|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.
Is there a tariff? Like, is it worth 10 foreign deaths to keep you safe? 100? 1000? Or is there no limit?
Which news would upset you the most: that a terrorist nuclear bomb had killed a hundred thousand people in Khazakhstan? Or that someone had shot your daughter?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have we learned anything?
No.
Same thing is happening with Iran.
Not really. I think even the US government realised that Iran is a lot bigger deal than Iraq. The British certainly does.
Though they have to pretend ther eis a real possibility that they might start a war because if they don't they think everyone else will take advantage of them. What's the point of being a gigantic military superpower you let people know you aren't going to kill them? Look what happend to the Soviet Union. As soon as it became obvious that they weren't going to start World War Three just to keep Poland and Lithuania and Hungary and and Armenia so on in their camp, everyone stopped doing what they were told! We can't be having that can we? We've got to let these uppitty little countries think we might attack them, just so they know who is boss.
(Of course Iran isn't really an uppitty little country, which is part of the problem)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.
Then you have to decide if killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers. I suppose the usual argument is to say that the former are innocent, therefore it is more reprehensible. However, killing is killing.
If there are gradations of evil then blowing up babies to get your way is more evil than shooting back at soldiers who are shooting at you. Regardless of the merits of your cause.
Which brings us back to the previous question:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Its how you fight that makes you a terrorist, not what you are fighting for or whether you wear a uniform. Government troops can be terrorists as well, whether out of uniform (the pogroms in 19th century Russia or the various "disappearances" and "dirty wars" of 20th century South America) or in (area bombing, mass rape, nerve gas)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Its how you fight that makes you a terrorist, not what you are fighting for or whether you wear a uniform. Government troops can be terrorists as well, whether out of uniform (the pogroms in 19th century Russia or the various "disappearances" and "dirty wars" of 20th century South America) or in (area bombing, mass rape, nerve gas)
Please tell me you are not ignoring the terror spread by the British, Americans, Belgians, South Africans, Australians, etc.
The more I learn about how civilised nation prosecute war, the less I can differentiate.
How would you free yourself, bring pause to a massive nation's atrocities or corrosive foreign policy, etc. if you have no army, little wealth or no recognized state?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.
Total war as practiced for the past 70 years certainly does not seem to discriminate between civilians and soldiers. Consider USA nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombing in the central Asian republics by the Russians, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. This list could be very lengthy.
As has been suggested, "terrorist" is a relative term, depending on your perspective. The American revolutionaries were terrorists by the definition of instilling terror and their behaviour in colonies like New York if you were a royalist. "Shock and awe" by definition were designed to terrorise the population of Iraq.
It might be interesting to know the definition of a "rogue state", or perhaps this term is only used by "mavericks".
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?
No, I don't think that's fair. The aim of "Shock and Awe" was to pulverise the Iraqi armed forces (ie. the actual enemy) in such a dramatic and rapid fashion that everyone just rolls over and gives up. This is not the same as pounding civilians into dust and scaring the other civilians into removing their government so they won't get pounded.
Whether it was successful is debatable, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.
I'll bite: The degree of evil is many dimensional, some of which are comparatively easier to measure and some of which are rather difficult to measure. Some of the dimensions include the number of victims, the amount of harm to each victim, the degree of intent to cause harm, the amount of premeditation, the defenselessness of the victims, and the innocence of the victims with regard to the situation. Torturing to death a lot of infants as a pastime would be extremely evil. Killing an enemy soldier in combat before s/he has a chance to surrender would not be. When all but one or two of the dimensions are the same in two cases being compared, it can become easier to decide which is more evil. In the example you mention, most of the dimensions are the same (e.g. number of victims and amount of harm), so the primary features that distinguish the two cases are the defenselessness and the innocence of the babies.
However, something tells me that I've misunderstood your question. Do you believe that there is no value in trying to distinguish between degrees of evil?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.
I'll bite: The degree of evil is many dimensional, some of which are comparatively easier to measure and some of which are rather difficult to measure. Some of the dimensions include the number of victims, the amount of harm to each victim, the degree of intent to cause harm, the amount of premeditation, the defenselessness of the victims, and the innocence of the victims with regard to the situation. Torturing to death a lot of infants as a pastime would be extremely evil. Killing an enemy soldier in combat before s/he has a chance to surrender would not be. When all but one or two of the dimensions are the same in two cases being compared, it can become easier to decide which is more evil. In the example you mention, most of the dimensions are the same (e.g. number of victims and amount of harm), so the primary features that distinguish the two cases are the defenselessness and the innocence of the babies.
However, something tells me that I've misunderstood your question. Do you believe that there is no value in trying to distinguish between degrees of evil?
That's a good reply. I'm just curious how people decide, and you have given a reasonable explanation. I'm still not convinced, as to me it seems to boil down to emotional repulsion. It just seems more repellent to kill a baby. But does that mean it is more immoral?
This comes up with people like the Yorkshire Ripper, and again, I'm not sure that he's evil. To me he seems bonkers.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?
No, I don't think that's fair. The aim of "Shock and Awe" was to pulverise the Iraqi armed forces (ie. the actual enemy) in such a dramatic and rapid fashion that everyone just rolls over and gives up. This is not the same as pounding civilians into dust and scaring the other civilians into removing their government so they won't get pounded.
You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.
[ 22. March 2013, 13:21: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.
Sorry, that would be up. The revisiors need to shove that up their "memory" hole.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.
Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.
You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.
My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and re the last point ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
[ 22. March 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.
No we didn't. Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.
I think I asked this before - did this actually happen?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
We may never know.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
How could we not know? If you're going to occupy a country for monetary gain, you're not doing it for a fiver, you're doing it for millions (if not billions) of dollars. Who owns large industrial facilities and who is contracted to extract oil from a particular area are bits of information that tend to be in the public domain.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.
I think I asked this before - did this actually happen?
One of the first buildings secured by the allied forces when they took Baghdad: the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
Not secured: many of the places cited as WMD facilities by the allies before the war.
It's not proof, but it's highly suggestive.
Here's a list of many of the Iraq War's architects and boosters on the subject.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!
Doing them a favour, really. Get to meet god sooner. Humanitarian it is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How could we not know? If you're going to occupy a country for monetary gain, you're not doing it for a fiver, you're doing it for millions (if not billions) of dollars. Who owns large industrial facilities and who is contracted to extract oil from a particular area are bits of information that tend to be in the public domain.
Before the war Saddam had indicated a reluctance to award oil extraction contracts to British or American firms. (Those were the two countries maintaining the No Fly Zones.) French or Russian firms were considered the favorites to get oil contracts when the sanction regime ended, as was looking increasingly likely. Fast forward a bit and oh look!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!
Doing them a favour, really. Get to meet god sooner. Humanitarian it is.
And don't forget the 70 virgins.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's not proof, but it's highly suggestive.
I'm not sure it's suggestive of anything. The only real export that Iraq has is oil. To get cash after the invasion, the only thing that Iraq can sell is oil. Therefore, it seems logical to safeguard the oil ministry so that the process of extracting oil is disrupted as little as possible. As the army officer says in the article:
quote:
The United States, he said, is only safeguarding Iraq's potential which would otherwise be considered game for looters.
quote:
Here's a list of many of the Iraq War's architects and boosters on the subject.
I'll look at this in more detail. I suppose when people say 'the war was about oil' it could mean two things:
i) politicians gaining access to oil supplies for personal gain (which seems to be the implication made above); or
ii) ensuring that a certain oil supply is available for use by other nations and does not fall into the hands of those with hostile aims.
While (i) appears to have been alleged, I haven't seen any evidence for it (though I'm open to be convinced that there is evidence for it).
On (ii), I think this could be a justifiable war aim. The West needs oil. We all use motor vehicles and plastics. If there is a danger that oil supplies to the West are being interfered with or are likely to fall into nefarious hands, I think there can be a case for doing something about it. Admittedly, the case for doing this wasn't set out before the invasion.
[ 22. March 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Surely the oil debate could be settled if someone had access to records which showed where Iraqi oil was going before the 03 invasion and, more significantly , where it is going now.
When pulling up to my local fuel station I sometimes wonder , do *I* really give two hoots as to where the petrol and diesel comes from ? Or indeed who gets killed of injured in order to ensure there is a constant supply .
The Iraq war wasn't just about oil it was about the security of the Middle East as a whole , (the oil-rich Middle East that is ).
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
On (ii), I think this could be a justifiable war aim. The West needs oil. We all use motor vehicles and plastics. If there is a danger that oil supplies to the West are being interfered with or are likely to fall into nefarious hands, I think there can be a case for doing something about it. Admittedly, the case for doing this wasn't set out before the invasion.
Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And don't forget the 70 virgins.
Who was the comedian who said that he preferred to disappoint one woman at a time?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fast forward a bit and oh look!
And it seems China, Malaysia and India were major beneficiaries of these contracts too, who I don't remember being lead members of the Coalition of the Willing.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".
I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).
[ 22. March 2013, 18:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".
I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).
I'm not so sure. "Ensuring availability" at gunpoint after a massive military invasion (and during the subsequent occupation) can be very difficult to distinguish from "looting". For instance, Iraq tried to "ensure the availability" of Kuwait's oilfields in 1990, but that was considered "looting" by the Western powers (and most of Iraq's neighbors).
Here's a transcript of President Bush's "ultimatum speech", given about two days before the outbreak of war. The key bits:
quote:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
<snip>
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
This is kind of the official "mission statement" of why the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq and what they (officially) hoped to accomplish. In bullet point form they essentially boil down to:
- Eliminate Iraq's stockpile of WMDs
- Break the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qæda
- Establish a peaceful (implied "democratic") government in Iraq
Given the weakness of the evidence supporting the first two and the fact that the third was rarely talked about until ~3 weeks before the invasion (and was tacked on to the end of Bush's speech like an afterthought, only one paragraph up from "God bless America") the idea that the Bush administration (and its allies) were operating from ulterior motives is not unreasonable.
So, how well did they accomplish these goals?
Eliminate Iraq's stockpile of WMDs: As it turns out, this one was kind of a "gimme". It had already been accomplished before the first bomb was dropped. A generous grader would give half credit. Someone not so generous would point out a whole lot of people died needlessly because of it.
Break the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qæda: This one gets negative credit. Not only did Iraq not have any ties to al Qæda before the war, removing Saddam Hussein actually gave them the opportunity to start up their "al Qæda in Iraq" branch office. It took a lot of blood and treasure to get that shut down.
Establish a peaceful/democratic government in Iraq: Not so far. Iraq remains an incredibly violent and dangerous place, and the Maliki government seems to be consolidating power in a very undemocratic manner.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).
I don't doubt that any of us living in the luxury of Developed Countries would deny that it's in our interest to have plenty of oil to fritter away as we please .
Question is , can it be morally justifiable to send an army into someone else's country for our own material gain ? I suppose yes , seeing as how it used to be seen as morally OK to bless slave ships.
My own assessment of the 2nd Iraq war is that it was extremely dubious from the start .
I shamefully admit to being Churchillilian myself in the beginning . When the hunt for WMD's turned up zilch and a torrent of internal violence was unleashed I , like many , thought -- this is total shit .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.
And if they decide to invade Iran -- hoo boy! -- it's going to make Iraq and Vietnam look like playground spats.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And if they decide to invade Iran -- hoo boy! -- it's going to make Iraq and Vietnam look like playground spats.
For Iran, the Iraq War was a fairly important object lesson. Along with Iraq and North Korea, Iran is a charter member of the "Axis of Evil". As such, they pay particularly close attention to how the other two have been treated by the U.S.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and has been subjected to economic sanctions and six party talks.
Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and was invaded by the U.S. and its leadership executed or imprisoned.
Given the two alternatives that seem to be open to it, why wouldn't the Iranian leadership choose to develop nuclear weapons? It seems to be the only thing that's guaranteed to keep the Americans from invading. This is a prime example of a perverse incentive.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.
Clearly, they were glib in their assessment, but pointing that out to them might seem like a tacit acceptance that it's a valid justification, as though the war would have been fine if only it had been fast and easy.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You] may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.
The wikipedia text you cite talks about targeting civilian infrastructure. I think there's a difference between targeting infrastructure and the intentional civilian killing exemplified by the Dresden raid or Hiroshima. Shock and awe is supposed to be an attempt to get the psychological effects of Hiroshima without the actual civilian death-toll. That's the supposed aim. Whether it works out that way in practice is another thing.
Really, I think the doctrine is merely War-Lite for voter consumption. New Diet-War: none of the messy body bags; same great macho posturing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.
The wikipedia text you cite talks about targeting civilian infrastructure. I think there's a difference between targeting infrastructure and the intentional civilian killing exemplified by the Dresden raid or Hiroshima. Shock and awe is supposed to be an attempt to get the psychological effects of Hiroshima without the actual civilian death-toll. That's the supposed aim. Whether it works out that way in practice is another thing.
Very much another thing. I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties. I'm also not sure there's a moral distinction between dropping bombs on civilians and dropping bombs on municipal power and water stations in a desert city.
quote:
A: You pushed him off the roof. You killed him!
B: Technically, it was gravity that killed him.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The U.S. will never do anything about North Korea because of China. China invests $6 billion/annually, both publicly and privately, in the North Korean economy to keep it afloat because they don't want it to collapse, unify with South Korea and possibly have U.S. troops on China's doorstep. China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).
North Korea is never going to be a serious player in the 6 party talks because the government gets legitimacy by casting Japan and the US is imminent threats. While the regime uses over-the-top language about attacking the U.S., etc. the rhetoric is mostly produced for internal consumption - to show their strength at home. All that regime cares about is maintaining power.
South Korea doesn't want North Korea to collapse because of the cost of integrating North Korea into the South Korean economy is prohibitive. The income gap between North and South is 50 times greater than Germany's when they unified, and the populations between the two Koreas are much closer than the two Germanys. There is also a historical rivalry between northern and southern Korea that existed long before they were divided that West and East Germany never had; this serves as a subtle barrier to warm relations.
Also, as bad as the war in Iraq was, the population density of the Koreas is much greater so any death tolls will be far higher; Seoul is only 50km from the DMZ and South Korea is far too big a world economic power to have its economy disrupted by a war without global implications.
This is why North Korea can be as provocative as it wants, even building WMDs and shelling South Korean territory, without a response. I don't foresee much chance of military action against North Korea by the west anytime in the future.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The U.S. will never do anything about North Korea because of China. China invests $6 billion/annually, both publicly and privately, in the North Korean economy to keep it afloat because they don't want it to collapse, unify with South Korea and possibly have U.S. troops on China's doorstep. China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).
"Fractious provinces"? Is that what the PRC calls independent nations?
I begin to see the root of the problem... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).
"Fractious provinces"? Is that what the PRC calls independent nations?
I begin to see the root of the problem...
Independent non-nations, in the case of Taiwan. Both the Peoples Republic of China and the government in Taiwan officially maintain that Taiwan is part of China. They just disagree as to which is the legitimate government of China. That the reality as it exists on the ground bears no relation to the reality that exists on paper is a bit of a vexation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
rolyn - I was worse, I KNEW there were no WMDs. And I was ALL for it. Said both here 10 years ago. God forgive me. I even argued for more war, that we weren't bellicose enough by half.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.
We got rid of Saddam. I don't give a rat's arse about oil-based conspiracy theories. At best it meant that we also protected the west's economy, which is "A Very Good Thing" in it's own right. But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.
I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet. To ensure that we need to pressure states like North Korea to give them up, and make states that want to develop them - Iran for example - think twice, and if that means using military muscle on them, so be it.
Is there a tariff to keep my family safe from terrorism? No, of course not! What a stupid question.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.
Reading your post gives me a clue too.
quote:
We got rid of Saddam. I don't give a rat's arse about oil-based conspiracy theories. At best it meant that we also protected the west's economy, which is "A Very Good Thing" in it's own right. But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.
And who is filling the void by Saddam in Iraq? That left by Gaddafi in Libya? That which will be left in Syria in the near future too for that matter? These will be more closely aligned to the forces you fear than were the previous regimes.
quote:
I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet. To ensure that we need to pressure states like North Korea to give them up, and make states that want to develop them - Iran for example - think twice, and if that means using military muscle on them, so be it.
Is there a tariff to keep my family safe from terrorism? No, of course not! What a stupid question.
Don't worry about North Korea. The Chinese will keep the nutjobs that run that place in check because any serious action will fuck-up the Asian economic miracle in seconds. I worry much more about Pakistan, as that already has the Bomb, and it won't take many more stupid acts by Western governments to cause a revolution which would put a very different type of government in power there.
If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.
The implication being, of course, that if we stop locking them up or killing them, then they will stop the terrorism.
I disagree. I think they will continue to engage in terrorist acts. In fact they will engage in more of them.
So if they are going to keep on killing us anyway, then we have a moral duty to kill them first.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's what Jesus said and did after all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.
The implication being, of course, that if we stop locking them up or killing them, then they will stop the terrorism.
Read the bit I have italicised, for full comprehension.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties.
For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results. I think it's worth anti-war protestors saying that killing civilians on purpose is worse than killing them as a side-effect, even if one thinks that killing them as a side-effect is also something that one shouldn't do.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties.
For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results. I think it's worth anti-war protestors saying that killing civilians on purpose is worse than killing them as a side-effect, even if one thinks that killing them as a side-effect is also something that one shouldn't do.
If the side-effect is 100% guaranteed, can it really be said to be a side-effect? If you could bomb a power station (say) without any civilian casualties, and took care to try to do it during a time of day when there wouldn't be any civilians around to be casualized, then maybe I could give you the "unintended results" thing. But is that a reasonable expectation, and do they really take that kind of care? If not then what is happening is that they are bombing infrastructure+civilians, and using the infrastructure destruction as an excuse for taking out civilians. Seems to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what Jesus said and did after all.
He did indeed. Kill the enemy before they kill you. Can't quite find the quote, but I know it's somewhere.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.
What a silly generalization. Reading comments such as yours makes it starkly clear how myopic some viewpoints are, a myopia that reflects paranoia, fearful arrogance and utter inability to put oneself in another's shoes.
Personally I do not hate the western part of the world in which i live and am a product of. However, I do hate ignorant and willful disregard of people out of one own's self-defined culture set. It has been by and large some Western powers (or their economic and political elites) that have colonized and humiliated other peoples for said powers own selfish benefit, not the other way around.
Though the last time any part of Europe was "conquered" by a non-European power (and, horrors, Islamic power to boot) i.e. Spain in the early Middle Ages, that part was the most culturally advanced part of Europe. (and, by most accounts, the only halfway sanitary part as well.)
[ 24. March 2013, 03:54: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Deano. Oh yes you do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.
An assassin's bullet could have achieved that.
I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet.
Nice to know we can all agree on one thing then.
--------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Iraq war has happened , we can't unhappen it . It didn't seem to go to plan , but then show me a war that does . We always seem to fall for that -"It'll all be over by Christmas"- every single time .
Now, as with all wars, the only thing to be done is pick up the pieces and try to prevent future wars . The last point usually proves the most difficult .
Empires will always have barbarians rattling the gate. I don't hate the empire in which I have the good fortune to live , although I'd rather it didn't have the appearance of an empire to those who are outside of it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Though the last time any part of Europe was "conquered" by a non-European power (and, horrors, Islamic power to boot) i.e. Spain in the early Middle Ages...
The last time? Well the Magyar conquest of what is now Hungary wasn't much later and they came from somewhere round the Urals so might just have passed as European. But even if we count the Ottoman Empire as an Islamicised but culturally European successor state to the Roman Empire ruled by a small Turkish elite (which you could sort of get away with with a lot of handwaving) we still have the Mongol conquest of Russia.
Well known for being European, the Mongols...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
