Should warfare be more civilized?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Ahem.....whether in fact GW1 and GW2 have been "won" by the US is debateable. And in fact...GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

Not in my eyes. The coalition and the US beat the regular opposing army. They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own. That to me is winning, as much as an occupying army can ever win.

Quote[/b] ]You kind of illustrated my point.....the fact that the US is playing by the rules does not mean the other side will....they are fighting to win still.

Yes, but the fact that one side DID play by the rules resulted in less human casualties. The US could have simply nuked, gased and napalmed the sheit out of Iraq. Maybe a few friendly casualties, mostly airplane pilots, but other than that no ill effects to themselves. But they didnt.

Quote[/b] ]Vietnam was lost because the US played by a "more decent" code of morals and ethics than the VC/NVA. When they tried to level the playing field the outcry in the US prevented any further action down that path.

Thats not the only reason. You can never win a war by taking terrain and then giving it back. This was probably one of the main reasons.

[bn880 5]

Maybe the question is not "should", but "would".

'Would' warfare be more civilized if what??

Should is quite ovbious and eventually the analysis leads to no war, would we ever be capable of not having wars.

However as Denoir reiterated, there is no need to make war more barbaric. It won't achieve anything, it won't change politics anyway, it won't win you the war either.

[bn880 5]

it's rare to see an opponent fighting by the rules when the odds are against him

So how about then, the opponent with good odds does'nt become unnecessairly barbaric. At least.

[Bernadotte 0]

GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

How do you figure?  

[Schoeler 0]

GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

How do you figure?  

Well see this guy who was once a very rich Saudi millionaire named Osama Bin Laden, and who onced volunteered to help the Afghani people toss the Soviets out of their territory with U.S. support, got really pissed off by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, and by U.S. polciy in the Middle East immediately after GW1 and decided to start a plan to fly some jumbo jets into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the White House.

[Bernadotte 0]

GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

How do you figure?  

Well see this guy who was once a very rich Saudi millionaire named Osama Bin Laden, and who onced volunteered to help the Afghani people toss the Soviets out of their territory with U.S. support, got really pissed off by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, and by U.S. polciy in the Middle East immediately after GW1 and decided to start a plan to fly some jumbo jets into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the White House.

Thank you, Schoeler.  I didn't know that Bin Laden started grinding his anti-American axe because of GW1.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

How do you figure?  

Well see this guy who was once a very rich Saudi millionaire named Osama Bin Laden, and who onced volunteered to help the Afghani people toss the Soviets out of their territory with U.S. support, got really pissed off by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, and by U.S. polciy in the Middle East immediately after GW1 and decided to start a plan to fly some jumbo jets into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the White House.

yes indeed...thankyou Schoeler.....an American who remains patriotic but also has deep understanding about what is right and wrong with his country and its policies....I salute you *snaps right hand*

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ahem.....whether in fact GW1 and GW2 have been "won" by the US is debateable. And in fact...GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

Not in my eyes. The coalition and the US beat the regular opposing army. They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own. That to me is winning, as much as an occupying army can ever win.

Quote[/b] ]You kind of illustrated my point.....the fact that the US is playing by the rules does not mean the other side will....they are fighting to win still.

Yes, but the fact that one side DID play by the rules resulted in less human casualties. The US could have simply nuked, gased and napalmed the sheit out of Iraq. Maybe a few friendly casualties, mostly airplane pilots, but other than that no ill effects to themselves. But they didnt.

Quote[/b] ]Vietnam was lost because the US played by a "more decent" code of morals and ethics than the VC/NVA. When they tried to level the playing field the outcry in the US prevented any further action down that path.

Thats not the only reason. You can never win a war by taking terrain and then giving it back. This was probably one of the main reasons.

Your second point hgad some merit....but the others...well....they lacked the critical analysis maturity brings to arguments....eg. why did the US give back terrain in Vietnam.

How was GW1 a win when as you put it,"They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own."...they did not

Ummm...GW2 was partially due to the fact they did not remove the government

This was as a fair point:

Yes, but the fact that one side DID play by the rules resulted in less human casualties. The US could have simply nuked, gased and napalmed the sheit out of Iraq. Maybe a few friendly casualties, mostly airplane pilots, but other than that no ill effects to themselves. But they didnt.

However....ask yourself, since May 1...how many US casualties have there been compared to Iraqi casualties.....yes...the US spared huge loss of life...but only because public opinion would be against them......and now it is anyway as US soldiers are killed every day

[Renagade 0]

Quote[/b] ]Suicide bombers anyone? Pilots in Sep.11? Women in Somalia carrying babies in one arm and AKs in the other? Somalian gunmen using crowds of women and children as human shields? Saddams human shield strategy in the Gulf?

You cannot combat these with..."But...Saddam...this isn't in the rule book. 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you moustached one!"

Of course you can. It was done. The US and the coalition won both GW1, GW2 and in Somalia. Dispite these tactics. And while there might have been some breaches of the "rules", over all, it was by the book. (During the actual fighting mind you, I wont get into the legality of GW2.)

You didnt see western soldiers execute civilians by the dozen, they didnt take to using human shields, they didnt pick up babies as shields. They followed the rules and won regardless. How can you say it doesnt work after actually having seen the results?

They didn`t need to though

[Schoeler 0]

And just look at the Iraqi resistance, it refuses to play by any rules, or to fight in a "civilized" manner and yet it manages to kill 1-3 American soldiers each day. Compare that to the U.S. which kills or captures maybe 1-5 Iraqi resisters each week by playing according to the rules.

Tell me, how long do you think people in a neighborhood would resist if the next time the U.S. captured a resistance fighter, they summarily executed him and imprisoned every single person who knew he was taking part in these activities?

I'd bet those who were already resistance fighters would fight all the more harder and those who were not, would want nothing absolutely to do with those who were. Informants would go up and so would open combat, thus ending the conflict sooner, if not making the U.S. look more monstrous in the eyes of the world calling for "civilized" warfare. In the meantime, the Iraqi people continue to suffer and progress is retarded by those who's will to resist has not been crushed.

[Bernadotte 0]

Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition.

How about this?

"Light cigarettes at their very essence, to me, are like abandoning the idea that I'm capable of quitting smoking."

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]How was GW1 a win when as you put it,"They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own."...they did not

No, which means it clearly was a reference to GW2. In GW1 they had the choice to replace the government, and chose not to. Again, only something a winner can chose, not a loser.

Quote[/b] ]However....ask yourself, since May 1...how many US casualties have there been compared to Iraqi casualties.....yes...the US spared huge loss of life...but only because public opinion would be against them......and now it is anyway as US soldiers are killed every day

And even if they had gone in with brute force and bombed everything to bits, we'd still see US soldiers die. Unless they killed all people in Iraq. Because the people now killing US soldiers are not only former Iraqi military, but also civilians and most likely a couple of terrorist cells. These elements would have existed even if the US had used their entire arsenal to beat the enemy. Unless of course they killed everyone in Iraq (which would be kind of counterproductive as they were "liberating" the Iraqis).

[Schoeler 0]

Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition.

How about this?

"Light cigarettes at their very essence, to me, are like abandoning the idea that I'm capable of quitting smoking."

Like I said, if the door is already opened to killing as a means of solving our differences, then I see no reason why rules should be applied. If any killing becomes OK, then by logical extension, all killing becomes OK as killing is the ultimate act of lawlessness.

Trying to civilize warfare, an inately inhumane and uncivilized act no matter what angle you try to apporach it from, is like trying to purify the smell of dogshit. Whats the point? If you can accept war as a solution to anything, then you have to also accept it for what it is, an ugly, barbaric and brutal act. Trying to make war more friendly or more safe is like trying to tame a Great White Shark. The shark is what it is, an eating machine designed to kill quickly and efficiently. No amount of rhetoric or rules, or the best of intentions is going to change that fundamental fact. Like the shark, war is at its base a brutally simple thing, dressing it up isn't going to change that.

[The Frenchman 0]

, got really pissed off by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia,

He got pissed because Bin Laden wanted to defend the holy city Mecca. Near the end of the war, Saudi Arabia chose to replace Bin Laden's forces with US troops.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]How was GW1 a win when as you put it,"They destroyed the existing government and instilled their own."...they did not

No, which means it clearly was a reference to GW2. In GW1 they had the choice to replace the government, and chose not to. Again, only something a winner can chose, not a loser.

Quote[/b] ]However....ask yourself, since May 1...how many US casualties have there been compared to Iraqi casualties.....yes...the US spared huge loss of life...but only because public opinion would be against them......and now it is anyway as US soldiers are killed every day

And even if they had gone in with brute force and bombed everything to bits, we'd still see US soldiers die. Unless they killed all people in Iraq. Because the people now killing US soldiers are not only former Iraqi military, but also civilians and most likely a couple of terrorist cells. These elements would have existed even if the US had used their entire arsenal to beat the enemy. Unless of course they killed everyone in Iraq (which would be kind of counterproductive as they were "liberating" the Iraqis).

Like I said, I don't think those elements would exist for long if the U.S. played by the rules of warfare they have chosen to use. Simply execute everyone directly involved and imprison everyone idirectly involved. The will to continue resisting would be crushed. If we have to resort to brutality, why try to dress it up in a pretty little outfit?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Like I said, I don't think those elements would exist for long if the U.S. played by the rules of warfare they have chosen to use. Simply execute everyone directly involved and imprison everyone idirectly involved. The will to continue resisting would be crushed. If we have to resort to brutality, why try to dress it up in a pretty little outfit?

I dont think you would crush peoples will and desire for freedom. The nazis did pretty much that. Didnt work on very well in most occupied territories. France being one example. When french freedomfighters had attacked Nazis, the Nazis would execute civilians and any suspects. This didnt stop future attacks though, to some extent, I think it gave fuel to more opposition.

[Bernadotte 0]

Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition.

How about this?

"Light cigarettes at their very essence, to me, are like abandoning the idea that I'm capable of quitting smoking."

Like I said, if the door is already opened to killing as a means of solving our differences, then I see no reason why rules should be applied.  If any killing becomes OK, then by logical extension, all killing becomes OK as killing is the ultimate act of lawlessness.

Trying to civilize warfare, an inately inhumane and uncivilized act no matter what angle you try to apporach it from, is like trying to purify the smell of dogshit.  Whats the point?  If you can accept war as a solution to anything, then you have to also accept it for what it is, an ugly, barbaric and brutal act.  Trying to make war more friendly or more safe is like trying to tame a Great White Shark.  The shark is what it is, an eating machine designed to kill quickly and efficiently.  No amount of rhetoric or rules, or the best of intentions is going to change that fundamental fact.  Like the shark, war is at its base a brutally simple thing, dressing it up isn't going to change that.

I would have addressed my comment differently.  I would have pointed out that:

Some people have been known to quit (umm... transcend?) smoking by only smoking the cheapest, non-filtered stuff until they vomit.  Whereupon they find it much easier to quit for good.  On the other hand, the light-cigarette smoker has made smoking so tolerable that he may just end up smoking indefinitely.  You follow?

And then I would have responded to that with:

We're talking about the lives of innocent people, not cigarettes or dogshit or sharks.  I just can't accept a strategy for transcending war that will discard so many more innocent lives, just so that our leaders might finally vomit and pursue more peaceful instruments of policy.

Good night and thanks again for the OBL info.  

[Schoeler 0]

But the discarding of lives is the whole point to war, so if you can accept war, then surely you can accept an initial horrible loss of life so that the war ends quicker and in the end, less lives are lost to it.

The idea is to make the execution of warfare so horrible, so repugnant, so costly as to prevent it from being used as a solution at all.  All wars eventually devolve into this sort of thing anyway, even the sacrosanct Second World War resorted to tactics like carpet bombing, fire bombing, summary execution, and eventually nuclear weapons.

PS: I lost you on the concept of "light" cigarettes until you followed up with your reply. Chalk it up to cultural differences, here we call them filtered cigarettes.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The idea is to make the execution of warfare so horrible, so repugnant, so costly as to prevent it from being used as a solution at all. All wars eventually devolve into this sort of thing anyway, even the sacrosanct Second World War resorted to tactics like carpet bombing, fire bombing, summary execution, and eventually nuclear weapons.

Even if you did, wars would still be fought. Because the decision makers rarely have to go into the field themselves, nor send their loved ones. This was all ready pointed out. I think the response what that people wouldnt accept it if war was very terrible. Well, people have always accepted it. And what is there to accept anyway? If some moron manages to rally his soldiers to attack, you got a war wether you like it or not. And even evil men can get his soldiers to go to war, simply by threatening to have their families killed if they dont. War will always exist, no matter how terrible. So then you might as well try to make it less terrible.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]The idea is to make the execution of warfare so horrible, so repugnant, so costly as to prevent it from being used as a solution at all.  All wars eventually devolve into this sort of thing anyway, even the sacrosanct Second World War resorted to tactics like carpet bombing, fire bombing, summary execution, and eventually nuclear weapons.

Even if you did, wars would still be fought. Because the decision makers rarely have to go into the field themselves, nor send their loved ones. This was all ready pointed out. I think the response what that people wouldnt accept it if war was very terrible. Well, people have always accepted it. And what is there to accept anyway? If some moron manages to rally his soldiers to attack, you got a war wether you like it or not. And even evil men can get his soldiers to go to war, simply by threatening to have their families killed if they dont. War will always exist, no matter how terrible. So then you might as well try to make it less terrible.

I disagree.  If your evil dictator's raiding party thought it would return home to seeing their family members and friends lying bloated and dead on the sidewalk from a Sarin gas attack in response to their little raid, they would most likely just off the head of their stupid dictator and have done with it.  As I pointed out earlier, just because we have always accepted warfare doesn't mean we should continue to do so.  Saying that we should and that we'll never be rid of war is abandoning the idea that we can as a species transcend warfare.  I refuse to accept that.  I'm not the type to just give in.  Instead I want to make war more terrible so that nobody can accept it as a solution, and anyone who proposes it or attempts it, will immediately be seen as totally insane, or an enemy of the people to be imprisoned.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition.

How about this?

"Light cigarettes at their very essence, to me, are like abandoning the idea that I'm capable of quitting smoking."

Like I said, if the door is already opened to killing as a means of solving our differences, then I see no reason why rules should be applied.  If any killing becomes OK, then by logical extension, all killing becomes OK as killing is the ultimate act of lawlessness.

Trying to civilize warfare, an inately inhumane and uncivilized act no matter what angle you try to apporach it from, is like trying to purify the smell of dogshit.  Whats the point?  If you can accept war as a solution to anything, then you have to also accept it for what it is, an ugly, barbaric and brutal act.  Trying to make war more friendly or more safe is like trying to tame a Great White Shark.  The shark is what it is, an eating machine designed to kill quickly and efficiently.  No amount of rhetoric or rules, or the best of intentions is going to change that fundamental fact.  Like the shark, war is at its base a brutally simple thing, dressing it up isn't going to change that.

Well articulated!

[Bernadotte 0]

Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition.

How about this?

"Light cigarettes at their very essence, to me, are like abandoning the idea that I'm capable of quitting smoking."

Like I said, if the door is already opened to killing as a means of solving our differences, then I see no reason why rules should be applied.  If any killing becomes OK, then by logical extension, all killing becomes OK as killing is the ultimate act of lawlessness.

Trying to civilize warfare, an inately inhumane and uncivilized act no matter what angle you try to apporach it from, is like trying to purify the smell of dogshit.  Whats the point?  If you can accept war as a solution to anything, then you have to also accept it for what it is, an ugly, barbaric and brutal act.  Trying to make war more friendly or more safe is like trying to tame a Great White Shark.  The shark is what it is, an eating machine designed to kill quickly and efficiently.  No amount of rhetoric or rules, or the best of intentions is going to change that fundamental fact.  Like the shark, war is at its base a brutally simple thing, dressing it up isn't going to change that.

Well articulated!

Thank you.  

[denoir 0]

Title: "Clean War"

[The Frenchman 0]