Casualties of war. I see no reason to tack on an “innocent” or “legitimate” label. And Jaboney has already explained the symbolic values of their targets.[/quote]
Yeah, but while I appreciate the symbolic value of the targets, and the cunning, I find such attacks deeply wrong.
Well, we’re both consistent. That’s something.
Me too, but not because most of the casualties were civilians. Were the uniformed soldiers’ lives in the Pentagon any less valuable than the civilians in the planes than struck it? Were the soldiers’ deaths more legitimate in your view? Was it less wrong to kill the soldiers than civilians?
AG was small potatoes compared to the horrors that have happened since, or to the ones to come, but it was symbolic. Iraq fell apart, quite predicatably it would seem, because the initial occupation was conducted without sufficient regard for the political situation or the psychology of the people involved. The AG fiasco was a predicatable consequence of the same lack of insight or planning and the only ones to be punished have been low level grunts.
Either that or the occupation was deliberately bungled so as to inititate a prolonged conflict and AG was similarly designed to provoke as much anger as possible.
Interesting isn’t it that in Canada where our knuclehead government actually proposed the implementation of Sharia Law that Muslims came out in opposition to it. Does that give even bigger knuckleheads like TC any ideas? Anything at all?
Me too, but not because most of the casualties were civilians. Were the uniformed soldiers’ lives in the Pentagon any less valuable than the civilians in the planes than struck it? Were the soldiers’ deaths more legitimate in your view? Was it less wrong to kill the soldiers than civilians?[/quote] The lives of soldiers are equally valuable, and attacks against those who sign up to be a nation’s shield are different from those against non-combatants.
If I walk up and slap your face, that’s a crime.
If I walk up and slap the face of your infant child, that’s a crime.
It’s a gross analogy, but makes the point. Are these assaults equally wrong, or is one more grievous than the other?
Do you not distinguish between making war on an enemy’s soldier, and the seamstress who sewed his uniform, or the accountant who doles out his pay? All part of the machinery of war, but not quite the same things, are they?
Please, bob, don’t believe it’s so just because the poorly informed repeated it often enough.
[quote=“MR Mag”]Faith-based arbitration (FBA), conducted by members of minority communities and informed by religious precepts, has long been engaged in by some Jews, Christian evangelical groups, and even some Muslims, until now without notable dissent. FBA is favored in particular by couples for whom deeply-held religious precepts are vitally important to their personal culture and self-definition. Ontario Jews, for example, have been arbitrating family disputes in their Beth Din courts for over a century; such private arbitration has been recognized in Ontario law since the late 19th century. By using the procedures laid down in the Arbitration Act, the parties can have a court enforce the arbitration decision, thus ensuring that the terms of the decision are legally binding. The Act provides minimal safeguards to ensure free informed consent to arbitration.
The courts retain their power to intervene and set aside arbitration decisions, as they can separation agreements, where the “best interests” of children are not honored or where the decision is “unconscionable.” Similar legislation now exists in a half dozen other Canadian provinces, all of it modeled on a draft law drawn up years ago by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada following extensive discussions.
The controversy in Ontario arose when a Muslim lawyer, Syed Mumtaz Ali, proclaimed his intention to establish a “shari’a court” that would function under the Arbitration Act, thus making its decisions, like all decisions under the Act, legally enforceable.[/quote]The faith-based arbitration mechanism was a voluntary, parallel system that fell under the same ultimate jurisdiction as everyone other dispute-resolution scheme. The fears were that there would be coercion–subtle or not–pressuring individuals to opt into what ought to be a voluntary system of dispute arbitration, and that the courts, which were to oversee the justice of the decisions rendered, would be hesitant to overturn the decisions of a body to which both parties had willingly submitted. This was hardly about stonings on Yonge St.
You summed it up nicely here…
Thanks.
The italics are mine.
I make no distinction. Neither did our grandfathers who slaughtered German and Japanese civilians. I ask again: Were our soldiers heroes or war criminals? Something in between?
All legitimate targets.
Well, not exactly. We’ll be alive and they’ll be dead. That’s a fairly distinct difference. And I know which kind I’d prefer to be.
Just discovered this thread. The original question is interesting. And that report on powerful countries losing a lot of wars is also very interesting. Most of the rest is scary.
And here’s what is ironic: many of those who perceive the need for a war between the Rational West and Radical Islam, however fully realized in terms of civilian deaths that may be, equal in their faith-based zealotry, those whose faith-based zealotry they fear. In short, there is a distinct surplus of romanticism of war going on here among the Muslim hater crowd.
Thank God most of the people running the affairs of nations still have their feet more firmly planted on the ground than those I refer to. (Yeah, I know about Bush.)
There is a well known concept called Rules of War and to gloriously toss this well-accepted principle of international law into the dustbin of nostalgia because of the nice feeling it gives the would be tosser is pathetic drivel, not discussion.
I noticed nobody had the guts to try and counter Spook’s nifty four-quote parry back on the first page. It was just chest thumping before long.
Here’s what I think. Powerful countries should try to rid their political systems of warmongers. They could look to the Scandanavian countries among others for inspiration to get started. The whole collision with Islam thing is a direct result of the damage caused by the warmongers that pervade the American and British political establishment. Eliminate the problem and eliminate the need for war.
What good is hitting “them” hard gonna do anybody? Get real.
[quote=“Jaboney”]The Soviets, having done their best, and failed, in Afghanistan and Chechenia, might know better. But they’re still trying.
What’s the model for this kind of war? It ain’t WWII.[/quote]
The Romans were successful against Carthage.
Its the thought (intention) that counts. The homicide bomber is targeting women and children, while the tank driver simply doen’t stop or veer in his relentless pursuit of his enemy, terrorists.
The practical end may be the same, but surely there is a moral difference?
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jaboney”]The Soviets, having done their best, and failed, in Afghanistan and Chechenia, might know better. But they’re still trying.
What’s the model for this kind of war? It ain’t WWII.[/quote]
The Romans were successful against Carthage.[/quote]
I don’t see the parallel. The Republic at that time was relatively weak and inxperienced compared to Carthage and the army was still more of a militia as opposed to fully professional. Also they suffered a number of defeats that nearly broke them before Scipio Africanus pulled their asses out of a sling.
[quote=“Jaboney”]The Soviets, having done their best, and failed, in Afghanistan and Chechenia, might know better. But they’re still trying.
What’s the model for this kind of war? It ain’t WWII.[/quote]
Dunno if I was looking for a parallel. J remarked (if I understand him correctly) that total war has been costly, and unsuccessful for the Soviets and now Russians. I took that as an argument that total war is futile. I simply commented that Rome was ultimately successful against Carthage when it decided to wage total war.
For what its worth, I’m not arguing for or against total war. I’m just throwing out comments and remarks as food for thought.
Well I typically lead the criticisms against Islamism in these threads, and I think I have done my best here and elsewhere to argue against the romanticism of war. War is a five year old Iraqi boy who just woke up from surgery to learn that his entire family is dead and that piece of shrapnel embedded in his skull will make his headache permanent until the day he dies. War is absolute hell, but as the OP said, victory cannot be achieved unless we are willing to forcefully impose our will on the enemy.
Insults and oblique invectives are pathetic drivel. What we have going on here is a discussion of the nature of war and whether imposing rules on war is realistic. Perhaps you’d like to join it and make some useful contributions as you have in the DU threads.
Do you believe the Allies committed massive war crimes during WWII? I mean sure the Geneva Accords weren’t fine-tuned until a few years after the war ended, but what is your assessment of our actions against civilians in the European and Pacific theatres?
The collision between Islam and the rest of the world began 1400 years ago when a fiery preacher in Mecca was exiled for exhorting his followers to subjugate or kill anyone who didn’t follow their new cult. It continued when Islamic armies invaded the Hindu kingdoms of India, the Byzantine Empire, and the Christian republics and monarchies of North Africa, Spain, Portugal, and southern France. Err wait, Islam is a “religion of peace”. Sorry, I forgot. I mean to say that 9/11 and the London Bombings were the faults of America and Britain. Yes yes it is all clear now.
If by “them” you mean those trying to impose their ideology on us, then hitting them hard means winning a victory. I’m all for that.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]
All legitimate targets.[/quote]
Is there anyone who would not be a legitimate target, in your view, GBH?
You’ve made it clear in your response to spook earlier in this thread that the boundries for who Entity A can legitimately target are not defined by:
------(1)------ those who choose to fight against Entity A by force of arms;
or even
------(2)------ those who support whatever policies Entity A perceives to be an attack against them (clearly many of those who died in the WTC did not support US foreign policy in the middle east, or whatever other else was perceived to be the grievance that justified the attack).
And yet you used the term “legitimate target”, so I assume you do think there exist some ‘targets’ that do not fit the ‘legitimate’ category.
But if “legitimate target” status is not defined as a person who has done harm to Entity A, or even as person who supported doing harm to Entity A (in the case of AQ, for example, one of the non-US citizen observant Muslims who were killed in the WTC, who opposed all US involvement in the middle east), then who would be off limits, in your view?
Is there anyone? Or is it the case that any murder victim is a “legitimate target”, so long as the murderer feels like killing that victim (regardless of whether the victim has ever done --or supported-- anything to harm the murderer). I find it hard to believe that this is truly your view… ?
(EDIT: I should add that I have enough respect for your opinions to assume that you are not advocating a line of thinking that says “Well, our grandfathers did X (in Dresden, Tokyo or elsewhere) --and that was wrong-- so this means that we can no longer classify anything else as being right or wrong.”)
Yes. Any member of a nation we are not at war with.
[quote]You’ve made it clear in your response to spook earlier in this thread that the boundries for who Entity A can legitimately target are not defined by:
------(1)------ those who choose to fight against Entity A by force of arms;
or even
------(2)------ those who support whatever policies Entity A perceives to be an attack against them (clearly many of those who died in the WTC did not support US foreign policy in the middle east, or whatever other else was perceived to be the grievance that justified the attack).[/quote]
Your assessment is partially correct. It is true that I do not limit legitimate targets to 18-year-olds in BDUs, but they are certainly included in the target set. Those who support the policies of an enemy government are also legitimate targets, in my view. The mothers of soldiers who may produce more soldiers are also legitimate targets, as are civilian fathers who assist in that matter. As are future mothers and fathers who will produce soldiers or become soldiers themselves or both.
It would be wonderful if we could perfectly filter the hostile civilians who support their government’s policies (invading Poland for instance) from those who don’t. And we do try, don’t we? As Christopher Hitchens’ reports, when Pakistan announced it was planning on opening full diplomatic relations with Turkish Cyprus out of “Islamic solidarity” and build an embassy, a senior official from Greek Cyprus kindly informed Pakistan that if it does so then Greek Cyprus is going to give money and arms to any of a number of dissident groups within Pakistan, like the Baluchis for example. Pakistan has as yet never built an embassy in Turkish Cyprus teehee. Let’s not forget that bolstering local dissident groups was a hallmark of CIA policy throughout the Cold War, everywhere from Chile to the Congo to Afghanistan.
But the reality of war is much more convoluted. When the Japanese were flying planes into our ships again and again and again, despite the fact they were losing the war, we were faced with a grim choice:
or
So the question is: Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimate targets in the Allied campaigns against the Japanese Empire? My answer is that they were. The 17-year-old Japanese high school student who had never harmed a fly in his life may have found himself ordered on a suicide mission against the Brits in Burma within a year. His mother may have at some point in the future given birth to the nation’s greatest war hero. Most every one in the society was in some way contributing to the war effort against us. To limit ourselves to fighting only the end product of the war machine – soldiers - is to miss the point. We were facing a serious threat from an empire with grand ambitions. Any one who was a part of that empire –who contributed to its strength- was a legitimate target. And that is apparently what our military commanders believed, as the fire and nuclear bombings testify.
Ever read “Black Rain” by Ibuse Masuji? It’s a novel about the survivors of Hiroshima, about their horrendous suffering and the discrimination they faced by other Japanese who couldn’t bear to look at their disfigured faces and bodies. I’ve read it, and let me tell you, I am acutely aware of the implications of my statements about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and of the decisions of our commanders in WWII). And recently I have been forcing myself to look at the photos online of dead and injured Iraqis. I have convulsed in dry heaves more than once at the sight of mangled children. In my view, we should NEVER go to war unless absolutely have to. We had no choice but to fight the Axis powers in WWII, because to do otherwise would have meant our subjugation at their hands. But when we made our decision to fight we fought to win, and that meant imposing horrors on the people of the Axis nations. Notice I said people, without distinguishing between those in uniform and those not in uniform.
Um…you’re right, that sure as hell is not my view. We are talking about international war, not domestic murder trials.
Once again you are correct, I am not advocating that line of thinking. I am saying that the fire bombings of Dresden and Japan were a grim but necessary reality of war.
Well, since I started this, I guess I should express my meager views.
First, let me say that I was lucky enouigh to survive Nam, even though I had volunteered for duty with the Navy. It wasn’t because of bravery or heroism, it was simply because of a broken back that prevented me from going out of bootcamp.
Recently, I had the opportunity to visit D.C. and visit the Viet Nam Memorial (Terrible name for this by the way - it was not built to memorialize viet nam but to memorialize the deaths, shattered lives, dreams and hopes of a thrown-away generation.)
As I walked the walk, the question I asked to this group came to mind. I had a very difficult time with the walk and ended up doing something I had not done since my father died - I was sobbing uncontrollably.
It’s easy to blame wars on politicians but I feel that the real blame lies squarely on the various religious and political (sometimes I cant tell the difference) idealology.
That said, in my humble and probably archaic opinion, a war CAN be won. However, not under the present morality of war. I hear about “rules of engagement”. What the hell is that? When Israel was being repeatedly attacked and they responded with devastating force, I heard about “a disproprortianate attack”.
When AQ attacks the World Trade Centers, did I ultimately hear America say, " Oh the response was disproportianate?" When we launched the so called counter attack, did I hear that the attack was disproportianate? (Not in this case because the attack was on Iraq - not that I am oppossed - but it should have been on Afganistan and, yes, Pakistan.)
As an aside, I have not heard mention of why the hell the U.S. would attack a country that had no affiliation with the 9/11 attack. Why not the Saudi’s. That was where the bin laden family resided. Why not the 13 bin laden family members that were then living in the U.S.? No. They left under military security back to Saudi Arabia. Well, I am not particularly a Michael Moore fan but he makes some good points. Ok. Why? Just another grab at the military complex golden ring from the ferris wheel of disalusionment.
Ask yourself. Do you really believe that the U.S. believes they can “WIN” this war, bring it to an end and retire to Boca Ratan? This, as all recent wars, is about money. Big money. Follow the Carlyle Group and their associations with middle east oil and it isn’t difficult to get the picture. Then add some large multi-national corporations which are tied to the White House, and you should get the picture.
Some of you have mentioned the slim difference between those in uniform and those out of uniform. Good for you. However, a bomber at 30,000 feet can’t distinguish the difference and, I for one don’t expect him/her to. How about the mild tailor sewing the uniforms (for the fighter as undercover materials and for actual combatant uniforms? - Sorry, my heart does not have room to grieve for him/her. Not any of the family.
Some seem to get the impression that they believe that the U.S. and allies should be “above” this kind of behavior. We shouldn’t be brought down to that level.
WTF!!!
I recall one time as a kid, I was on a hill in a dry area of the NW U.S. My folks and my grandfolks had told me many time to watch out for rattlesnakes. Well, I ran across one, and being a kid, teased it, chased it and even tried to kill it. Before I could get the job done, I was running down the hill with the snake lunging after me, fangs extended and ready to kill. Yup, I was faster but from then on, I knew that if I fucked around with rattlesnakes, that my life was in danger. Perhaps the colonialists of America had had a similar experience when one of their first flags was a rattlesnake with the words, “DON’T TREAD ON ME”. I admire Harry when he said, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” This idealogy is not out of date. It is more apropriate today than ever.
Some of you know that I am a retired lawyer. I recall some years ago trying to settle a case with an insurance company. I just couldn’t get the money for my client that I thought she had coming. An old boy took me aside and ask me when was the last time I took the bastards to court and won some money - BIG MONEY. I had to confess that I had settled into a routine of negotiation. I got the point. I filed suit, prepared for battle and won. I won BIG. From that point on, if I talked settlement, I got attention.
Point is, bomb them sensless. As had been said before, NUKE them. Start the unthinkable. If you don’t, you will always live in a hole waiting to be killed.
Ya, I know, I a worthless bastard. However, I am an old worthless bastard with some experience under my belt. The days of sensable warfare have come to an end and the sensible didn’t end it. Our government doesn’t presently have the balls to do it. Who can we look to next? Hillary? (My choice by the way - anywoman who can put up with that and make amends, has my vote. She has more balls than any ten of my buds.) How about the other candidates? I don’t know. However, I do believe that we can win a war, not with massive troop deployment nor with stealth aircraft, all of which are very costly. Send some nukes in. Kill them all. Turn the damn place from hither to skither to glass. Now, go see a movie. That’s what America is about. And when the world knows it we will all rest a whole lot easier.
Lovely. One guy’s advocating inter-generational pre-emptive warfare, and another says, “Send some nukes in. Kill them all. Turn the damn place from hither to skither to glass. Now, go see a movie. That’s what America is about.” Monstrous cartoon morality.
jaboney, how about a comment or two about the recipients of this “cartoon morality?”
Specifically those future martyrs in Iraq and Afghanistan, who think death, even violent death is preferrable to life.
Tango
Two
Excellent response, GBH. Not sure I agree with you, but you articulate your position very well.
There is only one part that is still unclear:
Um…you’re right, that sure as hell is not my view. We are talking about international war, not domestic murder trials.[/quote]
A group of people (of various nationalities) decide they are going to go kill some other people (of various nationalities). The victims were not at war with the killers (not as far as the victims were concerned, anyway). There were no empires or nations involved. No soldiers and supporters-of-soldiers and mothers-of-potential-soldiers etc. None of that. Just a bunch of people working in a couple office buildings. Clearly we are not “talking about international war” here.
And yet your judgment on the victims in the above scenario when spook asked you about it two pages ago was… “Casualties of war.”
So if we don’t limit our definition of war to conflicts between nations --and if we don’t even limit the definition to cases where there is hostility from both sides-- then what are we left with?
The only remaining explanation I could see was that, in your view, a murderer’s victims are “legitimate targets”/”casualties of war” so long as the murderer, himself, thinks that they are.
So we get… The al Qaeda hijackers thought of their actions as part of a war. Thus, the victims were “casualties of war.”
How about a handful of ignorant racist assholes who lynch an African American because they think of themselves as soldiers in a ‘race war’? Surely the victim cannot be considered a “casualty of war” just because the killers themselves looked at it that way?
Hobbes, are you suggesting that a War must be seconded and thirded before it is legitimated? 