This War Is For Real

[shootinstudent]

Not one person addressed why we think it's okay to hold people who aid and abet felonies partly culpable for the crimes but also call Osama bin Laden "pure evil" for holding us to the same standard?

You are confusing "aid and abet" here. We hold people responsible for material support to crimes. We do not hold them responsible for sitting at home watching crimes on TV, and saying 'Yeah! show those cops, crooks is good!"

But you seem to be arguing that it's okay to bomb millions of people who may or may not think bin laden is an okay guy responsible for just that, sitting at home reading the news and saying "Hey, bin laden's not as bad as america".

No comparison between the two.

 

[MiGalley]

Juh-eeeeeze Louise. . . .

Spend the day working and look what happens.

I am not going to jump into this battle of quotations--the waters at the deep end are clear enough; the shallow end of this swamp is a place I just don’t need to go.

That said, Semper Fidelis puts forth a well-reasoned argument.

To his point, collateral damage is the issue here, NOT genocide. To use them synonymously is riduculous; more so, to attempt to ground an argument on the shifting sands of semantics and non-contextual quotations is absurdly juvenile. :banghead:

So, let's try this. . . .

The quick analogy I:

Let’s pretend I’m the “genocider” [sic]. (Thanks, Mr. President.)

Genocide is what results when I embark on an intentional and willful pogrom of systematic extermination, of a specific and defined population, that results in your death because you are member of the targeted group. The rationale for the pogrom can be any number of things of my choosing, including but not limited to race, gender, culture, religion, hair color, type of ear lobe, Cubs v Sox fan, xenophobia, bad clams at lunch, ad infinitum. Genocide means I am wiping every trace of you and your ilk from the map and the pages of history. It's not an "all or nothing" thing; It's "all and nothing": all me, and nothing where you once existed in both concrete and abstract terms. Genocide is intentional and “goal-driven.” Genocide is a vision unto itself.

The quick analogy II:

Let’s pretend I’m the “collateraler” [sic]. (Thanks again, Mr. President.)

Collateral damage is what results when I embark on a course of action that results in your unintended death as a matter of consequence, not intent. Collateral damage is a byproduct of the “otherwise”; it is “chaos-driven.” An example of collateral damage would be when I target the guy next to you, shoot him and you fall, too. I did not set out to kill you; just the same, you are now dead. Sorry about that; sucks to be you. You are now dead because my shot caused the guy next to you to explode. Well, actually, my shot did not cause him to explode; he exploded due to the layers of nails, screws, nuts, washers and explosives he had sandwiched between his skin and the layers of Saran Wrap he was wearing for skivvies beneath his coat. You see, he was intent on getting on the bus--public trans--along with the Israeli kids headed to school, moms and dads on their way to work, and the college student who was just a little too engrossed in the financial section of The Daily Star (that would be you). You would have noticed the guy in the heavy coat nervously crossing the street, the 3" of wires running from his cuff and into his closed fist, the same wires that terminated at the plunger he held down with his thumb (you see, the bombers figured out some time ago that the CNS works in such a way that if the shot doesn't instantly turn the brain stem into pink vapor, the resultant neural activity will cause the thumb and fingers to open like the petals of a flower: hence new switches that work on release rather than compression). But I digress. Now, everyone but you (because you had opted for the paper over situational awareness) and my target (because he didn't make it across the street in time) got on the bus drove away. As a second bus came down the street towards the stop, I shot . . . just as the bomber raised his hand to his higher power and in so doing changed the configuration of my target. Still a head shot, but not a perfect shot. He blew up; so did you. Still sucks to be you. Even so, you were not my intended target, neither was anyone other than the man in my sights. I did not seek to exterminate or annihilate a specific group of people. More so, I sought to preserve the lives of many by taking the life of one. I know this is an exceedingly difficult concept for some to understand, but there are times when one must take life in order to save life. Collateral damage is not intentional—it is not a goal but an outcome. Collateral damage is a consequence or result of something else.

It is not fair. It is not easy. It is not clean. That’s life. Enough about that.

“Primitive Weapons”: fist, foot, forehead, rock, stick, deadfall, pot of burning oil, lance, mace, axe, bow, sword, spear, garrotte, etc.

“Conventional Weapons”: add to the above, firearms, “modern” edged weapons, conventional explosives—to include both high explosives and low explosives, explosive mixtures and explosive compounds (it gets scientific at this point; suffice it to say things that go “bang”) projectiles delivered via missile or artillery, aerial bombs, torpedoes, etc.

“Non-conventional Weapons”: any of the above used in a non-conventional manner (I love that one), biological (pffft-shucks; they’ve been around ever since Og and crew rolled the putrid dead mammoth into the creek upstream from the place where the neighboring tribe drew its water), chemical (the ancients beat us to this one, too), and radiological/nuclear weapons.

Weapons, no matter how large or small, are used to overwhelm or otherwise neutralize an enemy (threat). Weapons neutralize an enemy by causing trauma that results in incapacitation—be it immediate, delayed, temporary, or otherwise. We use weapons because weapons work. If they didn’t work, we wouldn’t use them. The multi-megaton nuclear warhead is no more than the evolution of the rifled artillery shell, which is the evolution of the cannonball, which is the evolution of the rock, which is the evolution of the fist, which is the evolution of the argument.

That is, I tried talking to you when you first threatened me and later attacked me, but you joined forces with another guy and together you persisted. So, I slugged you when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but the both of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I drilled you with a rock when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but you joined forces with yet another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I shot you when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but the lot of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I leveled your house with a cannonball when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but the lot of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I took out your block from high above with a 500-pound bomb (it was very substandard construction) threatened me and later attacked me, but the lot of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I destroyed your village with a cruise missile when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but the lot of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I fried all of your electronics and subsequently shut down your country with a tactical nuclear air-burst, when you again threatened me and later attacked me, but the lot of you joined forces with another guy and the lot of you persisted. So, I obliterated a comparatively small portion of your landscape with yet another tactical nuclear weapon (surface burst), resulting in some fallout, the destruction of a couple of square miles of your infrastructure, and if you persist in threatening me the lot of you will be rendered unable to attack me.

It’s that simple. It really is. The conversation simply becomes progressively more persuasive, culminating in the delivery of the ultimate persuasive essay.

That’s not genocide. That’s just smart business practice.

FWIW: Feel free to quote me if you have no ideas of your own, but please do so in context. As for my personal “recommendation,” you can’t go wrong with faith in God above; unwavering loyalty and devotion to those who love you in spite of yourself; anything in .45 ACP and especially those things true to the genius of JMB; a daily regimen of physical labor, three squares, and eight hours sleep; a nice small batch bourbon--in moderation, of course; and a fine cigar once a week. YMMVBIWFM

MiG

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Because you said it was being "wussy" to worry about civilian casualties. Forgive me if I assumed too much. This is a great opportunity for you to clarify yourself. Which targets do you propose nuking?

HA!!! (Like I'm going to name a few here, let alone because you demand it.)

I have no idea where you stand now, because this last post did everything to imply I was wrong to assume you supported using nukes to kill millions of people in the first half, and then in the above, to claim that this is a war of "annihilation" and that if we take the "honorable" path, we'll be "very dead."

So which is it? Are you advocating nuking millions of civilians in order to avoid being "noble but very dead", or are you advocating "surgical strikes" that somehow employ nukes but don't result in millions of deaths?

Must drive you insane, eh? Having all the answers but knowing very little after all. shootinstudent - your "discussion style" is tiresome; your "arguments" persist in being circuitous, so there's nothing I can tell you that you apparently don't already know or aren't ready to dissect for the sheer thrill of feeling superior.

 

[shootinstudent]

To have even a shot at claiming that you only intended to "neutralize the threat", the weapon has to be proportional to the target.

For example, if there's a white suspect in a series of murders, and I decide to march every white person in the city into a gas chamber under the guise of "neutralizing the threat", would you believe my claim?

Nuclear weapons are similar. By their nature, they cause damage and death so far beyond the bounds of any point-target that saying "oh, that's just collateral damage" is an absurdity.

It’s that simple. It really is. The conversation simply becomes progressively more persuasive, culminating in the delivery of the ultimate persuasive essay.

That’s not genocide. That’s just smart business practice.

It's proven ineffective. Just look at how well collective punishments worked in Afghanistan and Chechnya...

 

[MiGalley]

(sigh)

Get back on the porch, yappy lap dog.

MiG

 

[shootinstudent]

Interesting. I make a case against using Nuclear weapons as "persuasion" against terrorism because of millions of civilian deaths, and the answers I get are:

Must drive you insane, eh?

and

Get back on the porch, yappy lap dog.

Says a lot for the substance of the "let's just nuke our problems away" position.

 

[MiGalley]

No, really. Back on the porch, yappy lap dog.

MiG

 

[DRZinn]

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

 

[MiGalley]

I am sincerely sorry if I have offended anyone. It was not my intent to do so in any way. The use of "you" language is generally a match, and quoting another's post out of context and then dissecting assumed/implied meanings with the scalpel of semantics is gasoline. I vow to avoid such practices. Again, not what this forum is about and certainly not why I am here.

MOVING ON. . . .

I know it's a cliché, but human nature is such that nations continue to plan for the next war based on the materiel, strategies, and outcomes of the last war. To prevail in the "next war" one must be willing to take things to the next level--and/or beyond. If an enemy can be certain that its adversary will not go beyond prescribed limits, said enemy need only push onward to that threshold. To borrow from the motto of the SAS, victory belongs to those who dare win. That's war.

Myriad and synergistic factors led to the Russian exodus from Afghanistan. The Russian's will to win at any cost was not as great as it's willingness to endure defeat at the lowest price. The fact is that the Russians could have easily wiped Afghanistan--as it existed--from the face of the map. While the Afghanis suffered horrific losses, there was a threshold and the Soviets were not willing to go beyond it. They knew that the Russians would run out of will before they ran out of warm bodies. As such, the war became one of attrition; the Afghanis enjoyed home field advantage and they won by default when the Russians finally walked off the field.

Interestingly, more Russian casualties were the direct result of poor or totally absent hygiene than all other sources combined. The majority of field units lacked access to a basic bar of soap and potable water:

One needs only review the recently released casualty figures to underscore the pervasiveness of the problem. Soviet dead and missing in Afghanistan amounted to almost 15,000 troops, a modest percent of the 642,000 Soviets who served during the ten-year war. Far more telling were the 469,685 other casualties, fully 73 percent of the overall force, who were wounded or incapacitated by serious illness. Some 415,932 troops fell victim to disease, of which 115,308 suffered from infectious hepatitis and 31,080 from typhoid fever. Beyond the sheer magnitude of these numbers is what these figures say about Soviet military hygiene and the conditions surrounding troop life.

source: http://www.stratmag.com/issue2Oct-1/page07.htm

The Russians did not need superior weapons and tactics; they needed soap. The Afghanis wanted for nothing: they had time and will on their side.

Like the Russians, we know we have the resources to prevail. What we do not know is whether we have the will to use our resources. This is our Achilles’ heel and a strategic weakness not lost on our enemies.

I for one am 100% against waging wars of attrition. I have been on both ends of the barrel and can attest to the virtues of bringing all due and available force to bear upon ones adversary as quickly as possible. I have never found leaving my enemy with the ability to rise again behind me to be conducive to my continued good health, long-term security, and the keeping of the peace.

Sherman knew and accepted this unsavory facet not of war but of winning. Yes, it is brutal. Yes, "[It] is hell." And, yes, it is necessary.

My point is that we must make the tough decision as to whether we are going to "just fight" or "just win." In the case of the former, we need do little if anything differently. In the case of the latter, we need make the hard call, gird our loins, and swing the mightiest of our swords . . . and do so with all our might.

MiG

 

[shootinstudent]

My point is that we must make the tough decision as to whether we are going to "just fight" or "just win." In the case of the former, we need do little if anything differently. In the case of the latter, we need make the hard call, gird our loins, and swing the mightiest of our swords . . . and do so with all our might.

I assume that by "swing the mightiest of our swords", you mean deploy nuclear weapons.

Please explain how that will solve the problem of terrorism. I'd like to see your scenario for employing nuclear weapons to plausibly stop the terrorist threat. What would we nuke, and how do you think people would respond?

 

[MiGalley]

"Nuts."

MiG

 

[Art Eatman]

Art