubt it was all that effective then, either. A man's mind and spirit are broken because of all the blood, gore and violence he has seen and caused-----and letting him see and cause more will heal that mind and spirit? Somehow I don't think so. But who knows?
And Patton was crazier than a shithouse rat--but with enough genius to overlook or contain that craziness.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 27, 2016, 04:37:27 PM
I spose. Don't think that would work with most of the soldiers of today. And I doubt it was all that effective then, either. A man's mind and spirit are broken because of all the blood, gore and violence he has seen and caused-----and letting him see and cause more will heal that mind and spirit? Somehow I don't think so. But who knows?
And Patton was crazier than a shithouse rat--but with enough genius to overlook or contain that craziness.
The philosophy was that getting them back into action made the period where they doubted themselves shorter. Empirical, and limited, data makes me inclined to agree with that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 28, 2016, 10:53:21 AM
The philosophy was that getting them back into action made the period where they doubted themselves shorter. Empirical, and limited, data makes me inclined to agree with that.
If that were so, would there ever be any long lasting ptsd?
MIke, and Gawdzilla.......................you both have valid points.
Like any mental/emotional illness, shell shock(WW I era), combat stress reaction/battle fatigue (WW II era), and now known as PTSD is a sliding scale, not an on/off switch. All people have their unique qualities, capabilities, and capacities. Modifying factors are many; i.e. degree, frequency, & quality of home contact, brief to moderate pauses in the stressors, opportunity/ability to "constructively" blow off steam, etc. Giving people a highly individual ability to absorb physical and mental stress (I taught stress management for a former agency for several years) over time. If both of us lived through the same combat situation; it might put me in the pysch ward; whereas you might come through relatively unscathed. In WW II there was a standard time period (in days--which I've forgotten) the Army used to calculate when to pull units out of line for R & R. Needless to say; that wasn't always adhered to. And there were certainly fakers who were dodging their duty/combat.
Which gets to your points on treatment and the infamous Patton slapping incidents. Treatment is also highly variable. Could be just a few hours to a couple days break from combat (very well portrayed in one of the Band of Brother series episodes when Easy Company was in combat in the Battle of the Bulge) to hospitalization, sustained drug therapy, psychoanalysis, behavioral therapy, etc. You're both right to a degree............but in the end one size treatment does not fit all.
Patton was dead wrong in both incidents. He knew NOTHING about the particulars of either case (the only way to determine proper course of treatment); just blew his stack (ironically indicating a preexisting stress build up :grr: and a somewhat low level of stress tolerance!) when told what they were there for (exhaustion-1st incident, nerves-2nd incident), and the rest is history.
Contrary to what is frequently portrayed in TV and the movies.............my experience with serving and former service personnel who had PTSD was actually pretty good. No rolling/jerking eyeballs, no violent tendencies, alcohol/drug swilling. My off the cuff lay assessment of them would be mild to moderate cases. The biggest thing I noticed was they tended to be easily excited/aggravated in some instances---I had no trouble deescalating them (but then I've been trained for it, and have done a lot of it), and in the end they were good people to work with.
Quote from: Flanker1Six on April 28, 2016, 01:33:17 PM
MIke, and Gawdzilla.......................you both have valid points.
Like any mental/emotional illness, shell shock(WW I era), combat stress reaction/battle fatigue (WW II era), and now known as PTSD is a sliding scale, not an on/off switch. All people have their unique qualities, capabilities, and capacities. Modifying factors are many; i.e. degree, frequency, & quality of home contact, brief to moderate pauses in the stressors, opportunity/ability to "constructively" blow off steam, etc. Giving people a highly individual ability to absorb physical and mental stress (I taught stress management for a former agency for several years) over time. If both of us lived through the same combat situation; it might put me in the pysch ward; whereas you might come through relatively unscathed. In WW II there was a standard time period (in days--which I've forgotten) the Army used to calculate when to pull units out of line for R & R. Needless to say; that wasn't always adhered to. And there were certainly fakers who were dodging their duty/combat.
Which gets to your points on treatment and the infamous Patton slapping incidents. Treatment is also highly variable. Could be just a few hours to a couple days break from combat (very well portrayed in one of the Band of Brother series episodes when Easy Company was in combat in the Battle of the Bulge) to hospitalization, sustained drug therapy, psychoanalysis, behavioral therapy, etc. You're both right to a degree............but in the end one size treatment does not fit all.
Patton was dead wrong in both incidents. He knew NOTHING about the particulars of either case (the only way to determine proper course of treatment); just blew his stack (ironically indicating a preexisting stress build up :grr: and a somewhat low level of stress tolerance!) when told what they were there for (exhaustion-1st incident, nerves-2nd incident), and the rest is history.
Contrary to what is frequently portrayed in TV and the movies.............my experience with serving and former service personnel who had PTSD was actually pretty good. No rolling/jerking eyeballs, no violent tendencies, alcohol/drug swilling. My off the cuff lay assessment of them would be mild to moderate cases. The biggest thing I noticed was they tended to be easily excited/aggravated in some instances---I had no trouble deescalating them (but then I've been trained for it, and have done a lot of it), and in the end they were good people to work with.
Thanks for the info. I know nothing about ptsd--or very little. So, it does not surprise me that this is like everything else that deals with people. Each of us is unique. And we react in unique ways. In fact, it is not unusual for each of us to react to similar happenings in a different way. Guidelines are helpful, but does not cover all instances for anything.
A bunch of people -save Mike- from a country that hasn't seen war on its soil for 250 years are discussing on how wars are necessary for technology and under what circumstances drone warfare is OK or not.
You know what, I believe there is real 'equality' in the US. Political opinions do not actually change between jesus freaks and secular democrats. It's just the vocabulary that changes. They are mostly, pretty 'equal'. :lol:
I am curious if a new civil war would make America human again. Hmm.
Not a civil war ... the last one did nothing for us. Bigots are still fighting the last one. Invasion and occupation. But then bigots feel immigrants (aka Mexicans and Muslims) are the invasion.
You see a lot of "no dog in the race" talk on the Internet. It isn't just Americans.
I don't think you got what I meant. So I'll be blunt.
For majority of Americans, war is a virtual game, something that happens far far away where professionals get paid to invade and high tech 'toys' are used to create atrocity and get medals for it. It's a job, it is an industry and that bothers a very little minority in an inherently militarised culture. Culturally, in the US, there is nothing wrong with this. There is no perspective of war, destcruction and its consequences for human beings in real life or even the acknowledged information of what actually happened in the last one; the scale of destruction created. From the jesus freak to the atheist; for majority, this is the same.
Most of the Americans culturally programmed not to see the rest of the people -save Europe as they dictate over their culture- in the world as human beings like themselves. This is not just some ignorance, it's a matter of a fantastical, absurd American identity created. They see themselves entitled to this without even realising what actually that is.
So yes in this sense, it's pretty much just Americans. If a society has an idea of what war is, you'd be surprised how they act when their leaders want to drag them into one. While of course there can't be an old fashioned civil war in the US, it is pretty much about seeing yourself 'untouchable' and 'above all things'. And this is very easy to come by when you are isolated.
The differences in political ideas -on nationalism, international/domestic policies- among atheists and religious groups where I live -also generally in the whole region- is so dramatic, it is almost like they are from different planets. In American culture, there is a very little gap betwen these groups related to opinions of basic politics and only certain topics which I called 'the menu' for many times here in this froum. This is why there is only two football teams in one ground, but they are actually the same team.
(I am not including the minority, I know their position and how painful it is, I am in the same position in the country where I live.)
Ever hear of the ancient Irish story of a fair fight between two clans? They showed up on the battle field, but one group had more men than the other ... so the side with fewer men complained ... and the side with more men agreed that fighting would be unfair. So they agreed to send the excess men on one side home, and fight the following day. So they got together again, and one side complained that their spears were shorter than the spears on the other side. The other side agreed that this was unfair, and would cut down the length of their spears to match. And agreed to come together again the following day. So finally we have two troops of men, with equal numbers and equal spears. The side that had the fewer men to begin with, and the shorter spears (same guys) then proceeded to defeat the side that had gone all SJW on themselves. An American could have shown up with a machine gun, and cut anyone down who didn't flee. America is never about fairness. It is always about killing. So no, I don't want a fair fight on my territory. Always fight on the other guy's territory, and kill them all with malice.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 28, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
If that were so, would there ever be any long lasting ptsd?
The study I saw, in 1993 and written in 1951, noted that the quicker the trooper got back in the saddle the fewer long term effects. Note "fewer", not "zero". The system didn't work for everyone, some people were just too broken to benefit from it.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2016, 01:10:21 PMAlways fight on the other guy's territory, and kill them all with malice.
Sounds like the advice I got from a one-legged Marine back in the '60s, "Kill 'em there and you won't have to fight them here." Sound advice.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 29, 2016, 04:54:12 PM
The study I saw, in 1993 and written in 1951, noted that the quicker the trooper got back in the saddle the fewer long term effects. Note "fewer", not "zero". The system didn't work for everyone, some people were just too broken to benefit from it.
I don't doubt the study. I'm sincerely glad that I have to learn about his issue from afar; I was in the military but never had to see combat. I am convinced that if I had gone (and I would have gone if so ordered) I would have been a changed man--and most likely a broken one as well.
Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
Ever hear of the ancient Irish story of a fair fight between two clans? They showed up on the battle field, but one group had more men than the other ... so the side with fewer men complained ... and the side with more men agreed that fighting would be unfair. So they agreed to send the excess men on one side home, and fight the following day. So they got together again, and one side complained that their spears were shorter than the spears on the other side. The other side agreed that this was unfair, and would cut down the length of their spears to match. And agreed to come together again the following day. So finally we have two troops of men, with equal numbers and equal spears. The side that had the fewer men to begin with, and the shorter spears (same guys) then proceeded to defeat the side that had gone all SJW on themselves. An American could have shown up with a machine gun, and cut anyone down who didn't flee. America is never about fairness. It is always about killing. So no, I don't want a fair fight on my territory. Always fight on the other guy's territory, and kill them all with malice.
Good points!
I only have two heros; both of them German.
Walter Kruger-who was the US Sixth Army Commander in the WW II Pacific campaign. He emigrated to the US as a boy, joined the army, and worked his way up from private to army command. He started his command out with the highest KDR (kill to death ratio) of any army commander in the war, and increased it in every subsequent action. He always considered his troops first; though realizing some of them would inevitably die, and did as much as possible to maximize their chance to live and the enemy's to die. He had a rep for being too slow and methodical for MacArthurs taste who constantly urged Kruger to speed things up. Kruger opted to back his subordinate commanders who were actually dealing with **** on the ground; frequently battling MacArthur on their behalf (despite constant bitching about Kruger--MacArthur never relieved him of command). Kruger was the polar opposite of head line seekers like MacArthur, Patton, and Clark.........very low key, and was actually more of a soldiers general than Omar Bradley.
Eric Hartman (Luftwaffe)--top scoring ace of all time with 352 confirmed aerial victories, hundreds more probables, and hundreds of ground kills. His preferred technique was to shoot enemies in the back (from above/behind, or below/behind). By his own estimate 80% of his kills never saw him coming. Hartman and his squadron surrendered to US forces at the wars end, and were then turned over to the Soviets. The newly minted E. German government brought him up on phony war crimes allegations, and tried him in an effort to coerce him into joining their Volksarmee. After being convicted he spent 10 years in a Russian gulag before being released in '55. He joined the newly formed W. German Luftwaffe..........rising through the ranks to Colonel, before resigning in protest at the Luftwaffe's continued use of the US built F104 Starfighter (aka Widowmaker); which Hartman considered unsafe to fly due to it's very high accident rate and consequentant fatalities.
I admire Kruger because he was low key, and a consumate team player even though he was the boss. He always put his men first, and did everything he could to ensure as many of them as possible made it back home.
I admire Hartman (I read his biography years ago) because he made me realize how childish the concepts of honor, fair play, adventure and such are in war. It is a brutal nasty business under the best of circumstances; wherein the only objectives are to shoot mofos and blow shit up on an industrial scale until those losers on the other side get tired of it. It's not fighting........................it's killing (goes to Baruch's post), and they are two completely different things. No matter how good you think you are; bad luck/circumstance easily devours all before it; whether they deserve it or not. He also ended a career he loved because he felt higher command was insensitive to the troops welfare by continuing to fly a dangerous aircraft. That's a lot of integrity in my book.
In warrior cultures like depicted in the Trojan War, or with actual Sparta and Japanese samurai ... the deal is for the individual player to rack up honor points, not to be concerned with the overall mission or what is happening to the other troops. Assuming the Trojan war involved heroic one on one combats ... that makes great literature. Had there been an American style Greek army, they would have nuked Troy, and not wasted 10 years in siege and raiding. Same thing happened to the Japanese samurai ... once a lot of guns were available, the mounted samurai were cut down in the 1500s, and then again in the 1800s. Sparta lost out because there were never enough Spartans ... they did fight well as a team though.