[quote]Elegua wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
OK. I understand now.
However, I wonder if that was really ‘total war’ by the modern definition?
Is it possible to wage ‘total war’ against a ‘stateless’ enemy in any case? The ‘enemy’ knows quite well that if they take the form of a traditional nation state, army it will take less than 3 weeks to knock them off. It is now impossible to ‘nuke’ them (ever notice why all of the ‘new’ bombs are smaller, not bigger)
Seems to me there are some parallels between the Jihadi’s and the Anarchists of the 19th century. The world has changed and some people are very unhappy about it.
You pose some excellent and to be honest quite difficult questions, and I am not sure I can adequately address them. But I’ll try.
You have a point that we are not in a war between identifiable nation-states, but I do think we are engaged in an ideological war of global proportions. I do not perceive the 9/11 hijackers as individual criminals, or as citizens of their respective nation-states, but rather as members of an international movement to impose Sharia law on the world.
As a sidenote, if I am wrong and Islamic terrorists should merely be thought of as criminals, don’t you think it is strange that nobody is paying attention to their confessions? I mean in normal criminal proceedings, confessions are highly-valued. Whether a person is admitting his guilt freely, or the prosecution is compelled to prove his guilt, the judge/jury/spectators/media all wait to see if there will be a confession. And with Islamic terrorists, they tell us repeatedly why they do it: God wills it. I watched the martyr video of two of the London Subway bombers, and one of them directly quoted verses of the Qur’an exhorting followers to kill unbelievers. And yet with hundreds of martyr videos from suicide bombers and jihadists who died in battle (a la Palestine) referring to Islamic sources to justify their actions, it seems the court is oddly uninterested.
[quote]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. [/quote]
I think you are right the definition of war cannot just be limited to international conflicts, and I certainly don’t think the status of the victim should be up to the perpetrator. Having said that, I am not sure I can really give a good answer of just how far the definition should be extended. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the methods available to us to seek justice. In the case of a lynching, the perpetrators are likely to be a small group who could be easily processed by the criminal justice system. In the case of 9/11 the perpetrators were elements of a larger para-military organization, aided and abetted by the Talibani government of Afghanistan. The only option available to bring justice to the 9/11 fallen was to execute aggressive military action against al-Qaeda and its Talibani benefactors. Such a task involved a full scale invasion, complete with thousands of bombing runs, intensive shelling, and infantry&tank campaigns. Something akin to war I guess.
The definition of war seems elusive, but that’s the best I got right now.
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[/quote]Why? One guy says, “Kill them all,” another calls for inter-generational pre-emptive war on the basis that some random woman might want to give birth to the next generation of suicide bombers, possibly his people’s heroic leader. Alternatively, she might give birth to the one who solves the problem.
Given that kind of indiscriminate murder, what possible can discrimination on my part do? This kind of thinking ranks right up there racism, sexism, and every other sort of bigotry.
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[/quote]Why? One guy says, “Kill them all,” another calls for inter-generational pre-emptive war on the basis that some random woman might want to give birth to the next generation of suicide bombers, possibly his people’s heroic leader. Alternatively, she might give birth to the one who solves the problem.
Given that kind of indiscriminate murder, what possible can discrimination on my part do? This kind of thinking ranks right up there racism, sexism, and every other sort of bigotry.[/quote]
Who the hell is calling for pre-emptive war? This is mainly an abstract discussion on the nature of war and so-called rules of war.
You tell me. Here, you advocate “hitting them hard”.
[url=Winning a war - #53 by Gao_Bohan 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.[/url][/quote]
Here, you clarify what “hitting them hard” means.
[quote=“gao_bo_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.[/b]han”][/quote]You clearly state that civilians, women and men, who “may produced more soldiers are also legitimate targets”. That’s advocating pre-emptive war; it’s not about winning this war, unless you’re suggesting that the conflict will be–must be, cannot be other than–intergenerational; it’s advocating pre-emptive war against a person (or is it necessarily “an enemy”) not yet born. WTF is that? Am I misreading this?? What is it, if not a some goofy, “Terminator” inspired means of winning a future war before it starts?
[color=black]“The mothers of soldiers who may produce more soldiers are also legitimate targets, as are civilian fathers who assist in that matter.” [/color]
You can’t sweep this under the rug with claims that it’s only an abstract discussion of the rules of war.
[color=black]This opinion of yours is absolutely and irredeemably loathsome, disgusting and shameless.[/color]
Such targets were “targets” during World War II when we firebombed the hell out of Germany. I am sure many of those who were firebombed supported the war effort against the Allies. What changed to ensure that such firepower was never directed at Muslims? No problem when it is against fellow Christians eh? but the Muslims and their religion of peace are too “precious” to engage in war? What happened? Did we become suddenly more civilized? Smirk. The fact remains that the US has gone out of its way to avoid such civilian casualties. That has not necessarily earned us the support or gratitude of the people involved in these conflicts. What then is the proper balance between war and civilian casualties and do you “feel” the US has been an egregious violator, deliberately maximizing civilian casualties? Or what do you “feel” gaobohan is trying to say here?
I sense that he is saying we should take the gloves off and more aggressively target these thugs who deliberately hide behind the often willing skirts of women and children and men. And why are women and children more worthy of protection than unarmed men? Not to me they aren’t. Perhaps, what Gaobohan is saying and if he is then I agree with him is that we have allowed ourselves to be kept from achieving our goals because of our excess sensitivity which ironically leads to a longer, more dangerous, more violent conflict. Would that not be then counterproductive to restoring order which would lead to far fewer civilian casualties and suffering?
By the way Jaboney, I think I have made it perfectly clear I am all too aware of the horrors of war, and oppose war unless it is absolutely necessary. I don’t think your judgement is quite fair. But so be it.
So do you apply the same condemnation to the Allied powers’ actions in WWII? If not, why not?[/quote]Uh-uh, pose your questions to others. I do not accept “I’m just saying we’ve gone soft”, or “Yeah, shit man, the horrors of war…” as an excuse for the opinion you’ve expressed. Either you’ve grossly misstated your position, or it is precisely as I’ve described it. If it’s the former, clarify it. Explain it your statement. You, not fred. If it’s the later, I have no time for you.
I think I have made myself clear already, but here it is goes. My basic position is this:
War is not romantic or glorious or any such thing, it is mean and nasty and hellish and shouldn’t be waged unless it has to be. Having said that I do not believe it is realistic to win a war by restricting our attacks to military targets, nor do I believe that the lives of civilians are inherently more valuable than the lives of soldiers. At least in the situation of wars between clearly defined nation-states (e.g., USA/Japanese Empire), the goal of each side is to impose its will in some form on its enemy. In the case of Japan, it was to neutralize American hegemony in the Pacific. We were trying to prevent Japan from accomplishing its goal, and of course to destroy or limit the ever-burgeoning Japanese Empire. We won, but we did so not only by engaging its military but by deliberately killing its civilians on the order of hundreds of thousands. After the war, however, we signed treats at the Geneva and Hague conventions which may have effectively limited our ability to successfully wage war. Now add to that a common perception in the West that war can be neatly and cleanly fought, as if war is about toy soldiers marching towards each other in line formation. When we go to war -to prevent the rise of fascism, preserve our liberties, etc.- we always face the possibility of losing and being subjected to totalitarianism and oppression. I am saying that we cannot afford to take that risk and must do whatever is necessary to achieve victory.
I do not take kindly to threats or ultimatums, and if you are going to act like an impudent child then just be on your way. Some of us are trying to have an adult conversation over here.
Yes, “pose” would be a good word for this discussion but not in the way that you might think…
What you accept is irrelevant. What GBH has said is.
Someone has been reading Alice in Wonderland. So all along, you have been playing with the absurd ala Bob. You had me fooled. Clever Boy.
Why? I had no trouble understanding his meaning.
Sorry. Bit too late now that I am mostlyl through this screed.
hahahahahahahahhaahah Oh GBH: Don’t miss out on the opportunity for Jaboney not to have “any time” for you. Ah a luxury like that… I’d pay and pay willingly.
Yeah I’m real broken up over it. Guess I’ll just have to go back to having conversations with people who don’t run away little spoiled little girls when the discussion isn’t going their way.
As someone who greatly enjoys discussing things with all three of you who have posted on this page so far (yes, it is possible to like both Fred and Jaboney … and I suspect I’d like gao_bo_han if I ever meet him too), I’m going to suggest what I see as the key disconnect here on the “mothers” issue. (If this is wrong, then at least I’ll know I gave it a shot.)
I think what Jaboney did not understand was why GBH went out of his way (as Jaboney saw it) to specifically talk about mothers “who may produce more soldiers.” Why not just leave it with [color=black]“All citizens of the enemy nation are legitimate targets”[/color]? (Which is, in fact, exactly GBH’s position.)
Talking about killing mothers who “may produce more soldiers” makes it sound like GBH’s goal is to decimate a future generation as a goal in itself, because unless one envisions a “total war” lasting close to 20 years, then the “future soldiers” are not relevant. And of course the whole point of the Cobra Kai/“total war” philosophy is that you have short wars, not long and drawn-out ones that last long enough for a soldier to be conceived and grow to fighting age. It is basically impossible to conceive of a Cobra Kai war lasting that long with modern technology; one side or the other (or both) would all be dead before the “future soldiers” grew up.
When asked to clarify, GBH said that his point was essentially that, in his view, a no-holds-barred approach to fighting wars ultimately leads to less human suffering, because the fight is over more quickly.
Jaboney does not agree with that view. Fine. There’s the discussion.
But I really think that the mother of future soldiers/inter-generational war issue is something of a red herring. It was just a way to say that everyone in society contributes to it in some way, and that nobody living in the enemy country should be off-limits.
So… can we finally get off of mothers now, because I just …er … wait a sec…how does that expression go again? Damnit, where is Dr. Evil when you need him? :s
Thank you Hobbes, you summed it up nicely. And you’re right, if we succeed, the war would be over far quicker than the time it would take to produce a new generation of enemy soldiers. As you said, I was merely trying to emphasize that all citizens of an enemy nation, whether in uniform or not, are legitimate targets.
We should send Fred. He would over-post those Iraqi bloggers and video-clip posters into oblivion. Though that might be considered against the Geneva Convention along with cluster bombs.
Guess I’ll just have to go back to having conversations with people who don’t run away little spoiled little girls when the discussion isn’t going their way.
… and I suspect I’d like gao_bo_han if I ever meet him too), I’m going to suggest what I see as the key disconnect here on the “mothers” issue. (If this is wrong, then at least I’ll know I gave it a shot.)