Should the USA and its allies worry about collateral damage? [Archive]

geni

3rd September 2006, 06:11 PM

Should we worry about it? Yes. Should we decline to take out a certain terrorist cell because innocents 'will' be in the way. No.

How is it possible to win if the US will always pull back on the offensive because innocent civilians will be in danger? Everyone knows that terrorist love hiding behind civilians.

Oh dear. Look at you trying to be badass and everything. And yet you still wimp out. If you are going to start fighting like there is no point hiding in halfway houses. Why? Because all the those civilans have relatives who then hate you and try and kill you. If you want to be able to a bit more relaxed about killing civilians you can't stop. You have to go all the way and start targeting them. Bagdad causeing problems? Stop messing around with all these patrols and burn it to the ground. Villages in Afganistan have taliban in them? Don't send in troops to draw fire. Bomb them flat. History suggests it is enough to kill ~60% of the population.

You may find that this is kinda of hard work so dig out some of the old churchill quotes about it being ok to use gas aginst primative people.

Or you can try the hearts and minds aproach (which has worked once) which requires you to take great pains to avoid wiping out the wrong people.

Why do you think its so damn hard to accomplish something positive on this WOT?

Because you are trying to fight it like a conventional war. Ok I can understand that conventional war is what the US is reasonable good at. But really I makes very little sense any more.

geni

3rd September 2006, 06:18 PM

Fighting wars with this political correctness is relatively new.

Not at all. Cromwell took a lot of flack back in the day. In fact I belive the Irish may not have entirely forgiven him.

Of course it would have been more generaly been refured to as the gentlemanly way. All that chivalry stuff. Henry V got a lot of flack for certian actions at Agincourt.

Azure

3rd September 2006, 06:19 PM

Oh dear. Look at you trying to be badass and everything. And yet you still wimp out. If you are going to start fighting like there is no point hiding in halfway houses. Why? Because all the those civilans have relatives who then hate you and try and kill you. If you want to be able to a bit more relaxed about killing civilians you can't stop. You have to go all the way and start targeting them. Bagdad causeing problems? Stop messing around with all these patrols and burn it to the ground. Villages in Afganistan have taliban in them? Don't send in troops to draw fire. Bomb them flat. History suggests it is enough to kill ~60% of the population.

You may find that this is kinda of hard work so dig out some of the old churchill quotes about it being ok to use gas aginst primative people.

Or you can try the hearts and minds aproach (which has worked once) which requires you to take great pains to avoid wiping out the wrong people.

Nice use of sarcasm. The allies wouldn't have won WW2 if they'd have worried about collateral damage.

Because you are trying to fight it like a conventional war. Ok I can understand that conventional war is what the US is reasonable good at. But really I makes very little sense any more.

Really hard to understand what you're saying....

geni

3rd September 2006, 06:26 PM

Nice use of sarcasm. [quote]

That wasn't sarcasm

[quote]
The allies wouldn't have won WW2 if they'd have worried about collateral damage.

Err they did. Why do you think we got the french to blow up their own factories when they were under ocupation? We also didn't bomb the channel Islands a whole lot.

Now stop thinking in WW2 terms. You are not fighting a WW2 war. You would be far better off looking at the various wars fought in the later days of the british empire (or the Italians if you want to know how not to do it). You would also need to be looking at the soviet and russian experence in afganistan and chechnya.

Really hard to understand what you're saying....

Unfortunetly that appears to be the case for the guys in charge as well.

Lonewulf

3rd September 2006, 08:26 PM

Really hard to understand what you're saying....

It seems to me that he's saying that WWII, WWI, and various other wars that were fought on battlefields, between two sides is a thing of the past.

Let's put it this way: You could not fight the "War on Terror" the same way you could fight the Civil War (which was a Total War; civilians and property were definitely part of the targets, mostly to try to destroy the opponent's morale and get them to surrender quickly... which didn't end up happening).

To put it another way: If a hostage is kept in a 7-11, you don't respond by calling in the bombs... you respond by sending in a tactical strike force (or the SWAT team, which is basically the same thing), trying to minimize any civilian casualties.

The majority of battles fought in modern times are in urban environments, usually with the introduction of civilian targets. Different tactics are needed for different situations, and what worked in the past won't always work in the future.

Azure

3rd September 2006, 09:25 PM

Err they did. Why do you think we got the french to blow up their own factories when they were under ocupation? We also didn't bomb the channel Islands a whole lot.

And what did the fire-bombing do? More civilians then soldiers were killed durring WW2.

Now stop thinking in WW2 terms. You are not fighting a WW2 war. You would be far better off looking at the various wars fought in the later days of the british empire (or the Italians if you want to know how not to do it). You would also need to be looking at the soviet and russian experence in afganistan and chechnya.

Fair enough.

I agree that Special Ops are needed more then massive artillary, but I also think the US should quit playing politics in Iraq, and get 300,000 troops on the ground.

Unfortunetly that appears to be the case for the guys in charge as well.

I'm meant to say it is hard to understand what you are saying because of your improper use of grammer.

a_unique_person

3rd September 2006, 09:52 PM

Err they did. Why do you think we got the french to blow up their own factories when they were under ocupation? We also didn't bomb the channel Islands a whole lot.

Now stop thinking in WW2 terms. You are not fighting a WW2 war.

It seems to be the only war that the 'right' knows about.

TragicMonkey

4th September 2006, 05:52 AM

Sorry, but if you're going to criticize the grammar of others, you leave yourself open to equal-opportunity gander sauce:

And what did the fire-bombing do? More civilians then soldiers were killed durring WW2.

"More civilians than soldiers were killed during WW2." And can you site some figures for this, please? Are you counting the Holocaust victims?

I agree that Special Ops are needed more then massive artillary, but I also think the US should quit playing politics in Iraq, and get 300,000 troops on the ground.

"Than", not "then", "artillery", not "artillary". And do we even have 300,000 more troops?

I'm meant to say it is hard to understand what you are saying because of your improper use of grammer.

"I meant to say", "grammar".

If you invoke the language police, they will come for you.

Darat

4th September 2006, 06:02 AM

geni

4th September 2006, 06:02 AM

And what did the fire-bombing do? More civilians then soldiers were killed durring WW2.

WW2 was total war. We didn't really think in terms of civilians

Fair enough.

I agree that Special Ops are needed more then massive artillary,

Which part of the recent Russian conflicts in Chechnya did miss?

but I also think the US should quit playing politics in Iraq, and get 300,000 troops on the ground.

you can't do that without either calling up conscripts (which is generally a bad idea) or ceasing activities in other parts of the globe and removing your ability to take any real level of action outside Iraq.

Mephisto

4th September 2006, 06:05 AM

Well, so much for the Compassionate Conservative.

Hiroshima = Nagasaki = Dresden = Bagdhad

Maybe Londoners will agree that intentionally targeting the civilian population with weapons known for collateral damage will weaken their resolve. After all, the Nazis used this tactic with great success during WWII.

TragicMonkey

4th September 2006, 06:20 AM

brodski

4th September 2006, 06:31 AM

Maybe Londoners will agree that intentionally targeting the civilian population with weapons known for collateral damage will weaken their resolve. After all, the Nazis used this tactic to with great success during WWII.
Well, yes actually they did. The "Blitz Spirit" is a bit like the myth about eating carrots improving your night vision or eyesight, a propaganda story which has refused to die. The bombing of UK civilian and economic targets had a profoundly negative impact on the UKs ability to effectively wage war. Why do you think that the "Battle of Brittan" is still regarded as vital to Britain's survival (even when you strip away the mythologizing)?

Darat

4th September 2006, 06:33 AM

Lothian

4th September 2006, 06:44 AM

Does it seem to help matters at any level (militarily or politically) whether or not the US, Isreal, Great Britian, etc. go to the nth level of preventing collateral damage when engaging terrorists on foreign soil? Certainly one can see examples of how it matters very little to the terrorists as they use explosives in public areas killing everyone within a given radius. Do we actually get any points at all from anyone?Indeed the Iraqis are bloody ungrateful if you ask me. We go to great lengths to keep civilian casualties down to an insignificant 35 innocent civilians a day (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), while our troops are being massacred at a rate of 2 deaths a day (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx).

Mephisto

4th September 2006, 07:08 AM

Well, yes actually they did. The "Blitz Spirit" is a bit like the myth about eating carrots improving your night vision or eyesight, a propaganda story which has refused to die. The bombing of UK civilian and economic targets had a profoundly negative impact on the UKs ability to effectively wage war. Why do you think that the "Battle of Brittan" is still regarded as vital to Britain's survival (even when you strip away the mythologizing)?

I was aware of the myths and certainly of the despair and suffering of the English people, my point was centered more around the fact that the British people survived to see a satisfactory end to the war. :)

A VERY long time ago, I had a physical science teacher who survived London during the bombings and his descriptions of V2 attacks were particularly captivating during the rocketry segment of the class.

Mephisto

4th September 2006, 07:12 AM

egslim

4th September 2006, 07:12 AM

The bombing of UK civilian and economic targets had a profoundly negative impact on the UKs ability to effectively wage war.
I agree the economic effects had a negative impact on Britains war-effort, but did the bombings actually have the psychological effect of weakening the country's resolve to not negotiate peace?

demon

4th September 2006, 07:44 AM

The Blitz?
The wanderful Queen`s Mam `elped us all frew those `ard times...she was maaarvalous...gawd bless ya marm!

brodski

4th September 2006, 08:04 AM

I agree the economic effects had a negative impact on Britains war-effort, but did the bombings actually have the psychological effect of weakening the country's resolve to not negotiate peace?
We will never know- no one in the UK was keeping the data; furthermore it would have made very little difference. The UK was not a democracy between 1935 (ok 1939) and 1945, so the need for public commitment to fight the war was limited.
What was necessary was for good morale amongst the essential workers on the "home front", there is evidence that this workers morale was severely damaged by civilian bombing.
For instance unofficial statistics show that there where a huge number of industrial strikes between about 1941 and 1945, many historians put these down (at least in part) to poor morale caused mainly by bombings. According to official statistics there where no strikes during the war, this was because the government only collected stats on legal strikes, and they outlawed industrial action "for the duration".
Years later people get very nostalgic about the "good times" during WWII, people forget that Churchill was booted out of power the first chance the electors had, and he only regained power in 1950 due to the peculiarities of the British electoral system. Churchill was a great military mind (during the second world war anyway, the least said about his decision in WWI the better) and he contributed greatly to the Allies success against the Nazis, but the population of the UK did not like living in the society he presided over.

brodski

4th September 2006, 08:11 AM

I was aware of the myths and certainly of the despair and suffering of the English people, my point was centered more around the fact that the British people survived to see a satisfactory end to the war. :) I should point out that the Welsh and the Scots where bommed too, just beceasue the Cockneys get all the press, doesn't mean that they where the only ones to suffer

A VERY long time ago, I had a physical science teacher who survived London during the bombings and his descriptions of V2 attacks were particularly captivating during the rocketry segment of the class.
How did he feel about NASA?

Darat

4th September 2006, 08:17 AM

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/blitz_and_world_war_two.htm

...The government used its control over all forms of the media to present a picture of life going on as normal despite the constant nightly attacks. They did not show photos of people known as ‘trekkers’ – the families who would spend the night away from their homes, preferably in local woodland or a park where they felt safer from attack. Such photos were censored. An American film – "London can take it" - presented the image of a city devastated by bombs but one that carried on as normal. The narrator makes the point that "bombs can only kill people, they cannot destroy the indomitable spirit of a nation."

However, we know that life was not quite as easy as propaganda showed. London could take it but only because there was little else they could do. Under wartime restrictions, people could not simply leave their homes and move elsewhere. The poorest in London lived in the East End and it was this area that was especially hit hard by bombing because of the docks that were based there. However, most of the families there could do little else except stay where they were unless specifically moved by the government. These families developed what became known as a ‘war-time spirit’. They adapted their lives to the constant night-time bombing.

By May 1941, 43,000 had been killed across Britain and 1.4 million had been made homeless. Not only was London attacked but so were many British cities. Coventry and Plymouth were particularly badly bombed but most of Britain’s cities were also attacked – Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool etc.

...

.13.

4th September 2006, 08:29 AM

Lothian

4th September 2006, 08:51 AM

I got the impression from your link that their deathtoll includes civilians killed by insurgency and sectarian violence.
Yes, Unfortunately the o.p talked about civilian deaths as a result of coalition troops engaging terrorists. That suggests some deaths as a result of insurgents firing back at coalition troops should be counted.

However numbers are very difficult to come by. The 35 figure above is seen as a minimum as they are relying of officially recorded deaths only. I note that other sources put the number nearly twice as high in a period half as long.

Whichever way you look at it there have been a lot of civilian casualties from coalition weapons, which must be counted in any ‘point scoring’.

New Ager

4th September 2006, 08:55 AM

Mephisto

4th September 2006, 08:58 AM

With any revolution, there will be lots of deaths.

Dying in Saddam's death fields or dying for a cause.

I know which one I would choose.

Which cause is that - the Shia cause or the Shiite cause?

(edited to add) either way, dead is dead

Lothian

4th September 2006, 09:09 AM

With any revolution, there will be lots of deaths.

Dying in Saddam's death fields or dying for a cause.

I know which one I would choose.Which would you prefer, 3 people in your town killed by an escaped prisoner with a gun or 60 people killed with two busses runnig into each other ?

Moving away from the numbers point. Since when has Iraq been a revolution ? If there is a revolution it is the insurgents revolting against the present government.

egslim

4th September 2006, 09:45 AM

With any revolution, there will be lots of deaths.

Dying in Saddam's death fields or dying for a cause.

I know which one I would choose.
Of course, sitting in your comfortable chair, with a drink and snacks nearby, as well as comprehensive emergency services only a 911 call away, your perspective is slightly different than for those living in Iraq.

And while you may be willing to sacrifice your own life, are you prepared to sacrifice the lives of your wife and children for "the cause" too?

Even those who serve in the US Army in Iraq are reasonably secure that their loved ones are safely at home, and will be looked after in at least some way.

None of us is qualified to claim the moral highground compared to Iraqis who just want a stable society, while gradually losing interest in abstract democratic principles.
Not to mention that there is no guarantee a stable, self sustaining democracy will eventually develop. Until then, it's a matter of: We gamble with your life.

Darth Rotor

4th September 2006, 09:54 AM

Moving away from the numbers point. Since when has Iraq been a revolution ? If there is a revolution it is the insurgents revolting against the present government.
Are you saying they are not? That appears to be what some of the factions are doing.

DR

Lothian

4th September 2006, 11:22 AM

Are you saying they are not? That appears to be what some of the factions are doing.

DRUmmm you might be right. I have some romantic notion of a revolution being the majority rising up in unison against the corrupt minority.

They did not rise against Saddam and at the moment I don’t see a majority of the population rising against the government rather small minorities appear to want to cause trouble. The majority I think are happy with the idea of a democratically elected government even if they are not happy with the violence that has followed it.

Azure

4th September 2006, 11:22 AM

OK so consider this scenario - you know there is a cell of terrorists in the middle of a city, they are actively planning an attack within the next few days which could kill thousands of USA citizens, you've located them to one apartment block which has hundreds of innocent citizens in it.

Would you say destroy the apartment block to kill the terrorists and thus remove the threat against USA citizens?

Yes.

Would you take the chance of a thousand lives, by saving a hundred lives?

But you're also assuming that the only way to deal with the problem would be through an airstrike. Would it not be possible to take down the cell, 'without' any collateral damage? That would be my first option.

Azure

4th September 2006, 11:23 AM

WW2 was total war. We didn't really think in terms of civilians

Well maybe we should make the WOT a total war too.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, yet it doesn't seem like we're making any real progress.

Darth Rotor

4th September 2006, 11:27 AM

Politically, you have to take measures to minimize collateral damage. Besides the image problem, there is no value in killing people who you didn't want to kill.

Various media organs are too quick, in my opinion, to assign as "civilian" persons who die in air attacks, when the Geneva classification of a scout, or a partisan, is as a combatant.

Since they don't carry ID cards that say "Taliban" or "Hezbollah" it is easy for them to be classified as "civilian" when their status is in fact "unknown." Reporters like to pretend to have facts when they are often working on murky factual footing in a war zone, what with their "after the fact" reportage. Too often, IMO, they don't realize they are being used by all parties to a conflict.

DR

geni

4th September 2006, 11:31 AM

Well maybe we should make the WOT a total war too.

You can't pakistan has nukes.

Azure

4th September 2006, 01:24 PM

You can't pakistan has nukes.

Does that not give you a good reason of why we should not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons?

Personally I think we should start with SA and Iran.

Just thinking

4th September 2006, 05:29 PM

Indeed the Iraqis are bloody ungrateful if you ask me. We go to great lengths to keep civilian casualties down to an insignificant 35 innocent civilians a day (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), while our troops are being massacred at a rate of 2 deaths a day (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx).

I'm not at all sure how these statistics have any relevance to my OP's questions. First off, the number of US and allied forces killed each day plays no role on whether we are employing efforts to minimize collateral deaths -- all 2 deaths per day might denote is how well we can keep our troops safe. As for the 35 innocent Iraqi deaths per day -- can you tell me just how many we could have killed if we bombed the daylights out of them? ... making no distinctions as to military vs. civilian targets? Again, a meaningless data point in assesing colllateral damage all by itself.

Yes, Unfortunately the o.p talked about civilian deaths as a result of coalition troops engaging terrorists. That suggests some deaths as a result of insurgents firing back at coalition troops should be counted.

Yes ... but with what efforts taken to minimize Iraqi deaths? I believe Saddam would have ordered to kill off the invasion at all costs, whereas we went in with taking out Saddam with minimal civilian costs. And the insurgents are just killing to disrupt --- anyone caught in the crossfire is just added points to them. There is a difference.

However numbers are very difficult to come by. The 35 figure above is seen as a minimum as they are relying of officially recorded deaths only. I note that other sources put the number nearly twice as high in a period half as long.

Whichever way you look at it there have been a lot of civilian casualties from coalition weapons, which must be counted in any ‘point scoring’.

It all depends on your value of the objective. Yes, civilian deaths are tragic -- but this is a war that has innocent deaths (so far) at a relatively low level. And if you're going to count insurgency initiated deaths via terroist bombings as allied forces' collateral casualties because we invaded Iraq, then you can simply go back to putting the whole blame on Saddam for invading Kuwait in the first place. Or to what instigated Saddam to invade -- or what instigated that ... etc. etc. Where does that get you?

demon

4th September 2006, 06:53 PM

Just thinking:
"Does it seem to help matters at any level (militarily or politically) whether or not the US, Isreal, Great Britian, etc. go to the nth level of preventing collateral damage when engaging terrorists on foreign soil? Certainly one can see examples of how it matters very little to the terrorists as they use explosives in public areas killing everyone within a given radius. Do we actually get any points at all from anyone?"

Becasue terrorists act in a certain way makes you ask us to consider if "the US, Israel, Great Britian, etc" should not be prosecuting their oxymoronic War on Terror even more ruthlessly? Like hell it does. They and you need no encouragement whatsoever.
Even if we make the leap into a parallel universe of illogicality by thinking that the best strategy to secure our, ummm, safety and freedoms and way of life, is to bomb, shoot, poison, and torture, the fact is that it hasn't worked and it isn`t working.
PS: I didn't realise it was a points-scoring exercise. I thought it was a matter of life and death.

Darth Rotor

4th September 2006, 09:00 PM

As for the 35 innocent Iraqi deaths per day -- can you tell me just how many we could have killed if we bombed the daylights out of them? ... making no distinctions as to military vs. civilian targets? Again, a meaningless data point in assesing colllateral damage all by itself.
I can give you a rough figure if you want to just consider "bombs being dropped." This illustration ignore helicopters in support of Marines or Soldiers, artillery, tanks, Ma Deuce, rifle fire, grenade launchers, etc.

Based on a nominal sortie rate, and assuming 2 @ 500# bombs per sortie beginning July 1 2003 to today, a lower boundary of just how bloody Iraq's soil would become were the US even casually bombing with the purpose of shedding innocent blood looks thusly:

Roughly 20 sorties per day X (2@ 500# bomb) *(.9 pK) on 40 * (.9) = 36 targets per day. For this model's purposes, a target = a house, that holds between 5 and 20 people.

This has been going on for well over a thousand days. Taking a few days off for Ramadan each year . . .
(180-1200) * (1000) = 180,000 to 1,200,000 casualties from bombing alone. If you get clever and bomb a full market when everyone is shopping, you sweeten the body count of course. If that level of slaughter were going on, the refugee flow out of Iraq would have hit deluge level in the early fall of 2003.

Does that little mental exercise put a scale to the collateral whinging?

DR

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 05:09 AM

...Does that little mental exercise put a scale to the collateral whinging?

DR

Yes ... it shows we are doing a hell of a job minimizing collateral damage -- which is a good thing. Now, can this be equated to gaining military objectives or striking targets more effectively? In other words, are we killing insurgents and terrorists in greater numbers as a result? I understand that's not all we're doing there, but if taken to too extreme a level, does it not undermine our objectives?

Also, don't forget, that the number (35) was presented in a way to show too great a casualty loss. But if one just says that 35 a day die from military strikes, it must be put in perspective -- a raw number is meaningless.

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 05:30 AM

... Becasue terrorists act in a certain way makes you ask us to consider if "the US, Israel, Great Britian, etc" should not be prosecuting their oxymoronic War on Terror even more ruthlessly? Like hell it does. They and you need no encouragement whatsoever.

The goal is to win -- not to lose with dignity. No, I do not advocate a win at any cost in all circumstances -- but we are fighting an enemy that behaves in that manner. I am simply questioning if fighting a war with too much political correctness is a good idea.

Even if we make the leap into a parallel universe of illogicality by thinking that the best strategy to secure our, ummm, safety and freedoms and way of life, is to bomb, shoot, poison, and torture, the fact is that it hasn't worked and it isn`t working.

Go tell that to the Nazis ... oops, they're dead. Sorry, I meant the German and Japanese governments after the WWII, they might disagree as to what actually worked in winning the war, not to mention who won and who surrendered unconditionally.

PS: I didn't realise it was a points-scoring exercise. I thought it was a matter of life and death.

I see you have trouble with understanding metaphors --- it appears that no matter what the US does, it (and its allies) is seen by much of the world as the 'Bad Guys', even though much of the world would be quite different today if there never was a US. Yes, it is life and death --- and when you get little support from those who were helped throughout history survive extreme tyranny, it becomes even more critical in 'scoring points'. Need an example? Look at the UN and how it's behaving with Israel and Iran of late. Whether or not Iran gets its hands on atomic weapons can have a great impact on life and death --- to many more than have so far died in Iraq, for example.

geni

5th September 2006, 05:39 AM

Does that not give you a good reason of why we should not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons?

Personally I think we should start with SA and Iran.

So aparently you don't know the meaning of total war either. Anyway you can't afford it.

geni

5th September 2006, 05:45 AM

The goal is to win -- not to lose with dignity. No, I do not advocate a win at any cost in all circumstances -- but we are fighting an enemy that behaves in that manner. I am simply questioning if fighting a war with too much political correctness is a good idea.

"political correctness"? Nothing to do with poltical correctness. The term you are looking for is hearts and minds.

I see you have trouble with understanding metaphors --- it appears that no matter what the US does, it (and its allies) is seen by much of the world as the 'Bad Guys', even though much of the world would be quite different today if there never was a US.

More peaceful to start with.

Yes, it is life and death --- and when you get little support from those who were helped throughout history survive extreme tyranny, it becomes even more critical in 'scoring points'. Need an example? Look at the UN and how it's behaving with Israel and Iran of late.

It has been trying to tell both of them to stop it.

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 06:08 AM

"political correctness"? Nothing to do with poltical correctness. The term you are looking for is hearts and minds.

OK, I'll use hearts and minds from now on. But don't be too fooled by words alone. ;)

More peaceful to start with.

Yes ... and Hitler and Tojo would've agreed with you.

It has been trying to tell both of them to stop it.

Telling one to stop is a good way of putting it --- now, when they actually make them stop developing a weapon you let us know.

geni

5th September 2006, 06:15 AM

OK, I'll use hearts and minds from now on. But don't be too fooled by words alone. ;)

The phrase hearts and minds comes from the later days of the british empire. It has nothing to do with PC.

Yes ... and Hitler and Tojo would agree with you.

Tojo? The US sent someone to open up trade with Japan. The british empire would probably have sent someone to occupy it.

Hitler is only really an issue if you consider that germany would have been stupid enough to start WW1 against the overwelming power of the British empire.

Telling one to stop is a good way of putting it --- now, when they actually make them stop developing a weapon you let us know.

Make how can they do that? China wont get involved. Russia is mostly busy in chechnya. The US is somewhat busy in iraq. The various european armies are either busy of have constitions that prevent them from doing anything.

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 06:33 AM

... Hitler is only really an issue if you consider that germany would have been stupid enough to start WW1 against the overwelming power of the British empire.

Just look at Russia as an example.

Make how can they do that? China wont get involved. Russia is mostly busy in chechnya. The US is somewhat busy in iraq. The various european armies are either busy of have constitions that prevent them from doing anything.

Without making Iran stop Uranium enrichment the UN (or any other crticizing nation) is useless -- as long as Iran continues its course and statements against Israel's existance. And Russia and China can influence an embargo on Iranian oil -- but Iran is counting on them not doing that. Then what happens if some idiots do get their hands on even a dirty bomb and start using them? How far will all the excuses for not doing anything get anyone?

Darat

5th September 2006, 06:42 AM

Yes.

...snip...

OK. I just don't see this being a policy adopted by leaders like Bush or Blair - I just do not see them saying "Destroy that tower block in London/New York".

geni

5th September 2006, 06:57 AM

Just look at Russia as an example.

Without WW2 russia would not have been a player of the significance it was.

And Russia and China can influence an embargo on Iranian oil -- but Iran is counting on them not doing that.

Well russia might but china is a net importer of oil.

Then what happens if some idiots do get their hands on even a dirty bomb and start using them? How far will all the excuses for not doing anything get anyone?

Quite a long way. if we can get people to belive them.

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 07:12 AM

Without WW2 russia would not have been a player of the significance it was.

I was using Russia as an example of Hitler's actions ... not all too wise.

Well russia might but china is a net importer of oil.

And if China stopped importing from Iran?

Quite a long way. if we can get people to belive them.

Believe whom? If Iran develops material for dirty bombs and several go off in Israel it's too late for excuses. That's my point. How will those allowing such defend their inactions? (Not that I'm taking any blame away from Iran in such a scenario -- but they have already made some intentions quite clear. Ignoring it is at our peril.)

Darth Rotor

5th September 2006, 07:48 AM

Yes ... it shows we are doing a hell of a job minimizing collateral damage -- which is a good thing. Now, can this be equated to gaining military objectives or striking targets more effectively? In other words, are we killing insurgents and terrorists in greater numbers as a result? I understand that's not all we're doing there, but if taken to too extreme a level, does it not undermine our objectives?

Also, don't forget, that the number (35) was presented in a way to show too great a casualty loss. But if one just says that 35 a day die from military strikes, it must be put in perspective -- a raw number is meaningless.
Body count isn't as handy as effect: hitting them as need killin' but not ordinary folk.

I saw an article a few weeks back that argued thusly: the suicide bomber is tne new "secret weapon" of modern warfare, being used by various Jihadists and other sundry True Believers.

It works on four levels: surprise, devastating destructive power, and fear of it happening any day you walk out the door." The "moral victory" of martyrdom, isn't universal but is symbolically powerful among those impressed with suicidal bravery.

DR

geni

5th September 2006, 07:56 AM

I was using Russia as an example of Hitler's actions ... not all too wise.

WW1 Germany was rather more sensible. In any case even if the war had started it would have been much shorter.

And if China stopped importing from Iran?

Depends who else did but an even bigger jump in oil prices would be the most likely result

Believe whom?

The authorities telling people that the slight increase in radition levels isn't that harmfull

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 08:21 AM

...In any case even if the war had started it would have been much shorter.

And if no one took up arms against Hitler WWII would never have occured either.

The mind boggles.

Depends who else did but an even bigger jump in oil prices would be the most likely result

Less demand = higher prices? This is revolutionary economics.

The authorities telling people that the slight increase in radition levels isn't that harmfull

You would believe that? If not -- why expect anyone else.

geni

5th September 2006, 08:28 AM

And if no one took up arms against Hitler WWII would never have occured either.

The mind boggles.

What the feck are you talking about? WW1 would have been shorted becuase britian would have acess to more resources.

Less demand = higher prices? This is revolutionary economics.

Damand would stay constant. Suppy would go down because Iran would not be suppying. China would have to get it's oil from somewhere.

You would believe that? If not -- why expect anyone else.

I porbably would but then I have had more dealings with radition than most.

Azure

5th September 2006, 09:50 AM

So aparently you don't know the meaning of total war either. Anyway you can't afford it.

I do understand the meaning. But if nukes are the only thing holding us back from properly winning the WOT, I'd say we stop all ME countries that harbor terrorist from acquiring nukes.

As it sits right now, we're not making 'true' progress on the WOT.

geni

5th September 2006, 10:33 AM

I do understand the meaning. But if nukes are the only thing holding us back from properly winning the WOT, I'd say we stop all ME countries that harbor terrorist from acquiring nukes.

Realisticaly The pakistan boarder region is far more of a problem. Anyway you can't. You just sent the entire army to Iraq (that would be what 300K meant that is the limit of the number of troops you can operationaly deploy).

Iran is in fact largely a side issue. It is persian and shia. Bin laden and the like are sunni and arab. If you attack every middle east goverment you will find yourself with far bigger problems than you do in Iraq.

As it sits right now, we're not making 'true' progress on the WOT.

Of course. The reason is people like you. You don't understand and make no effort to do so.

Just thinking

5th September 2006, 06:47 PM

What the feck are you talking about? WW1 would have been shorted becuase britian would have acess to more resources.

I'm talking about WWII and Hitler's decision to attack Russia on a second front. Plus the responses to his attacks in western Europe. Just what do you think the US was suppose to do after Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on the US? Of course without a US there would have not been those events -- and no France or western Europe as we now know it.

Damand would stay constant. Suppy would go down because Iran would not be suppying. China would have to get it's oil from somewhere.

And you think other OPEC nations wouldn't jump at the opportunity to fill that gap? Plus if China and Russia (and others) embargo Iranian oil they (Iran) would think twice before doing anything.

I porbably would but then I have had more dealings with radition than most.

I don't know of your experience of working with radioactive material, but a dirty bomb would leave a very nasty residual impact area if something like Plutonium isotopes were used.

Tony

5th September 2006, 10:12 PM

Reporters like to pretend to have facts when they are often working on murky factual footing in a war zone, what with their "after the fact" reportage. Too often, IMO, they don't realize they are being used by all parties to a conflict.

DR

How do you know this?

geni

6th September 2006, 04:12 AM

I'm talking about WWII and Hitler's decision to attack Russia on a second front. Plus the responses to his attacks in western Europe. Just what do you think the US was suppose to do after Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on the US? Of course without a US there would have not been those events -- and no France or western Europe as we now know it.

France would probably still exist. Britian hasn't tried to occupy it for quite a long time.

Hitlers World war two can only happen as a product of world war one. So first you would have to show that germany would have gone to war against a far stronger british empire and secondly you would have to show that britian would have a simmular level of difficulty in winning.

The japanese side could only have happened if the british had done something simular to Commodore Perry. More likely japan would have been added to the empire rather than being allowed to delevlop as a seperate nation.

And you think other OPEC nations wouldn't jump at the opportunity to fill that gap?

They can't. With the posible exception of saudi arabia they are all pumping at 100% capacity.

Plus if China and Russia (and others) embargo Iranian oil they (Iran) would think twice before doing anything.

Why?

I don't know of your experience of working with radioactive material, but a dirty bomb would leave a very nasty residual impact area if something like Plutonium isotopes were used.

Plutonium is an unlikely choice since it isn't the simpleest material to get hold of.

Dcdrac

6th September 2006, 05:57 AM

A grave warning was first given.

And, you might want to recheck your history -- that didn't end the war. Nagasaki did.

This is still far from settled, it is known that the Japanese had been making peace overtures from April 1945 and that only the insistance on the part of the Allies on unconditional surrender blocked moves towards an earlier ceasefire.

You would be advised to check out the cabinet meetings at the time and the reccommendations being made to accept a conditional ceasefire, the condition being that the Japaense be allowed to keep their emperor. WW2 could have ended months before it did.

Just thinking

6th September 2006, 06:01 AM

France would probably still exist. Britian hasn't tried to occupy it for quite a long time.

Hitlers World war two can only happen as a product of world war one. So first you would have to show that germany would have gone to war against a far stronger british empire and secondly you would have to show that britian would have a simmular level of difficulty in winning.

Germany would still be in shambles if they lost WWI even without the US -- thus Hitler (or one like him) could still emerge. Germany did not initially go against England -- mainland Europe was the initial target.

The japanese side could only have happened if the british had done something simular to Commodore Perry. More likely japan would have been added to the empire rather than being allowed to delevlop as a seperate nation.

Come on -- even passive India broke away ... Japan has a much more brutal past.

They can't. With the posible exception of saudi arabia they are all pumping at 100% capacity.

And just where did the pumping capacity over the last 50 years go? Continually on the upward.

Why?

It's what fuels (pardon the pun) Iran's ambitions.

Plutonium is an unlikely choice since it isn't the simpleest material to get hold of.

And neither is an atomic bomb -- yet Iran is easily headed in that direction. Enriched Uranuim isn't all that nice either.

geni

6th September 2006, 06:21 AM

Germany would still be in shambles if they lost WWI even without the US

Not if they lost it quickly

-- thus Hitler (or one like him) could still emerge. Germany did not initially go against England -- mainland Europe was the initial target.

A stronger britian would have been more likely to get involved ealier.

Come on -- even passive India broke away ... Japan has a much more brutal past.

By the time India left britian was bancrupt from 2 world wars and the idiology of empire (in any case remeber britian won the first Indian war of independance) I doubt japan would have presented and real problems it would harly be the first warriour culture the british empire had delt with

And just where did the pumping capacity over the last 50 years go? Continually on the upward.

It takes time to construct oil wells. Regardless there would be a jump in oil prices

It's what fuels (pardon the pun) Iran's ambitions.

No the knowlage of the difference in aproaches to Iraq and north korea does that.

And neither is an atomic bomb -- yet Iran is easily headed in that direction. Enriched Uranuim isn't all that nice either.

Half life of ~700 million years. Not really a problem in a dirty bomb.

Just thinking

6th September 2006, 06:39 AM

Not if they lost it quickly

A stronger britian would have been more likely to get involved ealier.

By the time India left britian was bancrupt from 2 world wars and the idiology of empire (in any case remeber britian won the first Indian war of independance) I doubt japan would have presented and real problems it would harly be the first warriour culture the british empire had delt with

Too many hypotheticals to argue ... pointless to continue.

No the knowlage of the difference in aproaches to Iraq and north korea does that.

Any large national ambitious progam takes $$$$. Look at NK's economy and way-of-life for its citizens as a result of KJ Mentally Ill.

Half life of ~700 million years. Not really a problem in a dirty bomb.

Thanks for making my point.

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 06:59 AM

How do you know this?
1. I have been in a number of operations where what we did and what got reported didn't have much correlation. The root cause, IMO, was the reporter trying to assemble "what happened" after the fact, and relying on sources with an explicit agenda as having factual testimony.

2. How many reporters are "there" when something happens, and how many get there as fast as they can, and try to make sense of it? In the latter case, which is frequent, reporters are dependent on after the fact pathology.

3. When writing a report of an event, or what is allegedly an event, the reporter often attempts to present a perspective that fuses disparate bits of information. So, inference and guesswork often fill in the gaps where facts are sparse or confused. The consistent misattribution of intent by the parties involved I won't comment on further.

DR

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 07:03 AM

This is still far from settled, it is known that the Japanese had been making peace overtures from April 1945 and that only the insistance on the part of the Allies on unconditional surrender blocked moves towards an earlier ceasefire.

You would be advised to check out the cabinet meetings at the time and the reccommendations being made to accept a conditional ceasefire, the condition being that the Japaense be allowed to keep their emperor. WW2 could have ended months before it did.
Making peace overtures and surrendering are not the same thing. War isn't over until one side quits.

Technically, the Korean War is NOT over, it is still in a cease fire mode.

DR

Dcdrac

6th September 2006, 08:12 AM

Making peace overtures and surrendering are not the same thing. War isn't over until one side quits.

Technically, the Korean War is NOT over, it is still in a cease fire mode.

DR

"We did not have to hit them with that awful thing"

Dwight D Eisenhower.

And i beleive the Strategic Bombing Survey the USAAF conducted post WW2 called the strategic value of the atomic bombings into question as well.

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 09:09 AM

"We did not have to hit them with that awful thing"

Dwight D Eisenhower.

And i beleive the Strategic Bombing Survey the USAAF conducted post WW2 called the strategic value of the atomic bombings into question as well.
That's how I read it.

DR

Azure

6th September 2006, 10:22 AM

Realisticaly The pakistan boarder region is far more of a problem. Anyway you can't. You just sent the entire army to Iraq (that would be what 300K meant that is the limit of the number of troops you can operationaly deploy).

That is the realistic number 'one' country could deploy, such as the US. If France and Germany got their collective ass' on the right side, something 'could' be done.

Iran is in fact largely a side issue. It is persian and shia. Bin laden and the like are sunni and arab. If you attack every middle east goverment you will find yourself with far bigger problems than you do in Iraq.

I certainly don't advocate attacking every 'single' middle east government. I said Iran and SA need to be dealt with now, considering that like you said, we 'can' deal with them because they don't have nuclear weapons, yet.

Of course. The reason is people like you. You don't understand and make no effort to do so.

Right. :rolleyes:

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 10:44 AM

Right. :rolleyes:
Is "true progress in the WOT" anything like a True Scotsman? :)

Somethings have changed. More money is being allocated to efforts to uncover underground cells, and this has been true I think since 9-11. We are either being fed an enormous line of codswallop, or the number of arrests around the world reflect a change in the operating environment for the average terrorist group: it's a bit tougher to do what they want to do now.

Al Qaeda has moved its privileged sanctuary from Afghanistan to Pakistan. That is change, but is it progress? I think so.

International information sharing, and in America cross agency information sharing, have improved: that's the story anyway. I confess to not understanding what metrics are used to measure that.

Iran's nuclear ambitions have been forced to the front page at the UN. Would that have happened without the war in Iraq, and North Korea's recent missile firings? Probably. Would support against Iran have been easier to assemble were we not in Iraq? No idea, but I thinks yes.

Would Iran have turned more reactionary (the new president) had the US NOT gone to Iraq? Unknown. As I understood it, there was a small bit of assistance/coordination with Iran vis a vis Afghanistan in 2002/2003, though I'd have to dig to find some stories on that. Been a while since I saw them.

DR

Azure

6th September 2006, 01:29 PM

Is "true progress in the WOT" anything like a True Scotsman? :)

DR

I guess.

The US has important elections coming up in the next few years. Will the WOT still be fought in the same manner as it is now?

I agree, and still do, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just yesterday over 200 Taliban were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan. Does that seem like progress to you?

According to the politicians and the media, it isn't.

I long for the day when the world can unite against Islamic extremism. That to me will be the era when we make 'true' progress.

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 02:52 PM

I agree, and still do, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just yesterday over 200 Taliban were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan. Does that seem like progress to you?

No, I don't think body counts are any indication of success or progress in a war. They are a measure of effective application of fires to targets, flesh and blood targets, and possibly effective tactical employment of combined arms.They may also be a measure of enemy competence. For every Hannibal at Cannae, there has to be a Vero. :)

*insert gratuitous MacNamara comment about winning wars by objective measures.*

DR

Azure

6th September 2006, 03:02 PM

No, I don't think body counts are any indication of success or progress in a war. They are a measure of effective application of fires to targets, flesh and blood targets, and possibly effective tactical employment of combined arms.They may also be a measure of enemy competence. For every Hannibal at Cannae, there has to be a Vero. :)

*insert gratuitous MacNamara comment about winning wars by objective measures.*

DR

Alright, I guess progress would seem like the wrong word.

Although I think that in the war we are fighting now, a body count would not necessarily have the same effect as it did in WW2. IMO, the WOT can be fought through political means as well as military strength. Sadly, like I said before, the world refuses to unite against Islamic facism.

geni

6th September 2006, 04:50 PM

That is the realistic number 'one' country could deploy, such as the US. If France and Germany got their collective ass' on the right side, something 'could' be done.

The germans have a constitional issue. The french could deploy maybe 46,000 troops. It's not enough for what you appear to be planning

I certainly don't advocate attacking every 'single' middle east government. I said Iran and SA need to be dealt with now, considering that like you said, we 'can' deal with them because they don't have nuclear weapons, yet.

You can't do that and deploy 300K troops to Iraq. You can't fight them both anyway. Iran has a fair bit of militry caperbility and Saudi arabia has some pretty nice bits of kit and there is always the risk that they will figure out how to use them.

Right. :rolleyes:

So far you appear to have suggested fighting a conventional war in a way that is beyond your countries resources.

geni

6th September 2006, 05:01 PM

I guess.

The US has important elections coming up in the next few years. Will the WOT still be fought in the same manner as it is now?

For the most part yes. Your military is stuck in Iraq and you've pissed off a lot of people who might have been prepared to work with you. The democrats might be able to get some more cooperation but probably not that much. Classic rock and hard place. If you stay in Iraq you lose the military ability to do much else and continue to upset a fair bit of the world. If you leave you have a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and an insanely unstable middle eastern country to worry about

I agree, and still do, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just yesterday over 200 Taliban were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan. Does that seem like progress to you?

What did body counts mean in Vietnam? In any case 200 deaths means you now have 400 pissed of younger brothers.

Azure

6th September 2006, 07:19 PM

The germans have a constitional issue. The french could deploy maybe 46,000 troops. It's not enough for what you appear to be planning

Well maybe they should fix it then.

Russia, India and Japan should get on board too.

You can't do that and deploy 300K troops to Iraq. You can't fight them both anyway. Iran has a fair bit of militry caperbility and Saudi arabia has some pretty nice bits of kit and there is always the risk that they will figure out how to use them.

I'm not asking to deploy 300k troops to Iraq, while in the meantime you deploy 300k to Iran.

One thing at a time.

So far you appear to have suggested fighting a conventional war in a way that is beyond your countries resources.

My countries resourced will have to be directed so that the military effort is supported as needed.

Azure

6th September 2006, 07:23 PM

For the most part yes. Your military is stuck in Iraq and you've pissed off a lot of people who might have been prepared to work with you. The democrats might be able to get some more cooperation but probably not that much. Classic rock and hard place. If you stay in Iraq you lose the military ability to do much else and continue to upset a fair bit of the world. If you leave you have a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and an insanely unstable middle eastern country to worry about

Not my military. I know you live in the UK, but you should at least know that Alberta is not a state.

Either way, the US hasn't devoted its entire military to Iraq, so you're going on extremes when you say..."Your military is stuck in Iraq."

Stay in Iraq and help them develop a democratic nation, which gives you a good geographic position on Iran.

What did body counts mean in Vietnam? In any case 200 deaths means you now have 400 pissed of younger brothers.

Maybe they should quit reproducing so fast.

Oh right, do they even have condoms in ME countries? :p

Darth Rotor

6th September 2006, 08:30 PM

Not my military. I know you live in the UK, but you should at least know that Alberta is not a state.

Either way, the US hasn't devoted its entire military to Iraq, so you're going on extremes when you say..."Your military is stuck in Iraq."

Stay in Iraq and help them develop a democratic nation, which gives you a good geographic position on Iran.

Maybe they should quit reproducing so fast.

Oh right, do they even have condoms in ME countries? :p
None of the Arabs I ever met in the Mid East seemed to obsess over small families. They tended to favor large famlies. (Of course, small sample size, your mileage may vary.)

In the Arab world, family is HUGE.

DR

geni

7th September 2006, 04:10 AM

Well maybe they should fix it then.

After a certian world war imposed it on them that seems unlikely.

Russia, India and Japan should get on board too.

Russia is on board. just don't look too closely at what they are up to. india is busy faceing off against pakistan and to a degree china. Japan has simular issues to germany and is probably more worried about north korea.

I'm not asking to deploy 300k troops to Iraq, while in the meantime you deploy 300k to Iran.

One thing at a time.

By the time that 300K have pacified Iraq the Iran thing will be over one way or the other.

My countries resourced will have to be directed so that the military effort is supported as needed.

Well there goes you economy.

geni

7th September 2006, 04:17 AM

Not my military. I know you live in the UK, but you should at least know that Alberta is not a state.

Err my map clearly shows you are part of Jesusland

Either way, the US hasn't devoted its entire military to Iraq, so you're going on extremes when you say..."Your military is stuck in Iraq."

Relistical they can't do anything without droping other comitments.

Stay in Iraq and help them develop a democratic nation, which gives you a good geographic position on Iran.

Funny.

Maybe they should quit reproducing so fast.

Why? When the russians will kill six of your children it makes sense to have at least 8.

Oh right, do they even have condoms in ME countries? :p

Iran certainly does:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1949068.stm

Azure

7th September 2006, 09:28 AM

After a certian world war imposed it on them that seems unlikely.

We're still stuck in WW2 era? Sad, really.

Russia is on board.

With Iran?

just don't look too closely at what they are up to. india is busy faceing off against pakistan and to a degree china.

Fair enough.

Japan has simular issues to germany and is probably more worried about north korea.

NK is like the little teenage girl who cries to get attention. I think they felt left out on the world stage the past 6 months, hence the call for attention. Japan is already looking how it could change its constitution, allowing for an expanding military beyond a defense force.

Well there goes you economy.

Thats wierd, because my economics class taught me that war was good for the economy.

Azure

7th September 2006, 09:29 AM

Err my map clearly shows you are part of Jesusland

I see your ignorance of NA is unlimited.

brodski

7th September 2006, 09:31 AM

Thats wierd, because my economics class taught me that war was good for the economy.

That depends on the type of war and how close your economy is to the front line. The only booming going on in the UK 1940-1950 was not economic.

Azure

7th September 2006, 09:45 AM

That depends on the type of war and how close your economy is to the front line. The only booming going on in the UK 1940-1950 was not economic.

I hardly believe that if the US got involved in a total war effort, the fighting would be on NA soil.

I know the Canadian economy boomed like crazy because of WW1 and 2.

geni

7th September 2006, 10:04 AM

We're still stuck in WW2 era? Sad, really.

No realistic.

With Iran?

No Chechnya

NK is like the little teenage girl who cries to get attention. I think they felt left out on the world stage the past 6 months, hence the call for attention. Japan is already looking how it could change its constitution, allowing for an expanding military beyond a defense force.

And the reason for that is NK. NK could do a lot of damage if it chose to.

Thats wierd, because my economics class taught me that war was good for the economy.

Depends on the war. WW1 hurt all sides rather a lot (well other than the US).

geni

7th September 2006, 10:06 AM

I see your ignorance of NA is unlimited.

Looks like you missed a joke after the last US election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newnewmap.jpg

geni

7th September 2006, 10:07 AM

I hardly believe that if the US got involved in a total war effort, the fighting would be on NA soil.

I know the Canadian economy boomed like crazy because of WW1 and 2.

Because Europe was suddenly buying a lot more stuff from you.

brodski

7th September 2006, 10:13 AM

I hardly believe that if the US got involved in a total war effort, the fighting would be on NA soil..
there was no fighting on UK soil during WWII, but there where enemy aircraft attacks, these can happen in North America. Remember 9/11?

I know the Canadian economy boomed like crazy because of WW1 and 2.

The next total war you're involved in will hit much closer to home.

Azure

7th September 2006, 10:40 AM

And the reason for that is NK. NK could do a lot of damage if it chose to.

Yeah. Its a good thing there is something like MAD that holds them back.

Not from selling their nukes to terrorist groups though. Hence my belief that they shouldn't have them in the first place.

Depends on the war. WW1 hurt all sides rather a lot (well other than the US).

It hurt the US too.

Just because they became a world power after the whole situation was over, doesn't mean the war never hurt them. Like I said, war is good for the economy. The body count was still there, along with the grieving mothers.

Azure

7th September 2006, 10:42 AM

Looks like you missed a joke after the last US election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newnewmap.jpg

I guess their ignorance of NA, or the difference between Canada and the US is unlimited as well.

Canada and the US are 'not' the same country. Although we have a relationship that all border countries rival, we are still not the same.

Azure

7th September 2006, 10:43 AM

Because Europe was suddenly buying a lot more stuff from you.

From Canada?

The US ran the lend-lease program, not Canada.

You need supplies to fuel a war, and an economy can be geared in such a manner if the resources are available. Canada built a very powerful economy because of WW2. And we were involved in the fighting from the get-go.

Azure

7th September 2006, 10:47 AM

there was no fighting on UK soil during WWII, but there where enemy aircraft attacks, these can happen in North America. Remember 9/11?

Yes, I remember it like the back of my hand.

Hardly a good description of the front lines though.

The next total war you're involved in will hit much closer to home.

And if it happens in my lifetime I'll be there like the past generations to fight for our freedom. :)

egslim

7th September 2006, 11:49 AM

From Canada?
Yes, Canada supplied among others a large numer of transport vehicles for the British war-effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World _War
During the war, this industry was put to good use, building all manner of war materiel, and most particularly wheeled vehicles, of which Canada became the second largest (next to the United States) producer during the war.

War has two important effects on the economy: First, the standard of living goes down. Second, as industrial capacity is geared towards warproduction exports drop and imports rise. That means you need to sell gold and all kinds of financial reserves to finance the war-effort, which is also a bad thing.

In the case of Canada during WWII, they had enough natural resources to keep imports down and kept exports up by selling supplies to Britain.

Then there was the postwar situation: Europe, including parts of the Soviet Union, and Japan were devastated. Thus the countries there could export very little to compete with North America, while they had to buy lots of North American goods to recover.

If the US gears its entire economy towards war while some other industrialised nations remain neutral, its trade deficit will explode. The US will have to sell financial reserves in large quantities, while the countries which remain at peace enjoy a boom at the US's expense.

Azure

7th September 2006, 01:39 PM

Yes, Canada supplied among others a large numer of transport vehicles for the British war-effort.

Yet, Canada, unlike the US was right there for the British War Effort from the get-go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World _War
During the war, this industry was put to good use, building all manner of war materiel, and most particularly wheeled vehicles, of which Canada became the second largest (next to the United States) producer during the war.

Exactly. WW2 jumped-started the Canadian economy. Up till then we were a minor player in world affairs, much like today.

In the case of Canada during WWII, they had enough natural resources to keep imports down and kept exports up by selling supplies to Britain.

That was one of the points I made. If the resources can be adapted in order to support the war effort, your economy will prosper. Would that mean that the US would have to start drilling for Oil on its own land, or own territory to support the war effort?

Also, being in a state of war creates jobs, and like you pointed out, during WW2, it also increased exports for many countries.

Then there was the postwar situation: Europe, including parts of the Soviet Union, and Japan were devastated. Thus the countries there could export very little to compete with North America, while they had to buy lots of North American goods to recover.

As it is with every war. To be expected.

If the US gears its entire economy towards war while some other industrialised nations remain neutral, its trade deficit will explode. The US will have to sell financial reserves in large quantities, while the countries which remain at peace enjoy a boom at the US's expense.

Fair enough. I hardly think any major players in the world would remain peaceful given a total war situation.

Maybe the Swiss, considering their history.

Also, I do believe the US spent at least a year building up their military for a sustained war-effort, before they even joined WW2.

brodski

7th September 2006, 01:46 PM

Yes, I remember it like the back of my hand.

Hardly a good description of the front lines though. But that's my point, the Uk wasn't on the "front lines" during WWII, but when an enemy can, and will, kill civilians and destroy economic assets away from any "front lines" economies get wrecked. And given the state of warfare today, it's doubtful that there will even be "front lines"

And if it happens in my lifetime I'll be there like the past generations to fight for our freedom. :) Good. :), But let's hope (and work to make sure) that it doesn't come to that.

Azure

7th September 2006, 01:48 PM

But that's my point, the Uk wasn't on the "front lines" during WWII, but when an enemy can, and will, kill civilians and destroy economic assets away from any "front lines" economies get wrecked. And given the state of warfare today, it's doubtful that there will even be "front lines"

Agreed.

Good. :), But let's hope (and work to make sure) that it doesn't come to that.

Given how religious people are calling for Armageddon... :D

Azure

7th September 2006, 01:53 PM

WW2 and the US Economy (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII)

A very good article about the effect WW2 had on the US economy.

Having read it through, I hardly think that even in total war situation, the US would force the auto-industry to make warplanes.

Given that the US was unprepared for WW2, and the economic burden/benefit, it isn't hard to understand why the whole economy was geared to prepare for the inevitable war effort.

Today, the US has, according to many people, been living through a war economy ever since the start of the Cold War.

But I still feel that the economic effect of WW2 was very positive. Despite the body count, I do believe Japan and Germany are very happy with the outcome.

Darth Rotor

7th September 2006, 01:59 PM

WW2 and the US Economy (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII)

But I still feel that the economic effect of WW2 was very positive. Despite the body count, I do believe Japan and Germany are very happy with the outcome.
I wonder at that. They had someone's heel on their neck for a generation ensuring their "happiness" with defeat.

DR

brodski

7th September 2006, 02:03 PM

Agreed.

Given how religious people are calling for Armageddon... :D
I say let the religious fanatics have Armageddon, and the surrounding radius of, oh say, a mile or so, the more sane people should keep the rest of the earth. ;)

brodski

7th September 2006, 02:06 PM

But I still feel that the economic effect of WW2 was very positive. Despite the body count, I do believe Japan and Germany are very happy with the outcome.

Only 60 years later! And it's pertty certian that Germany would have been a major economic power without WWI or WWII, blood and iron and all that.

Azure

7th September 2006, 03:35 PM

I wonder at that. They had someone's heel on their neck for a generation ensuring their "happiness" with defeat.

DR

The outcome as we see it today.

2 of the 3 best economies in the world?

Azure

7th September 2006, 03:36 PM

I say let the religious fanatics have Armageddon, and the surrounding radius of, oh say, a mile or so, the more sane people should keep the rest of the earth. ;)

Hey thats a plan.

All the fanatics to Antartica, and we'll give them their wish. ;)

egslim

7th September 2006, 05:04 PM

Fair enough. I hardly think any major players in the world would remain peaceful given a total war situation.
Depends on the conflict. If the US mobilises its economy for total war effort to stabilise Iraq and invade Iran, then I'm pretty sure no other significant industrialised nation will consider that cause worthy enough to follow suit.

Frankly, it's a matter of self-interest. If the US mobilises its economy for total war, there's such a huge economic benefit in supporting the US through selling them supplies instead of joining in total war, that any country would take the former option, if at all possible.

That was one of the points I made. If the resources can be adapted in order to support the war effort, your economy will prosper.
I'm pretty sure the US is far less self-sufficient than they were during WWII. Not only in natural resources, but also finished products. Computer components and other electronics are one example. Oil another.
In case of a total war effort the US economy will gear towards production of armaments, at the cost of national self-sufficiency - not the other way around. The deficit will be expected to be made up of increases in existing imports.

Would that mean that the US would have to start drilling for Oil on its own land, or own territory to support the war effort?
Only if increased imports are impossible. If they're not, oil-workers will be drafted into the army or armaments industry

Also, being in a state of war creates jobs,
Look at the British economy during WWII. They mobilised their manpower with an extreme throroughness. But it didn't do their postwar economy any good, armament jobs are useless in a consumer economy.

and like you pointed out, during WW2, it also increased exports for many countries.
Mostly for those countries which either remained neutral, or held back their military capabilities. The US and to a lesser extent Canada played the role of "Arsenal of Democracy", instead of fielding as many divisions as possible. But that was natural because they were last to the party - the first Canadian division saw combat in 1942 at Diepe. Nowadays the US would be the first to go fighting, therefore other countries would get to play the role of "Arsenal" and supply the US, instead of the other way around.

As it is with every war. To be expected.
Of course, but that's why the North American economies boomed. The same thing happened to Britain after the Napoleonic wars, when continental Europe was also destroyed.

Also, I do believe the US spent at least a year building up their military for a sustained war-effort, before they even joined WW2.
Actually, as early as 1938 there was a big increase in US defense spending, mainly to create a two-ocean fleet. At the time of Pearl Harbor some 1.6 million men were in the Army, though there was only enough ammunition available for sustained operations by a single division.

geni

7th September 2006, 05:34 PM

Hey thats a plan.

All the fanatics to Antartica, and we'll give them their wish. ;)

Which bits of Antartica?

Azure

7th September 2006, 05:38 PM

Which bits of Antartica?

Farthest away from human life. :o

geni

7th September 2006, 07:06 PM

Farthest away from human life. :o

Before or after we go to war with Argentina over part of it?

Azure

7th September 2006, 08:19 PM

Before or after we go to war with Argentina over part of it?

Before. Who cares about Argentina? :eye-poppi

Kopji

7th September 2006, 08:33 PM

Not worrying about collateral damage is buying into the broken window fallacy. This harms not only 'the enemy', but us, since we will eventually be called to help rebuild that which is destroyed. This may be physical things like buildings, but also could apply to social structures like families.

By not worrying about collateral damage, we assign the hidden costs of repair to our children and grandchildren. Where is the good in that? It seems highly irresponsible.

The Broken Window Fallacy

The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefitting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefitting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Frédéric Bastiat

Azure

7th September 2006, 09:51 PM

Do we worry about it enough that airstrikes on a known terrorist cell that is planning future attacks on innocent civilians are called back?

The Atheist

7th September 2006, 09:57 PM

Do we worry about it enough that airstrikes on a known terrorist cell that is planning future attacks on innocent civilians are called back?

(bolding mine)

And while we're on that subject, tell the FBI, the CIA or the KKK that that big black guy across the street looks at me funny and I KNOW he's PLANNING to attack innocent old me!

Judge, jury, executioner. Do they pay you x3?

Just thinking

8th September 2006, 05:23 AM

(bolding mine)

And while we're on that subject, tell the FBI, the CIA or the KKK that that big black guy across the street looks at me funny and I KNOW he's PLANNING to attack innocent old me!

Judge, jury, executioner. Do they pay you x3?

There are ways of knowing for certain ... look at what just happened in London. And before you jump right back with "look at Iraq", please remember that belief in WMD's was not the only reason to go in ... do 14 broken UN resolutions ring a bell?

brodski

8th September 2006, 05:37 AM

Hey thats a plan.

All the fanatics to Antartica, and we'll give them their wish. ;)

No, I thought they could have Armageddon, you know the valley plain "Megiddo" in the Middle East, it's less far for a lot of them to go

brodski

8th September 2006, 05:40 AM

There are ways of knowing for certain ... look at what just happened in London. Are you refering to the Forrest Gate raid? Or to Jean Charles de Menezes?

Just thinking

8th September 2006, 07:19 AM

Are you refering to the Forrest Gate raid? Or to Jean Charles de Menezes?

Let's see ... you're going to equate 1 person shot and another killed against the losses that would have occured on approximately 10 transatlantic flights.

BTW, no one was shot or killed in the latter raids ... were they? Why not bring attention to that?

Plus, one can be certain of terrorist locations if it is kown that rockets were launced hours earlier (through photography). Firing back to that location resulting in civilian deaths is unfortunate --- but perhaps you should ask yourself what type of person would set up such a launch site location to begin with.

Azure

8th September 2006, 11:42 AM

(bolding mine)

And while we're on that subject, tell the FBI, the CIA or the KKK that that big black guy across the street looks at me funny and I KNOW he's PLANNING to attack innocent old me!

Judge, jury, executioner. Do they pay you x3?

As usual, you make no sense at all.

Do you guys get the news in Norway, because I swear that in the past 6 months, numerous terrorist cells were taken out by intelligence agencies.

brodski

9th September 2006, 07:51 AM

BTW, no one was shot or killed in the latter raids ... were they? Why not bring attention to that?

I didn't bring attention to that because it was not relevant to the point i was makeing, you where pointing to operations by the Met to imply the infallibility of intelligence operations, I pointed to two examples which falsified your hypothesis. It's not about who was shot, it was about intelligence failings where innocent, or probably innocent people where targeted.

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 11:25 AM

I didn't bring attention to that because it was not relevant to the point i was makeing, you where pointing to operations by the Met to imply the infallibility of intelligence operations, I pointed to two examples which falsified your hypothesis. It's not about who was shot, it was about intelligence failings where innocent, or probably innocent people where targeted.

And you clearly did not understand what I typed ... or you simply chose not to. You put up a weak man of straw -- I said "There are ways of knowing for certain ... look at what just happened in London." The London arrests were an example .... as also was my example of the rocket launches. You put up ways that were not certain or in error. I never claimed that all the time it will be 100% certain --- just that there are times when one can be certain.

geni

9th September 2006, 11:55 AM

Before. Who cares about Argentina? :eye-poppi

The country that was attacked by them.

geni

9th September 2006, 11:59 AM

Do we worry about it enough that airstrikes on a known terrorist cell that is planning future attacks on innocent civilians are called back?

why are you useing airstrikes under those conditions.

Azure

9th September 2006, 12:05 PM

why are you useing airstrikes under those conditions.

Only possible solution to taking out the terrorist cell....

Azure

9th September 2006, 12:06 PM

The country that was attacked by them.

I'm sure they feel threatened.

brodski

9th September 2006, 12:17 PM

And you clearly did not understand what I typed ... or you simply chose not to. You put up a weak man of straw -- I said "There are ways of knowing for certain ... look at what just happened in London." The London arrests were an example .... as also was my example of the rocket launches. You put up ways that were not certain or in error. I never claimed that all the time it will be 100% certain --- just that there are times when one can be certain.

But the Met were not certain until after they had made the arrests (in the case of some of those arrested, they are still not certain, which is why we have a justice system). I agree with you on the rocket attacks example, which is why I did not bring it up.

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 01:10 PM

But the Met were not certain until after they had made the arrests (in the case of some of those arrested, they are still not certain, which is why we have a justice system). ...

Prior to the London arrests (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207898,00.html) ...
Pakistani officials said British information led to the first arrests in Pakistan about a week ago, of two British nationals, including Rauf, called a "key person" by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry.

Same from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/11/terror.plot/index.html) .... Pakistani officials said the arrests of two British citizens and five Pakistanis last week directly contributed to terror arrests made Thursday in Britain. Intelligence sources identified one of the British citizens as Rashid Rauf.

Clearly there was confirmed information prior to the London raids. They knew ahead of time who to get and/or where to strike.

geni

9th September 2006, 02:01 PM

Only possible solution to taking out the terrorist cell....

Then you are incompetant.

geni

9th September 2006, 02:06 PM

I'm sure they feel threatened.

Well seeing as we would be trying to defend teritory on the other side of the planet it would be somewhat tricky.

brodski

9th September 2006, 02:06 PM

Prior to the London arrests (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207898,00.html) ...

Same from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/11/terror.plot/index.html) ....

Clearly there was confirmed information prior to the London raids. They knew ahead of time who to get and/or where to strike.

No the believed they knew who to get, and they were proved right when they carried out the raids. On other raids they have been proved wrong.

geni

9th September 2006, 02:16 PM

Plus, one can be certain of terrorist locations if it is kown that rockets were launced hours earlier (through photography).

Err you do know how mobile modern rocket lauchers are?

Firing back to that location resulting in civilian deaths is unfortunate --- but perhaps you should ask yourself what type of person would set up such a launch site location to begin with.

A smart one. They are hidden amounst buildings so you wont see them untill they fire and you are unlikely to be able to follow their get away through the mess of streets.

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 02:21 PM

No the believed they knew who to get, and they were proved right when they carried out the raids. On other raids they have been proved wrong.

They already had some involved arrested in Pakistan ... they knew.

geni

9th September 2006, 02:37 PM

They already had some involved arrested in Pakistan ... they knew.

Not really. They strongly suspected.

They have on other occasions bee certian enough to have over 100 police officers on the seen. Found sod all.

demon

9th September 2006, 03:17 PM

And the infamous Ricin Plot...only there was no Ricin Plot.

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 03:29 PM

A smart one. They are hidden amounst buildings so you wont see them untill they fire and you are unlikely to be able to follow their get away through the mess of streets.

I can now see that I am debating a terrorist apologist .... expect no futher replies from me.

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 03:36 PM

And the infamous Ricin Plot...only there was no Ricin Plot.

Please read post #121. :rolleyes:

geni

9th September 2006, 03:53 PM

I can now see that I am debating a terrorist apologist .... expect no futher replies from me.

I just described a standard militry technique. If this causes you problems I suggest you find a forum slightly more detached from reality.

egslim

9th September 2006, 04:37 PM

I can now see that I am debating a terrorist apologist .... expect no futher replies from me.

Do you expect your enemies to walk around in a white T-shirt with a large, red bulls-eye on the front, and a bright, flashing neon sign on their head saying: "kill me"?

Or do you expect them to be ingeneous, and exploit every available trick to make your life as difficult as they possibly can? They want to win as much as, probably more, than you do.

That's not apologetic, that's realistic.

you should ask yourself what type of person would set up such a launch site location to begin with.
The same type that uses indiscriminate long range artillery fire and airstrikes instead of infantry. In other words, the type of person who prioritizes the safety of his own people over that of the local population.

demon

9th September 2006, 04:54 PM

Just thinking:
"I can now see that I am debating a terrorist apologist .... expect no futher replies from me."

How pathetic.

demon

9th September 2006, 05:01 PM

JT:
"you should ask yourself what type of person would set up such a launch site location to begin with."

Muhammad Ali Khalidi of the American University of Beirut:
quote:

First, Israel has yet to supply conclusive proof that a Hizbullah rocket launcher or similar military installation was positioned in close proximity to civilians. Several videotapes have been provided by the Israeli military allegedly depicting missiles being fired adjacent to civilian areas.[2] Most show rocket launchers in orchards or open fields. Although some are in the vicinity of buildings, there is no way to know if the buildings in question are residential, or indeed if they were occupied by civilians at the time.

Ironically, at least two Arab members of the Israeli Knesset have recently charged that Israel places its own military installations near inhabited Arab towns and villages in northern Israel, which they say accounts in part for the disproportionate number of Arabs (almost half) among Hizbullah's civilian victims.[3]

Second, none of the many foreign journalists stationed in southern Lebanon have produced evidence of Hizbullah installations or personnel stationed in close proximity to civilians. In a report released on August 3, Human Rights Watch "found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."[4]

Third, military analysts argue that the primary reason that Israel has been unable to decisively defeat Hizbullah is that they have placed many of their fighters and their weapons in underground bunkers in hard-to-reach locations. Veteran Israeli military correspondent Ze'ev Schiff wrote on August 10 in Ha'aretz that in at least one battle, "Hezbollah men were hiding in underground bunkers well camouflaged from the outside. The bunkers had been stocked with large quantities of food, enough to last for weeks, and ammunition, including antitank missiles and, in several cases, short-range rockets."[5]....
(rest of article at http://www.jfjfp.org/152khalidi.htm)

1. http://www.israel-un.org/sec_council...30july2006.htm
2. http://www.standwithus.com/idf_videos.asp
3. Knesset member Azmi Bishara "has accused the Israeli government of providing no bomb shelters for the Arab population and using them as 'human shields' by placing artillery units beside Israeli Arab villages in the north." http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/4778163.stm Similarly, Knesset member Sheikh Abbas Zako said in a statement: "During a short visit to offer condolences to the families of victims killed in Hizbullah's rocket attacks, I saw Israeli tanks shelling (south) Lebanon from the two towns of Arab Al-Aramisha and Tarshiha, which are predominantly populated Arabs." Zako stressed that the Israeli tanks are positioned just next to the houses of citizens. "Hizbullah's rockets are only a response to shelling by tanks positioned inside the towns," he said.
http://www.freespeechwar.com/smf/index.php?topic=2899.0
4. Human Rights Watch, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," volume 18, no. 3(E), August 2006, p.3. Accessed at: http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/
5. Ze'ev Schiff, "The IDF in Lebanon: Security zone not yet secure," Ha'aretz, 10 August 2006. Accessed at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748521.html

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 05:29 PM

Just thinking:
"I can now see that I am debating a terrorist apologist .... expect no futher replies from me."

How pathetic.

What ... that you can't figure out the "Quote" feature?

Just thinking

9th September 2006, 05:31 PM

Demon,

I too can find articles in my defense (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060730-093558-9976r.htm) ...
The photographs, from a Christian area of eastern Beirut called Wadi Chahrour, were smuggled out of Lebanon. One photograph depicts a fighter with an AK-47 rifle guarding "no-go" zones after an Israeli attack, and another with a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun in an apartment block, with sheets hanging out to dry on a balcony. Another shows the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block destroyed in an Israeli airstrike. An Australian was standing just down the street when the block was obliterated. "Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said. "Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then, it was totally devastated...It was carnage. Two innocent people died in that incident, but it was so lucky it was not more." (The pictures are posted online at this site (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23604).) Hezbollah's treatment of both Israeli and Lebanese civilians violates international law.

demon

9th September 2006, 06:01 PM

JT:
"I too can find articles in my defense ..."

You say it like I would have a problem with that. I don`t.
Your statement there only goes to show that you acknowledge that there is more than one take on the issue.
I`d call that progress.

geni

9th September 2006, 06:13 PM

Demon,

I too can find articles in my defense (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060730-093558-9976r.htm) ...

There are only 3 photos. The middle one tells us nothing the guy could be anywhere.

The other two appear to show a ZU-23-2. A 23 mill anti aircraft gun. Problem is we have no idea of the dates and of course setting up anti aircraft guns in civlian areas is accepted practice. The individuals in the image look far too relaxed and in any case the Zu-23 series have historicaly not been used as anti aircraft guns in lebanon.

pmurray

9th September 2006, 06:50 PM

Does it seem to help matters at any level (militarily or politically) whether or not the US, Isreal, Great Britian, etc. go to the nth level of preventing collateral damage when engaging terrorists on foreign soil? Certainly one can see examples of how it matters very little to the terrorists as they use explosives in public areas killing everyone within a given radius. Do we actually get any points at all from anyone?

The Nth level? You are aware that Israel carpeted sothern Lebanon with cluster bombs just befor the cease-fire? The the US routinely drops "precision" 500lb bombs on residential blocks just because a bad guy might be there? Remember "shock and awe"? An outright war crime if ever there was one. GB and friends will hang for that one alone.

In any case - yes, when you invade and occupy another country, it is best not to kill innocent civilians, even if they are fighing with one another.

Azure

9th September 2006, 07:17 PM

Then you are incompetant.

And if you can't be competant enough to play along with the situation I made up, just for the sake of discussion, you are also incompetant.

Azure

9th September 2006, 07:19 PM

No the believed they knew who to get, and they were proved right when they carried out the raids. On other raids they have been proved wrong.

IIRC, numerous articles pointed out that the intelligence agencies involved in the take down decided to act because they feared an impending terrorist attack.

I think that puts them 'in the know.'

Azure

9th September 2006, 07:20 PM

How pathetic.

How ironic, considering that remark comes from a terrorist apologist. :rolleyes:

demon

9th September 2006, 07:33 PM

You had me worried there for a moment...thought you`d caught me defending the foundation of Israel or something and celebrating the terrorist bombing of The Kind David Hotel etc.
You are mired in the poisonous womb of terrorism that spawned your precious vicious little settler state Azure...you reek of the hypocrisy that that entails but that`s Zionists for ya..always the poor victim of all those nasty muslims out to get them for no reason at all, aww, bless `em, no reason at all!

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Don`t you just hate rotten eggs?

Azure

9th September 2006, 07:36 PM

Since I don't want to drag this even farther off topic, I'll just ignore you.

You don't make sense anyways.

geni

10th September 2006, 12:10 AM

And if you can't be competant enough to play along with the situation I made up, just for the sake of discussion, you are also incompetant.

Blowing up potential intelligence sources is not a rational strategy once you have located them with that accuracy.

brodski

10th September 2006, 01:48 PM

IIRC, numerous articles pointed out that the intelligence agencies involved in the take down decided to act because they feared an impending terrorist attack.

I think that puts them 'in the know.'

They has a similar levels of "knowledge" (or belief) before Forrest Gate which is why they deployed over 200 officers (many armed, most in protective gear) for one raid, on one house, against just two suspects. In this case their intelligence was wrong. Obviously I'm not saying that intelligence is always wrong, it's just that the true value of intelligence is never known until you act upon it.
Now if you are prepared to take that risk when you conduct operations aimed at killing terrorists then fine, we can discuss the rights and wrongs of that, but don't pretend absolute knowledge.

Azure

10th September 2006, 09:23 PM

They has a similar levels of "knowledge" (or belief) before Forrest Gate which is why they deployed over 200 officers (many armed, most in protective gear) for one raid, on one house, against just two suspects. In this case their intelligence was wrong. Obviously I'm not saying that intelligence is always wrong, it's just that the true value of intelligence is never known until you act upon it.
Now if you are prepared to take that risk when you conduct operations aimed at killing terrorists then fine, we can discuss the rights and wrongs of that, but don't pretend absolute knowledge.

Fair enough.

Numerous news reports also mentioned British intelligence having an undercover cop inside the terrorist cell. Another indication that they knew what was going on.

I'm sure there have been many takedowns that resulted in 'nothing.'

But at times, the intelligence can be correct.

Azure

10th September 2006, 09:24 PM

Blowing up potential intelligence sources is not a rational strategy once you have located them with that accuracy.

So you would just let them off scot-free?

Just thinking

11th September 2006, 09:02 AM

Just thinking

11th September 2006, 09:23 AM

... Now if you are prepared to take that risk when you conduct operations aimed at killing terrorists then fine, we can discuss the rights and wrongs of that, but don't pretend absolute knowledge.

Are you now retracting what you said in post #126?

I agree with you on the rocket attacks example, which is why I did not bring it up.

geni

12th September 2006, 06:09 AM

Fair enough.

Numerous news reports also mentioned British intelligence having an undercover cop inside the terrorist cell. Another indication that they knew what was going on.

Not really. The IRA pulled off quite a few suprises over the years.

geni

12th September 2006, 06:15 AM

So you would just let them off scot-free?

No this is where you use your superior mobility to send in a strike team to arrest the guys.

brodski

12th September 2006, 06:25 AM

Are you now retracting what you said in post #126?

No I am not. My failure to distinguish between having knowledge of attacks before they happen and after they happen was sloppy wording on my part, sorry.

geni

12th September 2006, 06:38 AM

Azure,

The problem I see when debating some on the political forums is somewhat multi-faceted --- some folks come across having a strong one-sided agenda to the point of it becoming the only reason to support an issue. For example, when I inquired geni about questioning Hezbollah's tactics of embedding themselves within civilian popuations, "what type of person would set up such a launch site location to begin with", the reply was "A smart one". No mention of it being a despicable or deplorable act was made --- in fact no negative comments at all, geni seemed quite comfortable with his answer. But if one examines the purpose of having a military defense --- to protect the population, their homes and sovereignty, we see that such actions fall way short of being the "smart" move. Way more collateral damage results negating the first two issues, and they become hypocritical of the third since it was their actions in Israel that started the confrontation.

Except I also didn't make any moral condemnation of useing genocidal tactics. just pointed out that if you wanted to use them you had to go the whole way.

Ethics are a seperate issue.

Another interesting line of debate seems to fall along these lines ... take some international incident and go back in time until one finds US involvement at some point. Now stop --- from here one then can say it's the USA's fault. Of course no actions before or after the US did something matters, only that at some point the US (or Israel or other US ally) was involved. Some have even argued that if it wasn't for the US involvement in WWI there would have been no WWII. Of course, the US did not start either war, but that doesn't matter -- at some point we were involved and therefore all major blame falls on the USA.

I was arguing that without the existence of the US we could potentially have the pax Britannica. With no reason for the doctrine of neo imperialism to be abandoned and the resources of the new world behind it peace through power is a reasonable possibility. The world would tend to be peaceful because any group that caused too much trouble would die since the doctrine of neo imperialism allowed for the use of terror tactics or anything else that was considered necessary.

Just an example of how taking the US out of the equation would might not have the effect that one would expect.

Even when photos are shown with non-military individuals on military equipment,

Hezbollah are to a large degree an irregular force what do you eexpect them to have on their equipment?

or videos of embedded rocket launches from civilian infrastructure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OErB9peo9M),

Please be provideing proof of when the first half of the video was shot.

all cry foul when civilian deaths occur when struck back.

Not at all. You just need to recognise that killing civilians isn't a great move.

And it makes no difference when Israel drops leaflets warning of incoming attacks vs. rockets launched randomly knowing they will likely hit civilian targets.

There is little evidence of random rocket launching

They are defending the indefensible and becoming apologists as we have noted.

Interesting. This thread started out suggesting that the west should be less concerened about civilian deaths. Now aparently we have a group that is less concerened about civilian deaths and those actions are viewed as indefensible. are you saying that the actions proposed at the start of this thread are indefensible?

gumboot

12th September 2006, 08:00 AM

I didn't read the entire thread, but in response to the heart of the matter:

First, the OP. Absolutely, the US and Allies should worry about collateral damage. All nations engaged in Armed Conflict have the responsibility of minimising civilian casualties. This is international law.

However, what I am sick and tired of is people with only the most cursory understanding of armed conflict and international law sitting back in arm chairs and judging a nation's compliance to international law based on a simple number tally of the dead.

This is worthless, pointless, and irrelevant.

And yet time and time again, day in and day out, I see otherwise intelligent reasonable people make these same gross errors of judgement. I don't mean specifically here at the JREF, I mean EVERYWHERE. In the media, in the street, at work, everywhere.

The west is so totally removed from war we don't know the first thing about it. I've just been arguing with someone who felt the civilian casualties in the Invasion of Afghanistan were grossly high because of poor planning and disregard for civilian life.

ONLY 3,000 CIVILIANS WERE KILLED OUT OF 30 MILLION!

Yeah every death is a tragedy; a person and a life that has been extinguished for all time. But in the context of full scale invasion 3,000 civilians is a microscopic level of collateral damage.

It is simply impossible to make judgements about collateral damage without the absolute MINIMUM of the following information:

1) What did the attacking party know about the target
2) What process did the attacking party go through in response to the target
3) What did the attacking party intend to do with the target

Once you have learned all of that, you might have grounds for making a judgement. Otherwise, it's pointless.

This armchair generalship makes me sick.

As for the airstrike thing...

You end up with these sorts of things when you try to minimise your commitment to the war. If the USA kept 300,000 troops in Iraq they wouldn't need to drop 500lb bombs on single houses, because it'd be an infantry company, with armoured support, taking the target on, not a light infantry platoon.

The best way to reduce collateral damage is to put more men on the ground, up close and personal. It means two things:

1) Higher profile commitment to the war
2) Higher casualties amongst your own forces

Modern populations don't like the sound of that. Since Somalia the USA has had a policy of using air power if ground forces could be avoided. Look at Bosnia and Kosovo. Look at Afghanistan.

The US (and Israel too) have become over reliant on air power, in a bid to prevent casualties on their own side.

It's simple. If you need to fight a war, suck it up and expect casualties. It's the only way to really win. Did bombing Tora Bora with B-52's get OBL? No. Had they thrown a 100,000 troops into the Afghanistan/Pakistan border they might have caught him.

Just my opinion.

Oh and on the British foiled terror plot, I believe they had them under surveillance for 8 months before the arrests, including at least one undercover officer inside the cell.

-Andrew

brumsen

12th September 2006, 11:40 AM

...what I am sick and tired of is people with only the most cursory understanding of armed conflict and international law sitting back in arm chairs and judging a nation's compliance to international law based on a simple number tally of the dead.
[...]
The west is so totally removed from war we don't know the first thing about it. I've just been arguing with someone who felt the civilian casualties in the Invasion of Afghanistan were grossly high because of poor planning and disregard for civilian life.

ONLY 3,000 CIVILIANS WERE KILLED OUT OF 30 MILLION!

Yeah every death is a tragedy; a person and a life that has been extinguished for all time. But in the context of full scale invasion 3,000 civilians is a microscopic level of collateral damage.

It is simply impossible to make judgements about collateral damage without the absolute MINIMUM of the following information:

1) What did the attacking party know about the target
2) What process did the attacking party go through in response to the target
3) What did the attacking party intend to do with the target

Once you have learned all of that, you might have grounds for making a judgement. Otherwise, it's pointless.

This armchair generalship makes me sick.

Sounds like you're referring to the discussion with me in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63650), eh, gumboot?

I'd just like to say this: I'll admit to knowing very little about warfare, and never pretended to be an armchair general.
But I was comparing the number of casualties at GZ greatly mourned yesterday with the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
My point was not that this war was waged the wrong way given that number of casualties; the point is rather, given that according to you these casualties could be foreseen and could even be called "microscopic", that we should wonder whether starting that war was worth it.

I need to have no pretense of armchair generalship for making this point. Just simple ethics. This is no point about the technicalities of warfare.

(and to prevent repeat of a previous discussion: I'm not saying it's clear cut, and that the matter is simply one of weighing 3000 civilian casualties against 3000 civilian casualties in a cost-benefit analysis.) [/hijack]