About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, September 29 - 1:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I haven't really followed this story, but here's my take:

 

1. Maybe Osama Bin Laden wasn't actually killed by SEAL team six.  Given that 911 was a false flag, and that even if Osama Bin Laden was involved, the powers that be wouldn't have actually wanted him dead.  The guy always had a thick beard AFAIK, and his looks seemed to change, and he never really hung out in public where independent journalists could photograph/video him...  so sorry I can't really believe any evidence on this case.

2. Either: the "Extortion 17" helicoptor shootdown didn't happen, and this is a hoax, including these parents; or it did happen, maybe because the powers that be wanted certain members of SEAL team six dead (due to #1)

3. Notice the parents are calling for changing our foreign policy...  they want us to preemptively kill potentially innocent people in a foreign country that we haven't declared war against...

 

Conspiracies aside...

1. The US is broke

2. We don't need to have our troops die in acting as policemen of the world, let the country handle their own internal problems

3. Blowback



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, September 29 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean wrote, "Notice the parents are calling for changing our foreign policy... they want us to preemptively kill potentially innocent people in a foreign country that we haven't declared war against...

 

Dean, the point is that our soldiers cannot do what they're employed to do:  they cannot defend themselves or fight in order to win, which is why we're losing these battles.  As for innocent people being killed, their deaths fall on the Taliban.  Our soldiers cannot be expected not to fire upon the building from which they were being fired upon.  The fact that there may have been innocent people in that building is not a reason for our soldiers not to defend themselves.  They cannot be expected to sacrifice their own lives in order to spare the lives of people who may or may not be innocent (we don't know their sympathies).  To do so would be anti-egoist and self-sacrificial. And as far as a foreign country is concerned, there is no right to national self-determination.  Yes, we should have declared war, but is that any reason not to oppose our self-defeating rules of engagement?  

 

Conspiracies aside...

 

1. The US is broke.

 

Yes, we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy, but the defense of a country is a legitimate function of government.  Social spending is not.  If we're going to reduce the level of spending, let us reduce it in those areas where it is illegitimate.

 

2. We don't need to have our troops die in acting as policemen of the world, let the country handle their own internal problems.

 

Yes, we are not the policeman of the world, and there are wars we should not be involved in, but since we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists, we have every right to fight back.

 

3. Blowback

 

If there is anything that Ron Paul said that made little if any sense, it is the notion of "blowback."  The implication is that the attack on 9/11 was our fault, because it was retaliation for our actions against Islamic terrorists.  Are you kidding me?!  These people view the U.S. as the "Great Satan," because of our secular, materialistic, infidel values, not simply because of our military response to their acts of aggression.  We are their arch enemy because we oppose everything they stand for.  Western democracy is the antithesis of Sharia law and the Islamic caliphate.  Moreover, as Craig Biddle notes in "The Jihad against America and How to End It," (already posted on this forum):

 

"As for concerns about so-called “blowback”—the notion that previously peaceful Muslims will become aggressive toward Americans if we kill Muslims who seek to kill us—such concerns are ridiculous. Killing terrorists does not breed terrorists. If it did, the world would be riddled with kamikazes today; yet, as we can see, there are none. Any Muslims who become aggressive toward Americans because the United States defends Americans against jihadists who seek to kill them clearly were on the side of the jihadists to begin with and are now just making it known. That information is beneficial to the United States, as it indicates whom we need to kill in addition to the jihadists we’ve already killed; thus, it enables us to finish the job that morally must be done."

 

If our goal is the self-defense of the American people, then the U.S. military needs to attack Iran, dismantle its nuclear facilities and destroy its leadership.  Why are we waiting for the leaders of that theocratic dictatorship to voluntarily abandon their efforts to develop nuclear weapons?  They won't, and when they do develop them, as they surely will unless we stop them, they will use them in a proxy war against the infidel West.  Our very survival depends upon our taking bold military action, as well as ridding ourselves of the selfless philosophy behind our current military rules of engagement.



Post 2

Monday, September 29 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

 

I agree with everything you wrote, except for some of what you wrote on blowback.

 

You wrote:

These people view the U.S. as the 'Great Satan,' because of our secular, materialistic, infidel values, not simply because of our military response to their acts of aggression.

I'd say that they view us as the 'Great Satan' because of our secular, materialistic, infidel values AND because of our military response to their acts of aggression AND because of our support of Israel.

-------------

 

You quoted Craig Biddle:

As for concerns about so-called 'blowback' —the notion that previously peaceful Muslims will become aggressive toward Americans if we kill Muslims who seek to kill us—such concerns are ridiculous. Killing terrorists does not breed terrorists.

That's a straw-man argument. It isn't that previously peaceful Muslims will become aggressive toward Americans, it is that the focus and intensity of the non-peaceful Muslims will be directed more at America than it otherwise would be.

 

And those Muslims who were on the fence about violence towards America would be shifted more in favor of such violence.  That's a realistic description of 'blowback.'  It isn't a reason not to defend ourselves.  It certainly isn't a moral judgment against America.  It is just an accurate statement of an aspect of their motivation.

 

Ignoring the fact that our actions will have reactions isn't helpful.

--------------

If our goal is the self-defense of the American people, then the U.S. military needs to attack Iran, dismantle its nuclear facilities and destroy its leadership.

Agreed. And where we send our military is one decision, but sending them somewhere and then deciding on having rules of engagmentment that get them killed is the worst kind of political cowardice on the part of the government's leaders. Whereever they are sent, they need to be able to defend themselves and be effective.

--------------

 

And, I'll repeat what I've said a number of times before: If we are serious about waging war on Islamic Terrorism then we need to go after the money sources, and the suppliers, including the people at the head of the governments that provide sanctuary and support.  No nation building, just raining destruction on those people who make terrorism possible.  

 

By themselves those frontline terrorist can't go more than a week without the money to buy weaponry, ammunition, food, clothes, transportation, etc.  They'd cease to be an army and have to act individually to get jobs, or when out of ammo, pull out a knife and try to rob people of food to eat, and then they would be beaten to death by the peaceful Muslims they tried to rob.  Stop the enablers and you dry up terrorism.

 

Right now, the Islamic Terrorist philosophy "works" - that is they are getting their way.  When it is no longer tolerated and the attacks on the enablers make render it a "non-working" alternative, far more people will be able to consider the philosophical alternatives and choose from those that have a better chance of "working."



Post 3

Monday, September 29 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If you are going to go to war, fight to win.  I agree with everything you said Steve.



Post 4

Monday, September 29 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The last time the USA was invaded, it was by Great Britain, in August 1814.  No Germans, no Japanese, no Spanish,... no Koreans, no Vietnamese, no Afghans. ...

 

As for 9/11, true enough that they were Saudis, however, we certainly do not want the American govenrment to go after Americans because Bill Ayers, Ted Kaczinsky,  Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Robert Rudolph were Americans.  

 

We have been through this before here.  Super-patriots, ultra-conservatives, and militarist traditionalists are just as much a threat as any others - and they are closer to home here and now.  But we do not want to have the govenrment go to war against Americans ...  or conservatives... or even liberals or progressives or trade unionists or Black Nationalists, except as certain criminals cloak themselves in such ideologies.  Then we want the govenrment to pursue the individuals who commit the crimes.  

 

The arguement that innocent people of Germany or Afghanistan were really killed by their evil govenments against whom Americans were justifiiably at war is just collectivism of the worst kind.  It includes racism, muscle-mysticism, and a raft of stolen concepts.



Post 5

Monday, September 29 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Moral Problem of the Hostage Situation

July 17, 2014, a bank robbery gone bad resulted in the killing of Misty Holt-Singh.  She and two others had been taken hostage. The others escaped during the chase.  Holt-Singh was shot 10 times by the 31 Stockton police officers pursing the getaway van.  The standard Objectivist analysis is that her death was the moral responsibility of the robbers, not the police.  That is arguable.  However, I do not want to argue this case at this time.  I cite it because such incidents provide the fundamental justification for the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and other atrocities of war: the deaths of the victims are the fault of their own govenrment which began the aggression; they are not the fault of the USA government which responded to the aggression.  That argument is wholly fallacious on many grounds.

 

First, it extends the case beyond its context.  In the bank robbery, all of the actors are known. They are individuals, held individually responsible for their actions. The robbery was their planful intention, carried out in the first person.  In war, even if the hapless conscripts all wear dogtags, the civilians are anonymous. They are just  people who were not involved but who were lumped into a collective they have chosen not to join.

 

Moreover, the bank robbers have an attained status: they chose to make themselves bank robbers.  When nations go to war, the victims have an ascribed status: someone else decides that you are a Kraut or a Jap or a Gook, and therefore you deserve to die. In particular, when nations go to war, people are not allowed to leave. From 1933 forward, requests for exit visas clogged the German bureaucracy.  Read about Ludwig Wittegenstein - the Nazis took the entire family fortune converted first to gold as the price of an exit visa. Other members of his family died in the war.  Some Objectivists claim that it was an example of victims being their own destroyers for not successfully preventing the Anschluss or the rise of the Nazi Party. 

 

In the specific case here of Seal Team 6 it was said that they were not allowed to fire back at someone who launched a rocket-propelled grenade at their helicopter because the building itself might have held innocent non-combatants. The argument stops there.  But why?   Why must be we accept that context, and not a wider one?  What were they doing?  Why they there in the first place?  The answers are all collectivist, altruist, and mysticist: they were serving their country; they were following orders; they were doing their duty.  

 

In the first place, a commissioned officer can refuse any assignment.  It is a tradition that you never refuse a combat assignment.  However, ultimately, you can refuse by resigning your commission.  It is the end of the road for your military career, but it is your way of preventing a blunder such as The Charge of the Light Brigade or Custer's Last Stand. If only someone had spoken up.

 

While it is convenient to blame President Barack Hussein Obama, the fact is that a long chain of command kept Seal Team 6 intact and in action. Any commander at any level could have reassigned any of them - or (again) resigned rather than carry out a wrongful order.  

 

In the case of commissioned officers, their Oath is to the Constitution.  Any second lieutant - to say nothing of everyone else up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff - could countermand a presidential order if it violates the Constitution.    Utlimately, their Oath allows them to stage a coup d'etat to protect the Constitiotn from the President.

 

Rather than any of that, Seal Team 6 - kept in tact, target on its back and all - simply carried out its assigned duty.  So, is the fault theirs? Or their commander's?  Or the people of Afghanistan?  Or is it yours for not doing enough to prevent it -- just as the victims in Dresden got what they deserved for not preventing Hitler?

 
Another set of contradictions comes from the demand that "something" be done "right now." In other words, that every perception of aggression demands an immediate and overwhelming response.  That simply is not true. As I have noted here, my degrees (BS 2008, MA 2010) are in criminology. Before I enrolled in college or at university, I had private training sponsored by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Acadmenty.  In a class for frontline supervisors we were given a problem:  You and your partner are called to a robbery in progress.  When you leave your vehicle and approach the scene, the perpetrators burst from the store, firing.  Your partner goes down. The perpetrators get in their car and flee.  What do you do?  Do you stay with your partner or pursue?  The Los Angeles Police Department in particular has a policy of relentless pursuit. Your partner is down, let the EMTs handle it: you go after the perpetrators. (The class had some discussion on this...)  Some years later, I was on patrol in campus safety at midnight in the summer with a young man who had completed his bachelor's and who was in the community college police academy.  I told him the story.  When I suggested pursuit, he replied: "Thanks, a lot, Marotta. Now I know where you stand if I go down."  I attempted to backpedal.  He said, "You cannot kill a policeman, a fireman, a school crossing guard, no one in protective services, not even us, without every law enforcement officer in America - and maybe the world - chasing you for the rest of your life.  So, stay with your partner and let them do the chasing."
 
So, with the hostage situation above, it suggests that the perpetrators could get away (temporarily); the police could fall back (strategically).  Again, not to discuss that but to look at the wider scenario of nations at war: it is not necessary to go to war, even if someone declares war on you.  Germany had been attacking shipping in the Atlantic before war was declared.  What was the difference?  
 
Above, I mentioned the War of 1812, but America has suffered many invasions from Mexico. Pancho Villa, the Garza Rebellion, and others all violated US territory.  The US Army and others pursued the criminals, but the USA did not declare war on Mexico.  In the case of German U-boats in the Atlantic, the USA could simple have asked for warrants against the individual captains and treated them entirely as persons per se, denying their German military status.  Going to war was not causally required.

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/29, 8:19pm)



Post 6

Monday, September 29 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Marotta,

The last time the USA was invaded, it was by Great Britain, in August 1814.  No Germans, no Japanese....

I don't understand you. You think that when the Japanese dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor that doesn't count as an invasion because they didn't have armed troups that came ashore?  Don't bombs count when they invade one's space and kill people?  Am I understanding you correctly? And if they didn't invade, by your definition, then it doesn't count as an act of war?  As for Germany, they declared war on us and started sinking our ships.  That doesn't count because it wasn't an "invasion"?  If missle were launched at us, do we have to wait till they land before we can act?  Why have you attached yourself to the word "invasion" as if that were the only way that a war can be initiated?

 --------------

 

And you think that the killing of a single civilian, say during bombing raids on Normandy before the landing during WWII, would be an example of "just collectivism of the worst kind. [And] includes racism, muscle-mysticism, and a raft of stolen concepts"? Is that really what you think? Are you saying that a nation would have to loose a war rather than to do anything that might kill a civilian or it would be acting immorally in its form of defense?

 

Then you are either a pacifist, or an advocate of tactical limitations that simply would never work in attempting to defend a country that was attacked by a serious enemy.

-------------

As for 9/11, true enough that they were Saudis, however, we certainly do not want the American govenrment to go after Americans because Bill Ayers, Ted Kaczinsky,  Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Robert Rudolph were Americans.  

Actually, the Saudi government itself is a sponsor of terror quite apart from 9/11.  Your argument kind of falls apart.

-------------

 

And are you advocating a policy of finding each individual who participated in some kind of attack, whether as a uniformed soldier, or as terrorist dressed in civilian clothes, and trying them as individuals who initiated force? Can you tell me how you would have found each German soldier in WWII and put them on trial? And how you would bring home for a trial all terrorists currently training, supporting or operating as ISIS?  And I'm still scratching my head figuring out you plan to win any war if you can't use bombs.... I guess you have decided that letting American ground forces be killed in the thousands when we could have used air power is okay.

 

So, imagine that there was a German soldier on trial for shooting an American GI, and the German said, "Well, I was moving into France with my armored division when this American started shooting at me. I had to shoot back as an act of self-defense. And he wasn't defending his country from me, because I didn't invade his country.  And he was over here in Vichy France and neither their government nor mine invited him."  Innocent by Marotta logic?

----------------

 

I don't like the idea that an innocent civilian that gets killed by a bomb from the country that is defending itself has to be seen as the moral victim of the aggressor nation, instead of the nation that bombed the civilian.  On the surface it seems like the death is being disconnected from the act that brought it about.  No body likes that, but the logic is that someone is morally culpable, and it isn't the nation that is doing what it must to defend its citizens.  The physical death was caused by the bomb, which was dropped as a choice - the choice to defend against a massive initiation of force.  But that isn't where the moral blame lies.  When a person dies in an attempted armed robbery, and it turns out that during the shoot-out, it was a cop's bullet that killed the bystander, as long as the cop was in policy (not being careless), then that killing is on the robber and he will have murder added to the robbery charges.

 

You seem to have a real penchant for floating abstractions.  When you disconnect the purpose of defending the nation when needed, with the force needed, from considerations of specific war-time acts, then you have gone floating.



Post 7

Monday, September 29 - 8:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

SW:   "Well, I was moving into France with my armored division when this American started shooting at me. I had to shoot back as an act of self-defense. And he wasn't defending his country from me, because I didn't invade his country.  And he was over here in Vichy France and neither their government nor mine invited him."

 

Complicated, is it not?

 

Conferencing with Yoda

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/29, 8:37pm)



Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, September 29 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Now that's just a special kind of stupid..



Post 9

Monday, September 29 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In the case of German U-boats in the Atlantic, the USA could simple have asked for warrants against the individual captains and treated them entirely as persons per se, denying their German military status.

 

That would be an act of denial - either psychologically denying the facts, or philosophically denying the simple truth that a nation was waging war. (Or both.) It would be silly if it weren't so dangerous. We've seen the progressives attempt again and again to deny that this or that nation is actively supporting terrorism. We've seen them attempting to deny that the terrorism has anything to do with Islamic fundamentalism. We've seen them attempting to deny even that there is any terrorism or terrorists - just individual man-made disasters. This is idiocy at its worst.

--------------

 

With the hostage situation, the focus should not be on whether the robbers were in the wrong - they were, or whether or not they should be shot at - if it was safe to do so they should. The focus should be on whether the police acted intelligently in that particular context. Most police forces have very specific policies that define when to shoot or not shoot, and how to carry out the shooting. Policies that are designed to keep them safe, and to keep civilians safe, while defeating the criminals. You can't take a pacificst approach, nor does it make any sense to take a wild-west shoot-em up approach. If the policies are well thought out, but not followed, then this isn't a good example. If the policies weren't well thought out, then that is the problem.
------------------

...the civilians [being killed in war] are anonymous. They are just people who were not involved but who were lumped into a collective they have chosen not to join.

It isn't their choice or absence of a choice that the moral judgment rests upon.  That's a strawman.  Did the aggressor nation initiate a war? Does the war they started constitute enough of a threat to warrant a national response?  Will the response be based upon rules of engagement that bring as much force to bear as needed to win the war (that's the purpose after all) and are they written so as to minimize the deaths of Americans?  Those are the essentials.  

 

We should never have gone to war in Vietnam, but when we were at war, the choice was to fight it full out, or bring everyone home. The in-between of staying at war, losing tens of thousands of American lives, and not engaging in full out bombing was something that Nixon and LBJ should have been put in prison for doing.
-----------------

 

Marotta writes:

....someone else decides that you are a Kraut or a Jap or a Gook, and therefore you deserve to die.

No, that's not the national policy. The policy is to steadfastly find the best way to end the war with as little loss to your country's citizens. War is the ultimate Hell and those who start it, do have the death of their own citizens on their heads. But the Progressives can't ever blame another nation, or even bank robbers or terrorists... only America.  And those they disagree with are automatically labeled racists.
------------------

In the specific case here of Seal Team 6 it was said that they were not allowed to fire back at someone who launched a rocket-propelled grenade at their helicopter because the building itself might have held innocent non-combatants. The argument stops there. But why? Why must be we accept that context, and not a wider one?

We focus on that context because it contains the issue that was raised. And the wider context Marotta alludes to is the floating abstraction coming from progressives failure to understand war - we should never have any they cry (blanking out the initiation of war by others) - they want to say that individuals can choose not to have war, so we shouldn't ever have to fire a weapon or bomb.  Notice how steadfastly their criticism is of Americans defending themselves and never terrorists or totalitarians who attacked.
------------------

Another set of contradictions comes from the demand that "something" be done "right now." In other words, that every perception of aggression demands an immediate and overwhelming response. That simply is not true.

The response should not be to ignore the aggression, which Neville Chamberlain learned, but to focus on the purpose of any action proposed.  There are times where an immediate response would be less desireable. There are times for a measured response.  And there are times for an immediate and overwhelming response.  But progressives will never see that.  They will always shy away from any defense, if it is of America.



Post 10

Monday, September 29 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

William Dwyer,

 

I am in favor of retaliatory force used against evident foreign agressors.  I agree this can result in resentment by some, and result in an escalation of violence.  I wouldn't call this blowback.

 

I'd say blowback is only caused by when we go into a country that is going through a civil war, or even we start a civil war in a country, and then give biased military or economic support to one side of the internal conflict.  Essentially in this we are initiating force against a foreign group of people.

 

I fail to see how it is in our interest to continue fighting these militant groups in the middle east.  Them behedding a few American journalists is far from a good reason to spend billions of dollars waging war.  Its a risk the journalist takes for going to such a place-- not the American taxpayer's responsibility.  Time to make a truce and pull out.

 

I don't think Iran is that big of a threat.  Let them develop their nuclear weapons.  I don't think the threat of potentially being attacked by a nuclear weapon in the future is worth initiating a war against them.  If they did attack us with a nuke, most of us would survive.  And then our survivors would erase them from the earth...  so I don't think they'd mess with us with a nuke.  Or... I guess you are saying they are like irrisponsible/incompitent, and hence we shouldn't allow them to have nukes.  I guess that makes sense...  so then we should make a clear foreign policy with them, stating what we'd do if they did accuire a nuke.  Otherwise leave them alone.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, October 2 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael:

 

Some have theorized  after the fact that we should have dropped the first bomb in Tokyo Bay, as a demonstation of force.

 

But Japan was still waging war, not only when the first bomb was dropped, but after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

 

The war in Europe was over, and those forces were being staged for an eventual invasion of Japan.

 

The choices in the Pacific were:

 

1] Drop the bomb on Hiroshima; that should have ended the conflict.  It didn't until second bomb was dropped.  The reasons for that are mainly disbelief in the face of something unkown.   They were slow to read the writing on the wall, which was, the conflict had been decided.    Imperfectly.   Because the dropping of the second bomb could have been part development effort, a perceived benefit.   But moot; it was a percieved benefit during a conflict when men and women were dying in conflict; the humane way to end a war is 'as quickly as possible.'    The least offensive way is not necessarily the most quick or most humane way to end a conflict, if limited conflict results in enldess drawn out conflict over years and years and years of a meatgrinder grinding away.

 

2] Invade Japan with conventional force.   That would not have been a bloodless event.   Lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificed horribly, no doubt, but it's not like there was another reasonable choice in which lives would not have been sacrificed horribly.  The difference is the speed of the meatgrinder.   Would more or less lives been lost in a ground invasion?

 

There is no doubt about this, at least; more American lives would have been lost.   As for Japanese lives, there is no telling; that was the road not taken.  We can barely see to the end of the road actually taken, much less, the end of the road not taken.    The victors of conflict get to make those choices, that is the nature of conflict.

 

3] Unilaterally end the war while the conflict was still ongoing.  Retreat back to the shores of America and do nothing.  Again.   Concede the conflict in the Pacific to Japan.   Keep those 48 stars on the flag and call it a day.  Hope for world peace.

 

My old man survived the 5th Armored being all but destroyed.  He survived being absorbed into Patton's 2nd.   He survived Huertgen Forest.   He and his young buddies, after prevailing in that state run amok conflict, were preparing to head to Japan.   And Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended the war.

 

I was lucky.   My old man sailed back to NY Harbor and I showed up 10 yrs later in this Disneyland.  

 

Others were not.   That is the nature of conflict.

 

Conflict is -avoided- in the future through the credible use of force in the past to defend freedom.   Does anyone see any signs today of a dominated / conquered Germany or Japan?   You are welcome.

 

And what about Iraq?  We have our own idiots running rampant in our own nation -still- spouting this 'Blood for Oil' nonsense when the fact is there hasn't been 20 milliseconds that have transpired in any of this when Iraq did not remain a member of OPEC.   These closet instructed little commies spouting this bullshit here are just fucking idiots, period.    American Oil Industry helped rebuild the Iraq infrastructure?  No shit; who should have done it, a committe of PolitSci idiots with their pet Soc grad school theories?  Of course it would be the American Oil Industry.   America's infestation with anti-capitalist closet commie instructoids is where all this internal attack nonsense comes from.  If Iraq was all about Oil, then we need to get alot better at the conquering oil grabber business.

 

The corollary to what comes from the credible use of force is, conflict is -invited- in the future through the non-credible use of force in the past.  As in, what we just did -- again -- in Iraq.

 

Which is the path to a peaceful future?   By squandering credibility-- via endless handwringing apologies for being the United Fucking States of America-- our well meaning Goodfellow actions because surely the handwriting is on the wall, modernity won and reasonable people all get it and it isn't necessary to endlessly prove the point and limited-actions and fair-fight limited conflicts and covert bullshit on one hand while gladhanding with the other ... has done nothing but -squander- the sacrifice made at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and render them pointless.

 

America successfully fought totalitarianism in the 40s through 1989... just to sell out freedom and implement its own flavor of totalitatrianism?

 

What the Hell was the point?

 

regards,

Fred



Post 12

Thursday, October 2 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

My father was also in WW-II, first in N.W. Africa, then Scicily, then he landed on the beaches of Southern France, then up through France, to Austria and then Germany.  The Germans were surrendering in great numbers towards the end - he was in Austria at the time, but he thought it was a local thing, and not the approaching surrender.  When they did receive the German surrender he thought the same thing your Dad did.... next was going to be the Pacific.  

 

If we hadn't used atomic bombs there are many of us post-WWII babies that wouldn't have been born.  My father was lucky to have made it home as it was - with two purple hearts and bronze star he would never discuss.

 

The Japanese were talking about a surrender just before Hiroshima, because they saw they were losing, but they were going to make the Americans come ashore in Japan and suffer great loses so that when Japan offered to surrender, they would get much better terms.  These were leaders on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War who were starting to think that no amount of sacrifice of their troops or ours were too much, if it would let them negotiate away any war crimes issues - even after we dropped the second atomic weapon, the War Council wasn't ready to surrender until the Emperor ordered it.

 

I thought your analysis was spot on.



Post 13

Thursday, October 2 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Now they are saying the IS conflict could drag on for years.  Of couse this is something IS wants.  I have been slagged for suggesting the US use neutron bombs to destroy them both physically and morally.  Why?  They are very effective.  They can be tailor made to be small and localized.  Very little damage to infrastructure and no radioactive fall out.  Able to penetrate several feet underground so the bastards can't hide in "HAMAS " style tunnels.  Will also minimize civilian casualties with proper placement.  In essence they are designed as people killers. 

They also like the bombs dropped in Japan would send a clear "Don't tread on me " message.

If they had been used in Vietnam that war would have ended in under a month.  The vietcong tunnels would have been mass graves with little to no loss of American lives and the US would have won that war.

If the US were to use them against IS it would send a clear message that the US is under no obligation to fight a war and sacrifice American lives.  Currently they are relatively concentrated in a few areas they could be vaporized easily.  It would be the only method of winning an "air only" war.

Would the world cry "foul" yes.  Should the US give a shit?  Hell no.  By far it is a better outcome than "turning the ME" into a sheet of glass that conventional nukes would create. They were originally designed to take out tank devisions as well as to intercept incoming nuclear warheads.

Massive LOCALIZED death of enemy combatants.

zero to minimal civilian casualties, zero US troop losses.

Incredible overwhelming "shock and awe" value.  

Unfortunately the US has te moved them from their arsenal.  Maybe that should change.



Post 14

Thursday, October 2 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There are two kinds of terrorists:  Those who willingly risk their lives (some of them actually want to die, and other are just willing to go to front lines and fight as long as they don't see it as suicidal).  The other kind of terrorist stays safe and hidden and supplies money and/or materials or creates propoganda, or trains or recruits... but always in ways that leave him safe.

 

If we were to magically eliminate everyone of the first kind, our reprieve would only be temporary.  New front line troups would be found, trained and funded by the second kind.  This second kind is who we have to go after.



Post 15

Thursday, October 2 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Follow the money and kill it..



Post 16

Thursday, October 2 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Follow the money and kill it

Exactly!  Without money, all those fanatical idiots riding around in the back of pickup trucks and stolen HumVees with their AK-47s couldn't afford gasoline, bullets, or the next meal.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.