PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues US Interests


Direckshun
03-27-2011, 07:42 PM
I have a question, inspired by a conversation in the Why I Am Not A Neoconservative thread.

A common sentiment among those of us here in this forum is that our participation in international affairs should strive for what's in our best for america.

That's fine. Uncontroversial. I think we all get behind that.

My question is... how far do we want to take that notion?

I ask because in the thread, I mentioned that while American interests should be first and foremost, they should not be the ONLY thing considered.

This drew gasps from some of my more conservative brethren.

So let me use an example to illustrate my point, one that I used in the thread with almost zero response from those who found my initial claim so blasphemous.

One of the countries with a popular revolt in the Middle East is Bahrain. We have a huge military base there that we use for various operations in the region.

If that sounds like nobody in the region likes that, it's because they don't. But the king of Bahrain let's us because we shower their government with arms and aid.

So when the people of the country revolt, they do so peacefully, in the vein of Egypt and Iran.

The king, of course, turns to violence. Live ammunition into crowds. Shooting from helicopters. Casualties mount, thanks in large part to American weaponry.

So that's my question. Is it worth it? Supporting a now-brutal dictator who kills peaceful, pro-democracy protesters from helicopters? All in the name of yet another base? (For the record, we already have bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan, and operate with impunity out of Israel.

Is it worth it?

petegz28
03-27-2011, 07:49 PM
Personally we either need to level the ME and quit playing these games where we pretend the governments, current or future are wanting some sort of peace with us, or we need to bring our peeps and our money home and let the chips fall where they will. this crap of us picking and choosing where we will play world police is a crock of steamy bullshit.

ClevelandBronco
03-27-2011, 07:49 PM
...Is it worth it?

I beg your forgiveness for reordering your thoughts, but this is what comes to your mind when you think of the U.S. acting in its best interests?

Live ammunition into crowds. Shooting from helicopters. Casualties mount, thanks in large part to American weaponry.

LiveSteam
03-27-2011, 07:50 PM
When our military is being used like it is over in Libya. I think the USA should be paid.

Donger
03-27-2011, 07:51 PM
I don't know anything about the protesters in Bahrain. Are they even more pro-US than the monarchy? If not, meh.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 08:04 PM
I beg your forgiveness for reordering your thoughts, but this is what comes to your mind when you think of the U.S. acting in its best interests?

You lost me.

ClevelandBronco
03-27-2011, 08:07 PM
You lost me.

Yeah.

HonestChieffan
03-27-2011, 08:07 PM
I think any country would welcome the US and want us to have a base if we help them understand its just a nonbase for waging nonwars instead of a nasty threat filled place where warmongering imperialists store guns, bombs, airplanes and jets, and all that stuff.

The nonPresident Obama could go sell that idea.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Who the hell are we to play mediator or big brother to the entire world. This is the same country that went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction when we are the only country that has used weapons of mass destruction. How in the hell does that make sense. There has been at least one war per decade since the 1800's, and people these days are okay with that. :banghead:
"Give the people a person or nation to hate and you can do whatever you want to."

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 12:26 PM
I think the term "interests" is too vague. Military intervention for "interests". Too general and vague. Also sounds too much like Olde World mercantilism aka neo-imperialism. We intervene military if it's related to our national defense or "valid" threats to be determined by the people's house. So enforcing the Monroe Doctrine is one I'd support. Some Cold War interventions, but only some as most was fought by proxy. None of this giving aid to both sides of a conflict though....ya' know like between the Palestinians and Israelis. I mean wtf is that all about?

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 12:27 PM
A lot of people voting present on this issue....

KC Dan
03-28-2011, 12:31 PM
A lot of people voting present on this issue....Good enough for our President...

In my opinion, it may be worth it, but three wars are enough already. If we need to relocate forces - so be it.

Saul Good
03-28-2011, 12:36 PM
Who the hell are we to play mediator or big brother to the entire world. This is the same country that went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction when we are the only country that has used weapons of mass destruction. How in the hell does that make sense. There has been at least one war per decade since the 1800's, and people these days are okay with that. :banghead:
"Give the people a person or nation to hate and you can do whatever you want to."

The US is the only country that has used WMDs? Interesting...

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 12:50 PM
The US is the only country that has used WMDs? Interesting...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Can you name someone else that has used them?

MGRS13
03-28-2011, 12:53 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Can you name someone else that has used them?

You are forgetting that "WMD" was reframed in the early 2000's to include anything more deadly then a 50 cal. bullet.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 12:58 PM
You are forgetting that "WMD" was reframed in the early 2000's to include anything more deadly then a 50 cal. bullet.

No I didn't. I thought it meant nukes or bio/chem but wasn't sure on the latter. If the latter is true then SH for allegedly using it on the Kurds ( although there's contrary facts on that).

MGRS13
03-28-2011, 01:05 PM
No I didn't. I thought it meant nukes or bio/chem but wasn't sure on the latter. If the latter is true then SH for allegedly using it on the Kurds ( although there's contrary facts on that).

Wasn't that the WMD's we knew he had and used? I know there were ALOT of different reasons at different times that we went to Iraq and at one point that was one.

healthpellets
03-28-2011, 01:13 PM
Libya was France's "War for Oil"...how the hell we got sucked in to a "humanitarian" mission is beyond me.

When our house is in order only then shall we attempt to tell another how to fix his house.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 03:02 PM
Wasn't that the WMD's we knew he had and used? I know there were ALOT of different reasons at different times that we went to Iraq and at one point that was one.

All of those were what we thought, NOT "knew" he had. But "used"? SH didn't use any nukes. He didn't even use them during PGWI— not on us or into Israel. I don't buy that there were a LOT of different reasons for going into Iraq...the main one pushed was nukes aka "mushroom cloud" fantasies and enforcing UN Resolutions. Our security was written more like a secondary concern in the Iraq resolution. I get a laugh out of the right wanting to enforce their reviled UN's Resolutions.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Can you name someone else that has used them?

Use of WMDs in some fashion throughout history...

Sparta, Persia, China, Mongolia, Serbia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Soviet Union, Egypt, South Africa, and Iraq.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 03:04 PM
Use of WMDs in some fashion throughout history...

Sparta, Persia, China, Mongolia, Serbia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Soviet Union, Egypt, South Africa, and Iraq.

Name these weapons, specifically?

Sounds like semantic mission creep. What does the word refer to today? Do they really compare to what was dropped on Japan? Or what was done to Dresden?

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:07 PM
No I didn't. I thought it meant nukes or bio/chem but wasn't sure on the latter. If the latter is true then SH for allegedly using it on the Kurds ( although there's contrary facts on that).

You are incredibly misinformed on this topic.

WMD's are any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

SH not only used it on the Kurds but there is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that he used them against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weapon_attacks

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:08 PM
Name these weapons, specifically?

Sounds like semantic mission creep. What does the word refer to today? Do they really compare to what was dropped on Japan? Or what was done to Dresden?

I'll admit that some of these are stretches... but it illustrates the point I was making..

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000678#globalhistory

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:09 PM
The US is the only country that has used WMDs? Interesting...

I'm no history major please inform me, who else has used nukes?

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 03:15 PM
US Interests seem to drive the decisions currently on a decide as we go basis. Would be interesting to see how people define "US Interests" and see if it fits the current WH definition of the same.

It seems that the economic interests of our allies and the oil question may be the driving interest more than the desire to stop massacres but that it yet to be seen. Without knowing who will fill the leadership role post goofy we should be open to the fact that widespread violent action by any number of the tribes in Libya could occur.

(The Hill) — No sense of precedent guided President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, administration officials said Monday.

“We don’t make decisions on interventions based on consistency or precedent,” said Denis McDonough, the administration’s deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. “We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

Administration officials wouldn’t outline the contents of Obama’s speech, and McDonough’s remarks suggest Obama is unlikely to lay out any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm no history major please inform me, who else has used nukes?

You do know the term predates the invention of nukes right?

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:
“ Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?

If it meant "nukes" why not just say nuclear weapons? It's a catch all term for any mass killing weapon LIKE a nuke, or anthrax or mustard gas...

Seriously folks... are there really people who think WMDs just mean nukes? Did they think we thought Iraq had nukes??? HINT: We never thought they had nukes.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:16 PM
America is one of the only countries that tries to promote peace by blowing people the fuck up. At least the other countries governments don't hide behind lies. They tell you they are gonig to rape you and do. We buy you dinner first, show you around town then try to slip it in the back door while your bending over to tie your shoe. I'm just tired of the governments bullshit year after year. War after fuckin war, one of these days a country is going to fuck us up for messing around in other peoples shit so much.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:20 PM
You do know the term predates the invention of nukes right?



If it meant "nukes" why not just say nuclear weapons? It's a catch all term for any mass killing weapon LIKE a nuke, or anthrax or mustard gas...

So when we were going after sadumbass you weren't thinking nukes. I was, that what I thought it was all along. When I heard WMD I didn't go to wikipedia or somecrap to find out what it was. I assumed wrong. My mistake. I'm just pissed off at our government. This is not an attack on anyone in this forum. It just the bullshit has got to stop. To many people are dying. I would like to raise my kids in a peaceful world, is that to much for a parent to ask for?

Otter
03-28-2011, 03:21 PM
or we need to bring our peeps and our money home and let the chips fall where they will.

Count me in for a 'yes' vote on this option.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 03:22 PM
You do know the term predates the invention of nukes right?



If it meant "nukes" why not just say nuclear weapons? It's a catch all term for any mass killing weapon LIKE a nuke, or anthrax or mustard gas...

Seriously folks... are there really people who think WMDs just mean nukes? Did they think we thought Iraq had nukes??? HINT: We never thought they had nukes.

Because today it does mean nukes and I would add chem/bio weapons. You're just deflecting using insignificant definitions or Newspeak.

Here's what I've found: Remember wars in the past didn't really target civilians intentionally that was a trend that began later like the American Civil War and rose to new heights in the 20th. I'm not talking rape and taking slaves.

The noun W.M.D. has 1 sense:

1. a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/w.m.d..htm

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 03:23 PM
I would like to raise my kids in a peaceful world, is that to much for a parent to ask for?

I'd have to say that if it's not too much to ask for, it's nevertheless very unlikely.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:24 PM
I'd have to say that if it's not too much to ask for, it's nevertheless very unlikely.

Fucked up ain't it?

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 03:26 PM
****ed up ain't it?

Yes. No.

We are what we are.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:27 PM
Yes. No.

We are what we are.

I understand that, but damn.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 03:29 PM
I'll admit that some of these are stretches... but it illustrates the point I was making..

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000678#globalhistory

Hardly the word "mass" would apply as it does today as the order of magnitude is massively higher with today's WMD.

Everybody knew, except the impaired, that WMD meant nukes, bio/chem with SH implying massive harm and damage to humans and structures. I mean what do the words "mushroom cloud" conjure up? What does bringing up his gasing of Kurd's imply?

Pluhease!


I'd like to add that SH didn't put one bio/chem into Israel during PGWI either. He was threatened with nuclear annihilation if he did something like that and he was a survivor.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:34 PM
Because today it does mean nukes and I would add chem/bio weapons. You're just deflecting using insignificant definitions or Newspeak.

Here's what I've found: Remember wars in the past didn't really target civilians intentionally that was a trend that began later like the American Civil War and rose to new heights in the 20th. I'm not talking rape and taking slaves.


HUH? This post is so full of WRONG it's hard to imagine how you have gotten through school without taking ANY history classes. Maybe it's an indictment on America's education system..

Wars in the past have been FULL of intentionally targeting civilians. It has never really been an ACCEPTABLE part of war, it has nevertheless happened.

Educate yourself please.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

Let's go with a simple bit of logic, hopefully you can follow. All nukes are WMDS... not all WMDS are nukes.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:36 PM
So when we were going after sadumbass you weren't thinking nukes. I was, that what I thought it was all along. When I heard WMD I didn't go to wikipedia or somecrap to find out what it was. I assumed wrong. My mistake. I'm just pissed off at our government. This is not an attack on anyone in this forum. It just the bullshit has got to stop. To many people are dying. I would like to raise my kids in a peaceful world, is that to much for a parent to ask for?

Thank you for a reasonable and fair response.

And no, that is not at all too much to ask for.

Chiefshrink
03-28-2011, 03:38 PM
This whole Libya fiasco is the Marxist Lefty version of war for oil but for Europe. This invasion is soley to save Europe's energy ass because Europe does not want Libya to fall into the hands of the Muslim brotherhood. Look at the oil rig map just off of Libya. The majority if not all are European oil rigs:thumb: Seems Obama wants clear access for oil for the whole world except US (pardon the pun):spock:

Remember the Lefty cry in the early nineties "No War for Oil"!!!

Lefty Hypocrites:thumb:

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 03:39 PM
Hardly the word "mass" would apply as it does today as the order of magnitude is massively higher with today's WMD.

Everybody knew, except the impaired, that WMD meant nukes, bio/chem with SH implying massive harm and damage to humans and structures. I mean what do the words "mushroom cloud" conjure up? What does bringing up his gasing of Kurd's imply?

Pluhease!


I'd like to add that SH didn't put one bio/chem into Israel during PGWI either. He was threatened with nuclear annihilation if he did something like that and he was a survivor.

Are you drunk? You aren't making any sense here. At least none in response to anything I have posted.

I simply pointed out that WMDs are not just nukes.. they include chemical and biological weapons.. something SH had a history of deploying against Iran and the Kurds. Where the hell are you getting this "mushroom cloud" nonsense? The only time I remember that being referenced was in an allegorical quote that was obvious hyperbole. If you took that to mean we thought that Iraq had nukes... you obviously didn't get was being said. We did however want to make certain that he wasn't PURSUING nuclear program like Iran is now. BUT NUKES were not the main focus of WMD claims against Iraq.

And yes, WMD's are more dangerous now than they were 1000 years ago.. that kind of goes without saying doesn't it? Jesus.

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 03:42 PM
Targets have done a lousy job of keeping up with the technology that destroys them.

Chiefshrink
03-28-2011, 03:42 PM
HUH? This post is so full of WRONG it's hard to imagine how you have gotten through school without taking ANY history classes. Maybe it's an indictment on America's education system..

Wars in the past have been FULL of intentionally targeting civilians. It has never really been an ACCEPTABLE part of war, it has nevertheless happened.

Educate yourself please.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

Let's go with a simple bit of logic, hopefully you can follow. All nukes are WMDS... not all WMDS are nukes.

The dirty little secret that everyone knows is that is why wars are won because of severe collateral civilian damage that countries cannot sustain. A la Hiroshima / Nagasaki. But now that PC rules the day heaven forbid we fight to win. Nobody likes severe collateral damage especially the loss of innocent human life but War is Hell and countries shouldn't go tugging on Super Man's cape either(a la 911)

RedNeckRaider
03-28-2011, 03:53 PM
So when we were going after sadumbass you weren't thinking nukes. I was, that what I thought it was all along. When I heard WMD I didn't go to wikipedia or somecrap to find out what it was. I assumed wrong. My mistake. I'm just pissed off at our government. This is not an attack on anyone in this forum. It just the bullshit has got to stop. To many people are dying. I would like to raise my kids in a peaceful world, is that to much for a parent to ask for?

I don't quite recall the quote or who said it. It goes something along these lines...
Young men are the cash of war, and those who know our like know we are free spenders~

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 03:59 PM
I wonder if a poll was done to see who thought WMDs were nukes,chem, bio weapons or something other than that how would it go. I'm just a "noob" as you guys call it so I can't start it, shit I can't even have an avatar without it being some ghey ass cat pic...lol

orange
03-28-2011, 04:09 PM
Remember wars in the past didn't really target civilians intentionally that was a trend that began later like the American Civil War and rose to new heights in the 20th.

I'll try asking a Carthaginian about that.

By the way, how many did the Levites kill? Of course, that wasn't really a war, though.

Jaric
03-28-2011, 04:16 PM
Here's what I've found: Remember wars in the past didn't really target civilians intentionally that was a trend that began later like the American Civil War and rose to new heights in the 20th. I'm not talking rape and taking slaves. I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but do you know what the term "put to the sword" refers to?

EDIT: As in "and he put the city to the sword."

Jaric
03-28-2011, 04:17 PM
I'll try asking a Carthaginian about that.
Hannibal likes this post.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:23 PM
I wonder if a poll was done to see who thought WMDs were nukes,chem, bio weapons or something other than that how would it go. I'm just a "noob" as you guys call it so I can't start it, shit I can't even have an avatar without it being some ghey ass cat pic...lol

How do you like your new avatar? :D

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:24 PM
I'll try asking a Carthaginian about that.

By the way, how many did the Levites kill? Of course, that wasn't really a war, though.

Was it a KINETIC MILITARY ACTION? :D

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:25 PM
How do you like your new avatar? :D

What the hell man

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 04:26 PM
Was it a KINETIC MILITARY ACTION? :D

nonwar.

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:26 PM
hey what's this swine flu shit.......lol

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:26 PM
What is this some kind of CP hazing

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:28 PM
What the hell man

Haha just messing with you... do you have a particular avatar you'd like.. I can't promise I won't replace this one with one that is any less of a hazing though.. :D

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 04:29 PM
Haha just messing with you... do you have a particular avatar you'd like.. I can't promise I won't replace this one with one that is any less of a hazing though.. :D

Have any Jane Fonda shots for him?

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 04:29 PM
What is this some kind of CP hazing

You are one of us now. There is no escape.

Hydrae
03-28-2011, 04:30 PM
I wonder if a poll was done to see who thought WMDs were nukes,chem, bio weapons or something other than that how would it go. I'm just a "noob" as you guys call it so I can't start it, shit I can't even have an avatar without it being some ghey ass cat pic...lol

Hey now, I think my kitties are cute. :evil:

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:31 PM
Haha just messing with you... do you have a particular avatar you'd like.. I can't promise I won't replace this one with one that is any less of a hazing though.. :D

When can i use my own avatar....I want something good like cleavage or moving asian boobs like that one guy

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:32 PM
Hey now, I think my kitties are cute. :evil:

ROFL MY bad man........ROFL..I didn't realize someone had one of those. ROFL

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:34 PM
You are one of us now. There is no escape.

The CHIEF COLLECTIVE. Resistance is Futile

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:41 PM
When can i use my own avatar....I want something good like cleavage or moving asian boobs like that one guy

How about this one?

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:42 PM
How about this one?

Me likey....is that how it works...you guys pick the avatars?

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Have any Jane Fonda shots for him?

I wouldn't want to sully my monitor with an image of her...

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 04:43 PM
Me likey....is that how it works...you guys pick the avatars?

We tell you that you are useless, and you accept it.

Just be glad we're not pinning a vagina there.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 04:43 PM
Me likey....is that how it works...you guys pick the avatars?

Nope, but it's my site so I can do pretty much what I want! :D You get Avatar and Poll privileges after a certain amount of posts and such... DaFace is the guy to ask for what those settings are though...

durtyrute
03-28-2011, 04:45 PM
Nope, but it's my site so I can do pretty much what I want! :D You get Avatar and Poll privileges after a certain amount of posts and such... DaFace is the guy to ask for what those settings are though...

Cool beans.....I'm good with that one for now :thumb:

mlyonsd
03-28-2011, 05:15 PM
I have a question, inspired by a conversation in the Why I Am Not A Neoconservative thread.

A common sentiment among those of us here in this forum is that our participation in international affairs should strive for what's in our best for america.

That's fine. Uncontroversial. I think we all get behind that.

My question is... how far do we want to take that notion?

I ask because in the thread, I mentioned that while American interests should be first and foremost, they should not be the ONLY thing considered.

This drew gasps from some of my more conservative brethren.

So let me use an example to illustrate my point, one that I used in the thread with almost zero response from those who found my initial claim so blasphemous.

One of the countries with a popular revolt in the Middle East is Bahrain. We have a huge military base there that we use for various operations in the region.

If that sounds like nobody in the region likes that, it's because they don't. But the king of Bahrain let's us because we shower their government with arms and aid.

So when the people of the country revolt, they do so peacefully, in the vein of Egypt and Iran.

The king, of course, turns to violence. Live ammunition into crowds. Shooting from helicopters. Casualties mount, thanks in large part to American weaponry.

So that's my question. Is it worth it? Supporting a now-brutal dictator who kills peaceful, pro-democracy protesters from helicopters? All in the name of yet another base? (For the record, we already have bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan, and operate with impunity out of Israel.

Is it worth it?

Interesting scenario. The answer is 42.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 05:20 PM
HUH? This post is so full of WRONG it's hard to imagine how you have gotten through school without taking ANY history classes. Maybe it's an indictment on America's education system..
Uh, not it's not wrong. In fact some sites will tell you the same thing. Don't lump me into the American school system though....I went to a private school. And I took a class with a priest who had a class on war and how it had changed through eras. That change being mass targeting of civilians. I took it as an adult though and not within the education system.

Wars in the past have been FULL of intentionally targeting civilians. It has never really been an ACCEPTABLE part of war, it has nevertheless happened.
No, not "FULL of" that is the difference. You're relying on a generality. There was a marked change in trend in modern warfare where citizens were targeted on a massive scale. That is a defining feature of 20th century warfare.

In fact, during breaks in wars, at one time in Europe, soldiers could travel through enemy areas to get home. They followed certain rules.

Educate yourself please.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

Umm, one incident does NOT make or establish a trend in history that would describe it as you would like. Furthermore, your reference is hardly MASS destruction and the structures are left intact. As well your own link says things like:

"Mussi’s account is probably secondhand and is uncorroborated; however, he seems, in general, to be a reliable source, and as a Piacenzian he would have had access to eyewitnesses of the siege."

"The siege of Caffa, and its gruesome finale, thus are unlikely to have been seriously implicated in the transmission of plague from the Black Sea to Europe."

"The siege of Caffa, for all of its dramatic appeal, probably had no more than anecdotal importance in the spread of plague,"

"Seems" isn't good enough for me. Technological development is what has allowed 20th century warfare to target civilians on a mass scale unlike anything that could be attempted in the past like flinging diseased cadavers over a wall or using infected blankets on Indians.

Let's go with a simple bit of logic, hopefully you can follow. All nukes are WMDS... not all WMDS are nukes.
Well, yeah, I can agree with that. But it still has a specific meaning today that is understood by most: nukes, chem and bio that affect mass civilians in all out war.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 05:31 PM
Modern Warfare

The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country's ability to engage in war. The targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.


With the advent of nuclear weapons, the concept of full-scale war carries the prospect of global annihilation, and as such conflicts since WWII have by definition been "low intensity" conflicts, typically in the form of proxy wars fought within local regional confines, using what are now referred to as "conventional weapons," typically combined with the use of asymmetric warfare tactics and applied use of intelligence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_warfare

orange
03-28-2011, 05:39 PM
I see your Wiki and raise you:

Total war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(November 2008)

Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of all their available resources and population.

In the middle 19th Century, "total war" was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.[1]

Etymology
The phrase can be traced back to the 1936 publication of General Ludendorff’s World War I memoir Der Totale Krieg ("The Total War"). However, the concept extends back as far as Clausewitz’s classic work On War. USAF General Curtis LeMay updated the concept for the nuclear age. He suggested total war in the nuclear age should be conducted by delivering the nuclear arsenal in a single overwhelming blow.[citation needed]

Early history
One of the earliest forms of total war occurred in the Warring States Period, when the State of Qín or Ch'in (778 BC-207 BC) enacted reforms that transformed the nation into a war machine.[2] The population was divided between soldiers who actively fought in the armies and farmers who fed the armies. Industrial development was concentrated on war, resulting in the perfection of bronze weaponry technology: Qin had some of the finest weapons of that era despite using outdated technology (iron had largely replaced bronze in most parts of China). The Qin state's mobilization for total war was a decisive factor in its victory over its rivals and the subsequent unification of China.

An early example of total war, and possibly the first to be fairly well documented, was the Peloponnesian War, described by the historian Thucydides. This war was fought between Athens and Sparta between 431 and 404 BC. Previously, Greek warfare was a limited and ritualized form of conflict. Armies of hoplites would meet on the battlefield and decide the outcome in a single day. During the Peloponnesian War, however, the fighting lasted for years and consumed the economic resources of the participating city-states. Entire populations were executed or sold into slavery, as in the case of the island of Melos (now known as Milos). The aftermath of the war reshaped the Greek world, left much of the region in poverty, and reduced once influential Athens to a weakened state, from which it never completely recovered.

During the Middle Ages, the Mongols in the 13th century practised total war. The military forces of Genghis Khan slaughtered whole populations and destroyed any city that resisted during the invasions of Khwarezmid Empire, Kievan Rus', Baghdad, China, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary and northern Iran. During the sack of Baghdad in 1258 between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed in the violence. Total war created the Mongol Empire which, by the death of Genghis Khan, would be the largest contiguous empire in history.

Many regions of 16th century Europe were subject to conflicts that could be described as total war. The descent into large scale violence at this time was partly due to population pressures, and partly the product of tensions caused by the Protestant Reformation. The German Peasants War of 1524-25 was an early example; Total warfare was also employed in the French Wars of Religion, with assassins being engaged wantonly by both sides in the conflict. The Elizabethan wars in Ireland, such as the Desmond Wars and the Nine Years War, were extreme examples of what is today known as total war.

The subsequent Thirty Years War may also be considered a total war.[3] This conflict was fought between 1618 and 1648, primarily on the territory of modern Germany. Virtually all of the major European powers were involved, and the economy of each was based on fighting the war. Civilian populations were devastated—"the war nourished the war". Estimates of civilian casualties are approximately 25-30%, with deaths due to a combination of armed conflict, famine, and disease.[4][5] The size and training of armies also grew dramatically during this period, as did the cost of keeping armies in the field. Plunder was commonly used to pay and feed armies.

After the Thirty Years War and up to the French Revolution most wars in Europe were smaller wars with limited goals, so called Cabinet Wars or Kabinettskriege.

18th and 19th Centuries
French Revolutionary Wars
The French Revolutionary Wars reintroduced some of the concepts of total war. The fledgling republic found itself threatened by a powerful coalition of European nations. The only solution, in the eyes of the Jacobin government, was to pour the nation's entire resources into an unprecedented war effort—this was the advent of the levée en masse. The following decree of the National Convention on August 23, 1793 clearly demonstrates the immensity of the French war effort:

From this moment until such time as its enemies shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the services of the armies. The young men shall fight; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn linen into lint; the old men shall betake themselves to the public squares in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic.

Following the August 23 decree French front line forces grew to some 800,000 with a total of 1.5 million in all services—the first time an army in excess of a million had been mobilized in Western history. Over the coming two decades of almost constant warfare it is estimated that somewhere in the vicinity of five million died—probably about half of them civilians—and France alone counted nearly a million (by some sources in excess of a million) deaths.

In the Russian campaign of 1812 the Russians resorted to destroying infrastructure and agriculture in their retreat in order to hamper the French and strip them of adequate supplies. In the campaign of 1813 Allied forces in the German theater alone amounted to nearly one million whilst two years later in the Hundred Days a French decree called for the total mobilization of some 2.5 million men (though at most a fifth of this was managed by the time of the French defeat at Waterloo). During the prolonged Peninsular War from 1808–1814 some 300,000 French troops were kept permanently occupied by, in addition to several hundred thousand Spanish, Portuguese and British regulars an enormous and sustained guerrilla insurgency—ultimately French deaths would amount to 300,000 in the Peninsular War alone.

Taiping Rebellion
The Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) was one of the deadliest wars in history, and the first total war in modern China. About 20 million people died, many due to disease and famine.[6] It followed the secession of the Tàipíng Tiānguó (太平天國,T'ai-p'ing t'ien-kuo), or Heavenly Kingdom of Perfect Peace, from the Qing Empire. Almost every citizen of the Tàipíng Tiānguó was given military training and conscripted into the army to fight against the Imperial forces.

During this conflict both sides tried to deprive each other of the resources to continue the war and it became standard practice to destroy agricultural areas, butcher the population of cities and in general exact a brutal price from captured enemy lands in order to drastically weaken the opposition's war effort. This war truly was total in that civilians on both sides participated to a significant extent in the war effort and in that armies on both sides waged war on the civilian population as well as military forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

That's just the part before the American Civil War.
The big difference is technology. The Spartans didn't have bombs.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 05:49 PM
I said the difference was technology. Key word is "mass" destruction.

And I am not going to read your long posts and links tonight orange.
You try to overwhelm with data.

orange
03-28-2011, 05:55 PM
And I am not going to read your long posts and links tonight orange.
You try to overwhelm with data.

Unfortunately, the examples of mass-destruction of civilians in wars before the modern era ARE overwhelming. :p

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 06:01 PM
Unfortunately, the examples of mass-destruction of civilians in wars before the modern era ARE overwhelming. :p

Nope not like they can with today's weapons.

Hence:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass

Definition Adjective

15. done on a large scale or in large quantities: mass destruction.


BTW I said there was a trend in the 19th century moving towards this kind of war. There were examples during our Civil War. But those are not defining trends of those times. Besides I thought we were arguing weapons of mass destruction on civilians though.

Iowanian
03-28-2011, 06:06 PM
For me, it comes down to this.

At the core, we should help, trade and sell weapons to countries who are
1. Long time friends and allies(real ones, not paper tigers)
2. fair trading partners...they pay a fair rate as well as charge one
3. have resources we need, that they provide
4.they provide resources, information, equipment, assistance, aid, information and will carry some water for us when asked.
5. There is direct benefit to the Citizens of the united states in security, finances, or things to make our life better.
6. small, undeveloped nations who we feel the urge to aid in a time of need out of the goodness of our heart, not obligation
7. nations who have been hit with catastrophe, who are at least subtly friendly....ie...Japan. It's a good thing to help them.

Other than that....If the United States doesn't make it very clear that we look out for OUR interest and those of our friends, doesn't "win" in trades and negotiations, I don't believe in dealing with problems of nations who do not benefit or provide service to the US.

It's time to treat the shitheads of the wolrd like shitheads, accept that is who they are, and when we make war....we break shit and keep plunder in a manner that will highly discourage the next asshole from farting in our vicinity.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 06:09 PM
I said the difference was technology. Key word is "mass" destruction.

And I am not going to read your long posts and links tonight orange.
You try to overwhelm with data.

God forbid you listen to FACTS to make an INFORMED opinion...

Your lack of historical knowledge is truly frightening. Read orange's post .. it points out exactly how ignorant you are on this topic.

And please give me the name of the priest who taught you. I'd like to contact him and find out if you are just dense and misunderstood him or if he is also an idiot when it comes to historical knowledge. If so, I'll make certain he never teaches again with the sanction of the Church.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 06:10 PM
Nope not like they can with today's weapons.

Hence:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass

Definition Adjective

15. done on a large scale or in large quantities: mass destruction.


BTW I said there was a trend in the 19th century moving towards this kind of war. There were examples during our Civil War. But those are not defining trends of those times. Besides I thought we were arguing weapons of mass destruction on civilians though.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r0nTTrJED1o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

orange
03-28-2011, 06:12 PM
For me, it comes down to this.

At the core, we should help, trade and sell weapons to countries who are
1. Long time friends and allies(real ones, not paper tigers)
2. fair trading partners...they pay a fair rate as well as charge one
3. have resources we need, that they provide
4.they provide resources, information, equipment, assistance, aid, information and will carry some water for us when asked.
5. There is direct benefit to the Citizens of the united states in security, finances, or things to make our life better.
6. small, undeveloped nations who we feel the urge to aid in a time of need out of the goodness of our heart, not obligation
7. nations who have been hit with catastrophe, who are at least subtly friendly....ie...Japan. It's a good thing to help them.



Your list (a good list, by the way) certainly defines England, doesn't it? Even France to a lesser degree.

There's certainly payback involved in our Libya operation - I think it would be dumb to suggest otherwise. But I don't think anyone has, though.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 09:57 PM
God forbid you listen to FACTS to make an INFORMED opinion...

Your lack of historical knowledge is truly frightening. Read orange's post .. it points out exactly how ignorant you are on this topic.
I just did but had to go earlier. I know nothing about how war was fought in the east. I am talking about the west. I was also talking, originally, about "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Now it's Total War? That means mobilizing the whole nation etc too.

Anyway if you insist on that switch, take the two out in ancient China...since I wasn't addressing them. You're still left with the two main war eras I mentioned— WWI and WWII and as I brought up the beginnings of that kind of war starting in the American Civil War.

If you want to discuss total war instead, orange's own link updates even that under "Etymology" with USAF General Curtis LeMay's concept for the nuclear age should be conducted "by delivering the nuclear arsenal in a single overwhelming blow." That is accomplished with a WMD.

And please give me the name of the priest who taught you. I'd like to contact him and find out if you are just dense and misunderstood him or if he is also an idiot when it comes to historical knowledge. If so, I'll make certain he never teaches again with the sanction of the Church.
I don't remember his name. That was in the late 80's. You're missing my point, which was that priest's point, while both you and orange have changed what I was addressing to a degree to make it a new argument.

I will try to clarify what the priest's point was (I did understand him because it was how wars have become more destructive including on mass destruction of civilians.) The point the priest made is that wars were primarily fought between armies and navies on battlefields and on seas and even had rules that were followed; and that war worsened over time culminating in WWI and WWII by targeting civilians more and more.

Before then most wars did not do that. That's exactly what he said because I it really stood out to me. Things like that I remember.

Now, you've got 6 wars in that link by orange, and I am not really sure that the French Revolutionary Wars would apply since the new state made it a duty of citizens to join their army. These were the Jacobins though who were pretty violent and bloody ( forerunners of communists) so if there was massive targeting of civilians instead of staying on battlefields....well that would fit the narrative due to the era's date because he said this worsened over time with new heights reached in the WWs. Now how many wars in total between states fought like that for this priest to make such a claim? I haven't counted them all. Sorry though, 6 doesn't cut it for all of Europe's fighting nor for the west. It still comes down to the same three I mentioned and which that link concentrates on the most.

As for the religious wars of Europe, not mentioned in that link, were not just between govts but the people in Europe.

You've the same three wars I mentioned plus or minus one. Out of how many?

List of Wars (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars)

I say wikipedia fails on backing up your point. Again, this started on WMD and you were using dead cadavers pushed by humans. Orange has used cattle rushing to count things as war before.


I am re-entering this thread starting at the past page's end as I've been out. I haven't see what was posted up to this post of yours.

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 10:07 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r0nTTrJED1o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I love Lebowski, but the post you replaced was awesome. Sorry to see it go.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 10:12 PM
I love Lebowski, but the post you replaced was awesome. Sorry to see it go.

HA, ya I reread it and it was a little harsher than I like to be... so, I've decided that until she can put together a cohesive intelligent post that relates to the topic at hand... I will respond with movie quotes.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 10:16 PM
I just did but had to go earlier. I know nothing about how war was fought in the east. I am talking about the west. I was also talking, originally, about "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Now it's Total War? That means mobilizing the whole nation etc too.

Anyway if you insist on that switch, take the two out in ancient China...since I wasn't addressing them. You're still left with the two main war eras I mentioned— WWI and WWII and as I brought up the beginnings of that kind of war starting in the American Civil War.

If you want to discuss total war instead, orange's own link updates even that under "Etymology" with USAF General Curtis LeMay's concept for the nuclear age should be conducted "by delivering the nuclear arsenal in a single overwhelming blow." That is accomplished with a WMD.


I don't remember his name. That was in the late 80's. You're missing my point, which was that priest's point, while both you and orange have changed what I was addressing to a degree to make it a new argument.

I will try to clarify what the priest's point was (I did understand him because it was how wars have become more destructive including on mass destruction of civilians.) The point the priest made is that wars were primarily fought between armies and navies on battlefields and on seas and even had rules that were followed; and that war worsened over time culminating in WWI and WWII by targeting civilians more and more.

Before then most wars did not do that. That's exactly what he said because I it really stood out to me. Things like that I remember.

Now, you've got 6 wars in that link by orange, and I am not really sure that the French Revolutionary Wars would apply since the new state made it a duty of citizens to join their army. These were the Jacobins though who were pretty violent and bloody ( forerunners of communists) so if there was massive targeting of civilians instead of staying on battlefields....well that would fit the narrative due to the era's date because he said this worsened over time with new heights reached in the WWs. Now how many wars in total between states fought like that for this priest to make such a claim? I haven't counted them all. Sorry though, 6 doesn't cut it for all of Europe's fighting nor for the west. It still comes down to the same three I mentioned and which that link concentrates on the most.

As for the religious wars of Europe, not mentioned in that link, were not just between govts but the people in Europe.

You've the same three wars I mentioned plus or minus one. Out of how many?

List of Wars (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars)

I say wikipedia fails on backing up your point. Again, this started on WMD and you were using dead cadavers pushed by humans. Orange has used cattle rushing to count things as war before.


I am re-entering this thread starting at the past page's end as I've been out. I haven't see what was posted up to this post of yours.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hfYJsQAhl0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:17 PM
HA, ya I reread it and it was a little harsher than I like to be... so, I've decided that until she can put together a cohesive intelligent post that relates to the topic at hand... I will respond with movie quotes.

I presume this is me. I was posting and editing while this went up.

Relate to the topic at hand? Would you remind me of what we originally disagreed with then?

I'd be happy to go back and check the first posts between you and I but I just got back and just entered my new post. But please don't start stramen arguments. That's orange's specialty.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:18 PM
Previous Video

So you've got nothing? Got it. Thank you for conceding. :D:toast:

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:23 PM
Unfortunately, the examples of mass-destruction of civilians in wars before the modern era ARE overwhelming. :p

Overwhelming?

Your link has six wars. That's overwhelming?

Out of how many wars? List of Wars (http://simple.wikipedia.org) There's quite a lot.
Kinda like how the UN was united on Libya with ten votes?

You also did not say "targeted" civilians or did so knowingly even if claiming to be getting a military target. Ya' know fought less and less on battlefields. You need to say that because it changes the argument.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:35 PM
Civilians are Now the Target


Civilian fatalities in wartime have climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century ... to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.

Modern warfare is often less a matter of confrontation between professional armies than one of grinding struggles between military and civilians in the same country, or between hostile groups of armed civilians. More and more wars are essentially low-intensity internal conflicts, and they are lasting longer. The days of set-piece battles between professional soldiers facing off in a field far from town are long gone. Today, wars are fought from apartment windows and in the lanes of villages and suburbs, where distinctions between combatant and non-combatant quickly melt away.

Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.

This is what I am talking about folks...and what that priest was talking about. There has been a change over time.
http://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:39 PM
HA, ya I reread it and it was a little harsher than I like to be... so, I've decided that until she can put together a cohesive intelligent post that relates to the topic at hand... I will respond with movie quotes.

Well the unicef link will do it for me because that's what I was talking about as was that priest.
Oops, my bad, they're probably stupid and incoherent too.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 10:44 PM
Civilian Casualties


The tools of modern warfare rarely differentiate between civilians and combatants. Although this has been true to some extent in the past, several of today’s favored weapons are particularly deadly for civilians...

Civilian casualties in today’s wars are often more than collateral damage. Civilians may be targeted in an effort to terrorize enemy societies. Victims don’t always lose their lives, but may have them irreversibly altered.

Modern warfare has increasingly targeted civilians. WMD don't differentiate and kill greater numbers including civilians. Terrorism is another example of the trend worsening.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 10:51 PM
Well the unicef link will do it for me because that's what I was talking about as was that priest.

No, no that wasn't what the priest was talking about.. unless he was as big of a moron as you are acting on this topic...

I have condensed this argument into a nice document for you to review (I'll post it in a sec.)... see if you can pay better attention this time and learn something ... I'm certain the priest would want you to actually PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME.

and that unicef link is ridiculous. 90% of all wartime casualties in the 90s are civilians.. Bullshit.. if you believe that, you may be functionally retarded. EVEN if you consider "ethnic cleansing" campaigns to be war, that figure is still unsupportable. Show me a study with actual figures to support that ludicrous claim.

You seem to have romanticized war to only include the major European battles you read about in primary school.. or the American Revolution.. guess what... all sorts of wars have been fought before during and after that do not fit your fantasy land idea of a gentleman's war. Seriously, where did you go to school... I hope to god they aren't still accredited to teach anyone else so poorly.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 11:02 PM
Ok here is the doc that recaps our entire "argument".. hopefully you can see how you wander incoherently thru the topic...

Let me make another point.. you raise all this crap about civilian casualties... guess what? I would wager that 90% of the civilian casualties of the last 100 years are NOT due to WMDs. So I can't see why the hell you are bringing up at all... you are wrong on it AND even if you had a remote concept of what you were talking about it.. it wouldn't have any bearing on your WMD argument... which quite simply was this... YOU SAID THE US WAS THE ONLY COUNTRY TO USE WMDs... YOU WERE WRONG.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 11:03 PM
Ok here is the doc that recaps our entire "argument".. hopefully you can see how you wander incoherently thru the topic...

ROFL

Awesome.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 11:31 PM
Ok here is the doc that recaps our entire "argument".. hopefully you can see how you wander incoherently thru the topic...

Let me make another point.. you raise all this crap about civilian casualties... guess what? I would wager that 90% of the civilian casualties of the last 100 years are NOT due to WMDs. So I can't see why the hell you are bringing up at all... you are wrong on it AND even if you had a remote concept of what you were talking about it.. it wouldn't have any bearing on your WMD argument... which quite simply was this... YOU SAID THE US WAS THE ONLY COUNTRY TO USE WMDs... YOU WERE WRONG.

Yeah civilian casualties are not due only to WMDs but the argument wandered when the Total War link was put up. I didn't put that up but I responded to it. I did make the point about how modern warfare over time changed to target civilians more and more. ( and WMD do that) You disagreed with that trend. I still say that is the trend. And I think WMD make that more possible.

I was thinking of nukes when I said the US regarding WMD, at first, and you responded that WMD didn't refer to nukes because it pre-dated them. I did add the chems and bio after that. The US wasn't the first to use those but was the first to use a nuke which is a WMD.

I thought of nukes only, at first, because earlier I mentioned the "mushroom cloud" claim in relation to Iraq's have WMD. Today most people think of nukes and bio/chem weapons today as WMD and I provided a link for a source that says the same. That's what I think of anyway and that's what I found when I looked it up. Your points show an earlier etymology of where it may have evolved.

Thanks for the recap...as I went away for three hours. I don't remember every word. I still don't think the cadaver point for one siege is massive compared to the amount of destruction that happened in WWI and II. Nor the other point on for one city. The modern era is rife compared to those.

AustinChief
03-28-2011, 11:49 PM
Yeah civilian casualties are not due only to WMDs but the argument wandered when the Total War link was put up. I didn't put that up but I responded to it. I did make the point about how modern warfare over time changed to target civilians more and more. ( and WMD do that) You disagreed with that trend. I still say that is the trend. And I think WMD make that more possible.

Yes WMDs make it more possible by the "mass" nature of them... but the facts are... WMD civilian deaths pale in comparison to conventional civilian deaths... the only exception would be WWII and that is only if you count the Holocaust.

Your argument about "modern war" is based on you confusing the concept that deals with the targeting of civilian INFRASTRUCTURE which does not necessarily equate to civilian deaths... THAT point is probably the one you were trying to quote your priest on.. THAT did become a staple of warfare during the American Civil War (it existed before but not as a structured concept) and it continues to this day. As orange was pointing out, targeting civilians and "putting them to the sword" is as old as warfare itself. The period of time with "set pieces" and "gentleman's wars" is a relatively SMALL slice of human history.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 11:59 PM
Yes WMDs make it more possible by the "mass" nature of them... but the facts are... WMD civilian deaths pale in comparison to conventional civilian deaths... the only exception would be WWII and that is only if you count the Holocaust.
I wouldn't count the Holocaust part of the war effort. That was an internal policy to destroy them. But I do think politicians raise the fear of nuclear annihilation when they use the term
WMD. That link says the term has been updated regarding warfare which was how I was using it.

Do you mean conventional civilian deaths in general in life versus caused by WMD? If so, well, then we all die too. If not then scratch.

Your argument about "modern war" is based on you confusing the concept that deals with the targeting of civilian INFRASTRUCTURE which does not necessarily equate to civilian deaths... THAT point is probably the one you were trying to quote your priest on.. THAT did become a staple of warfare during the American Civil War (it existed before but not as a structured concept) and it continues to this day. As orange was pointing out, targeting civilians and "putting them to the sword" is as old as warfare itself. The period of time with "set pieces" and "gentleman's wars" is a relatively SMALL slice of human history.

No I meant civilians as well. I also meant the west particularly Europe. Those were the examples that priest gave as well as WWI and WWII in addition to how bloody the communists were, including that they killed more after they won and took power. Except for orange's two Asian wars, those wars and the American Civil are the main ones provided in that link.

Since then, I have checked how the French fought during their Revolutionary Wars and found out that many of them deserted and killed their own officers. :doh!:

I also wasn't thinking of the barbarian invasions by Huns for another example. I meant states. I expect babarians to be barbarians.

orange
03-29-2011, 04:18 AM
I was also talking, originally, about "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Now it's Total War? That means mobilizing the whole nation etc too.

If you want to discuss total war instead,

"Instead" - you mean "instead" of what YOU were talking about?

The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country's ability to engage in war. The targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.

Now who do you suppose posted THAT right there on page 5? Just before MY Total War post.

You post crap without even reading it, right?

go bowe
03-29-2011, 02:14 PM
oh she reads it, through her whacko austrian anti-mercantilism voodoo prism...

then she eats her own loony-toons boogers...

and shits out kook burgers...

it's our very own whacko, the one and only anti-neocon, honey the magnificent... PBJ PBJ PBJ

Iowanian
03-29-2011, 02:33 PM
The reason there are more civilian casualties now is that the Twats that Bep supports don't fight like men. They pick a fight, and then they run and hide in urban areas, mosques, among women and children. They recruit young boys and retarded people to wear their bomb vests and hand the rifles to attack American troops, and then use them as propaganda pieces as "civilians".

It's a good thing BEP is a gilled-sea-donkey or she would be drowning in an ocean of dumbass.

RedNeckRaider
03-29-2011, 03:49 PM
We tell you that you are useless, and you accept it.

Just be glad we're not pinning a vagina there.

Pretty rich from you LMAO~