The "war on terror" is a "mistake",

[Partisan]

the fact that the lives of civilians from other countries outweigh those of your own countries military personnel is very funny indeed. The basic fact is that some terror groups are more than willing to sacrifice 1000 civilinas to kill one enemy combatent, yet when this happens all of the bleeding hearts scream bloody murder.

Sherman I feel compelled to point out that most countries hold themselves to a set of values, which have been enshrined in their national laws and international laws and treaties. That is to repsect the rights of individuals and their property and that everything possible must be done to avoid inflicting unecessary suffering and hardship on civilian populations - hostile or not!

The fact that a terrorist hides amongst the population is neither here nor there, the fact that commit atrocities is deplorable - but it is not an excuse to lower our standards and act like them, because we then become the same!

Fighting terrorist's isn't easy - no one said it is, but there are better ways than acting like terrorists, disregarding the civil cost, especially when we're going to want the civilian population to be our friends, or at least think reasonably well of us.

 

[SHERMAN]

Fighting terrorist's isn't easy - no one said it is, but there are better ways than acting like terrorists, disregarding the civil cost, especially when we're going to want the civilian population to be our friends, or at least think reasonably well of us.

Im not talking about terrorisem. Im talking about the simplest situation. A force is fighting house to house in a large crowded city. It is underfire, has casualties and is surrounded. In order to extract the force safely and with out casualties there is a need to emply armored vehicles, helicopter fire etc. Using this ammount of fire power may well cause civilian casualties. If at that point you choose not to risk civilians to get your troops out, you have no buissnes fighting in the first place.

That is just one scenario, I can give a dozen.

 

[Partisan]

Im not talking about terrorisem. Im talking about the simplest situation. A force is fighting house to house in a large crowded city. It is underfire, has casualties and is surrounded. In order to extract the force safely and with out casualties there is a need to emply armored vehicles, helicopter fire etc. Using this ammount of fire power may well cause civilian casualties. If at that point you choose not to risk civilians to get your troops out, you have no buissnes fighting in the first place.

That is just one scenario, I can give a dozen.

OK let's follow the example.

1. Force fighting house to house - what is the objective and why are there, what are the friendly forces, enemy forces, what is their mission and more importanly what is the concept of operations?

2. Fighting in a large, crowded city - why is it still crowded with warfighting going on? Most populations bug out and try to find safer havens, especially when the man with the big stick is coming to play.

3. Force surrounded, needs extraction, the only way to do it is to employ massicve and overwhelming firepower (paraphrased). OK that could be the last resort, but you'd really better be sure that this is the only way, because if it is going to harm your long term objectives, you might need to think again. On the other hand it could back them up, by showing how ruthless you're willing to be - but that is probably not going to help your longer term plan, as you need to have pacified safe(ish) areas to work from and with to move forward - there is no modern army that can afford to spend manpower and materiel just guarding city blocks indefinitely.

To my mind this is simple military common sense, as is protecting you men and the mission. The thing is as a leader of soldiers, you sometimes have to put them in harms way, that is their job and yours.

Not nice, when you lose men, but that is the nature of war and that is the realistic lot of a soldier. That is not the realistic lot of a civilian, who happens to get caught in the middle of a high tech brawl, getting killed by a weapon that cost more than they made in a decade. Then consider the ill feeling that this creates amongst friends and family, effectively becoming the fertile ground for terrorist to grow, creating a cycle.

I feel that coountries should be able to do better than that, generally there are more assets and resources available, so taking a slightly quieter approach, could yield better results and I haven't got any country in mind when I say this, it is a problem across the world.

 

[SHERMAN]

Im taking the element of risk as somting obvious. Miltary action is the only line of work where even if you do everything well, you still expect people to die(enemy, but still). What i dont accept is the thought that civilians of another country are more important than your own troops. Im not in the army to save Palestinians, Egyptians or Syrians. Im there to fight in any war that happens to threaten my country. Yes, civilian casualties should be avoided, but i think choosing to have causualties in your own force instead is bizzar.

 

[LeMask]

I understand Sherman. But still, I think that it's the noble thing to do. Because a nation is not worth dying for. We, as human beings, are not fighting for survival, but for principles and for moral values.
And we spent centuries killing people because they werent "like us".

I just think that if we base our thought on moral values. You just dont have the right to kill innocent people.

Of course, we have good reasons to choose to kill civilians rather than to lose soldiers. But having a good reason doesnt mean having the right to do so...

And if you dont want to risk your life for a Palestinian/Syrian/Egyptian family... Tommorow, maybe that the armies of these countries will get stronger than the military of the occidental countries. And we could see Egyptian soldiers saying that they would rather kill Israelis than puting their lives or their equipement in harms way...

I think that the international laws should protect civilians at all costs. Because if today such laws would look like a shield for terrorists. But tommorow, it may save your son.

And one last thing. Military personnel is trained and equiped for facing danger. Civilians arent trained or equiped to survive.
Civilians may not be healthy people. While soldiers are healthy. It's much easier to give them medical care. Because they are since the beginning in perfect shape.

It's like throwing machine gun fire on a friendly tank or on a friendly supply truck...
If you shoot the tank, you may scratch the paint... But if it was the truck taking the hit... you would make a lot of damage.

So, the civilians are easier to kill than soldiers. because soldiers are made to fight and to take fire.

 

[SHERMAN]

I understand Sherman. But still, I think that it's the noble thing to do. Because a nation is not worth dying for.

I think many would dispute your statment.

Of course, we have good reasons to choose to kill civilians rather than to lose soldiers. But having a good reason doesnt mean having the right to do so...

The life of every human is precious. You owe your soldiers the same if not more care for ther life than the care you give to enemy non combatents.

And we could see Egyptian soldiers saying that they would rather kill Israelis than puting their lives or their equipement in harms way

Really? The arabs will kill civilians? Really, i couldent imagine that.


You have the exact attitude I expect from someone with 0 military exprience. You cant send men to combat and tell them that their life is less important than the life of people that they never met before, took no oath to protect, and are possibly supporting the people that are fighting you.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

Because a nation is not worth dying for.

I took an oath to protect my country, my fellow citizens, I serve the people of the United States. I believe that there is nothing more noble than to serve your country. I cannot and will not ever understand how someone can say something like that.

 

[LeMask]

Well guys, I'm not into nationalism. I honestly think that it's stupid and dangerous.
We take our nations as granted, but they are just a line on a map. Yesterday, There was a border between Spain and France. Today, we can cross without showing our passports. Maybe that tommorow, we will all be carrying the same passports.

And maybe that tommorow, there will be an African and European union and I will be able to move from a continent to another like I move today from a city to another...

I feel something ridiculous in that. we mock the Afghans because they have their tribal instincts. We think that a tribe is ridiculous. But we are just like them, we just use a more sophisticated instinct. With laws and maps...

You made an oath to protect your country? you wear a flag on your uniform? I'm very happy for you. But I think that an oath to protect mankind and justice is superior to any oath you can take for a country.

I'm a free human being, I'm born free and I owe nobody anything. Okay, maybe my banker... But it's just some money.

And If I told a soldier that his life is superior because he is carrying the flag of my country... I would feel like a nazi or something...

You are all equals... Live with it.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

A soldier does not go out with the intent to kill civilians. And, if you notice, most of the American soldiers are out protecting other countries citizens as well.

It is all well and good to say that you are not willing to fight for your country or your freedom. I'm sure the soldiers of your country are glad you are not in their ranks.

you might have been born free, but someone in history fought for the freedom you enjoy today. Freedom is not free, not now, not ever.

 

[SHERMAN]

Well, if you view every piece of national pride as nationalisem, your on the off-side. National pride can be positive. In sports, academics and science. Protecting the intrests of people that share your langauge, coluture, beliefes, history under the flag of your country dosent seem bad to me.

I feel something ridiculous in that. we mock the Afghans because they have their tribal instincts. We think that a tribe is ridiculous.

No, you mock them. I think its very reasonable to put your family before other families. I also think its reasonable for me to care more about people that wear my uniform and fight along side me than for people that are, weather you like it or not, enemy non-combatents.

I'm a free human being, I'm born free and I owe nobody anything.

Really? You dont owe anything to the people who fight nght and day to keep you free? You dont owe anything to the French Revolutionaries? You dont owe anything to the Allied soldiers in WWII? You dont owe anything to NATO for keeping the Soviet Union and communisem take over western europe? Nothing at all?

Your idealisem is great, only your way of being free means running away, bending over and eventually being enslaved by your great love of humanity. My way is to fight what I precieve as a threat to my and my peoples freedom every time I see it. The Palestinians are not the same to me as Israelis. Not the same as Americans or French. They are humans, and as such deserve the same basic rights as every other human. But the are not my brothers unlike other Israelis ARE. They are not my alies, like the Americans ARE. They are people who have been fighting me for 60 years. Weather you like it or not, they are my ENEMIES. If I have to choose between my brother to my enemy, my brother wins, everytime.
To qoute an Arab proverb:
"Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousine, our family against our neigbours, our village against the village down the road."
Simplistic? Not PC? Yep. But its also true. People join in groups with common ideas and intrests and compete with other groups. In some cases the competition turns to war.

 

[senojekips]

To qoute an Arab proverb:
"Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousine, our family against our neigbours, our village against the village down the road."
Simplistic? Not PC? Yep. But its also true. People join in groups with common ideas and intrests and compete with other groups. In some cases the competition turns to war.

I was never previously aware that this was an Arab proverb, but I do know that I had heard it somewhere before, and use it in my argument against those who would call me a Racist.

This is a good demonstration of the basic nature of man, and I'm certain that it would be to no one's advantage to try to repress it with stupid ideals such as those we are seeing forced upon us with political correctness.

As much as we may not wish to admit it, man is somewhat like all herd animals, we realise that there are distinct advantages to gathering into groups, whether it be for a common interest or protection from those who would do us harm. However, if those groups get too large, often we as individuals lose the very advantage that we seek,... we become one of a faceless mass, and this leads to a re division of the group, so there is always change. People who think that we can all live together as one homogeneous mass are dreaming, it goes against man's most basic hard-wired instincts.

Some would argue that in the name of peace we should all be prepared to sacrifice our individuality and become one of that faceless mass, but these people never stop to think that in standing up as an individual and saying this,... they are contradicting the very thing they are trying to force on others. They wish to be heard above all others.

Homogeneity is a very "nice" though, stupid and completely unworkable theory. Those who argue for it, could spend their time more productively arguing against the effects of gravity.

 

[LeMask]

And like AB_Short_Momma said, we do send soldiers to fight for other citizens. But is it so crazy to ask them to care for these citizen of other nations as they would for their own? Maybe that today, it will seem like an unreachable ideal. But I honestly think that mankind will someday forget about nations...

And Sherman, I dont think that my position is wrong. Nationalism is just next to national pride. With time, things evolve. you can start with national pride and finish as a nationalist who hates foreigners... things evolve.

And when you say protecting the interests of your people, does it mean that you have to protect them at the cost of other people's interests? Once again, it's dangerous.

And you ask me a hard question. I'm not sure I have the answer. But what I'm sure of. Is that I'm proud only of the good things I have done like I'm ashamed only of the bad things I have done.

And about owing NATO and the soldiers who fight for freedom... yeah sure I guess, we owe them respect. But what about the honest workers who payed for your tank Sherman? Or the scientist who gave you your GPS? or the doctor who helped your mom to give you life?

We owe these people a lot. But I wont give them a superior status because of that. I dont have the right to.

Yesterday, there was a war between the Axis and the Allies. Germans and Americans were enemies. Today, Germans and Americans are allies. So Today, Germans are your allies aswell.

If I told a jewish man in 1940 that in 2008 Germany would be a friendly country to his people... wont he think that it's ridiculous?

Today, Germans, Frenchs and US soldiers (many other countries of course) Are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan. Is it surprising? it's not.

Do you know this poet named Saadi who said:
Inflict not on an enemy every injury in your power, for he may afterwards become your friend.

Dont you see the wisdom in this quote? I think that it makes more sense for a military man than for a civilian.

 

[senojekips]

And Sherman, I dont think that my position is wrong. Nationalism is just next to national pride. With time, things evolve. you can start with national pride and finish as a nationalist who hates foreigners... things evolve.

I can't see any logical connection between National Pride, and hatred towards any other group, I think you are lumping two completely different subjects under the one heading.

I'm immensely proud of my nationality, however I do not hate those who are not Australian.

But that's just my view.

 

[wolfen]

I can't see any logical connection between National Pride, and hatred towards any other group, I think you are lumping two completely different subjects under the one heading.

I'm immensely proud of my nationality, however I do not hate those who are not Australian.

But that's just my view.

National pride =::> being proud of ones Country
Haterd =::> Hateing the bastard(s) that want to blow it up

 

[senojekips]

National pride =::> being proud of ones Country
Haterd =::> Hateing the bastard(s) that want to blow it up

But there's still no connection between the two that justifies National pride, turning into hatred.

If you are worried about those with a grudge against your country, it would probably be better if you started looking in your own back yard at people who think like The Unabomber and Timmy McVeigh, they have the opportunity to far more damage than some squeaky voiced nutjob hiding in Afghanistan, and there are probably damn near as many of them just reading some of the Ultra nationalist BS published on the net.

 

[The Other Guy]

Here's my link between the two.

These people have national pride for their own land and hatred of those who are poster childs for why they have been oppressed for the past few hundred years.

(Yes I used Childs.)

 

[Partisan]

Well, if you view every piece of national pride as nationalisem, your on the off-side. National pride can be positive. In sports, academics and science. Protecting the intrests of people that share your langauge, coluture, beliefes, history under the flag of your country dosent seem bad to me.


No, you mock them. I think its very reasonable to put your family before other families. I also think its reasonable for me to care more about people that wear my uniform and fight along side me than for people that are, weather you like it or not, enemy non-combatents.



Really? You dont owe anything to the people who fight nght and day to keep you free? You dont owe anything to the French Revolutionaries? You dont owe anything to the Allied soldiers in WWII? You dont owe anything to NATO for keeping the Soviet Union and communisem take over western europe? Nothing at all?

Your idealisem is great, only your way of being free means running away, bending over and eventually being enslaved by your great love of humanity. My way is to fight what I precieve as a threat to my and my peoples freedom every time I see it. The Palestinians are not the same to me as Israelis. Not the same as Americans or French. They are humans, and as such deserve the same basic rights as every other human. But the are not my brothers unlike other Israelis ARE. They are not my alies, like the Americans ARE. They are people who have been fighting me for 60 years. Weather you like it or not, they are my ENEMIES. If I have to choose between my brother to my enemy, my brother wins, everytime.
To qoute an Arab proverb:
"Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousine, our family against our neigbours, our village against the village down the road."
Simplistic? Not PC? Yep. But its also true. People join in groups with common ideas and intrests and compete with other groups. In some cases the competition turns to war.

Sherman, if we are going to specifically refer to the Israel / Palestine conflict what would you suggest? Every other war has ended up with winners and losers, then the combatants have gone on to become friends and even allies.

As for the National Pride being next to Nationalism, I can see that. National Pride is right and proper, love for ones country, its history, culture and achievements (good & bad). Taken too far this can lead to Nationalism, which puts all these things on a pedastal and discounts anyone elses pride - saying that they are wrong and only the Nationalist belief is correct. It is called extremism, where you find extremists, you find terrorists, neither have a place in modern society.

Senojekips, I agree about homogeneity, but I disagree that we cannot all get along. The reason why humnas are the prime race on the planet is their ability to adapt and improvise, as well as opposable thumbs.:drunkb:

 

[senojekips]

Senojekips, I agree about homogeneity, but I disagree that we cannot all get along. The reason why humnas are the prime race on the planet is their ability to adapt and improvise, as well as opposable thumbs.:drunkb:

It doesn't take much looking around to see why it will never work. I would suggest that there is not a single person on this forum who would, or could, get along with every other member, and this is a ridiculously small cross section of humanity. When this is extrapolated out to countries and races etc., the odds against it are for all practical purposes, infinite. It will never happen, in fact I would go so far as to say that it is absolutely impossible.

This theory is "nice" but absolutely impractical in real terms.

Here's my link between the two.

These people have national pride for their own land and hatred of those who are poster childs for why they have been oppressed for the past few hundred years.

(Yes I used Childs.)

I don't see your point.The case I think you are indicating, is a perfect example of the fact that there is no logical reason, other than peoples neurotic fears of that which is different.

To quote one of my primary school teachers, "That is an excuse, not a reason" and it's a p!ss poor excuse at that.

 

[SHERMAN]

We are a bit offtopic, but whatever, this intresting stuff.

But I honestly think that mankind will someday forget about nations...

Perhaps. But that day is far.

And Sherman, I dont think that my position is wrong. Nationalism is just next to national pride. With time, things evolve. you can start with national pride and finish as a nationalist who hates foreigners... things evolve.

You can also start with no national pride and end up as a traitor. So what?

And about owing NATO and the soldiers who fight for freedom... yeah sure I guess, we owe them respect. But what about the honest workers who payed for your tank Sherman? Or the scientist who gave you your GPS? or the doctor who helped your mom to give you life?

I do respect all these people. But the bond I share with other soldiers from my unit is completely diffrent. Even as a general rule, you cannot compare people who participate in fighting to people who did charity. Putting your life in harms way as a habit means somthing diffrent than saving lives as a doctor or somthing of the kind.

Dont you see the wisdom in this quote? I think that it makes more sense for a military man than for a civilian.

In order for the Germans to be your dear allies today, you had to destroy their military, industry and governemnt. So no, I dont think that qoute is always correct.

Sherman, if we are going to specifically refer to the Israel / Palestine conflict what would you suggest? Every other war has ended up with winners and losers, then the combatants have gone on to become friends and even allies.

Yes, but somtimes it took decades, or even centuries. I have no doubt in my mind that there will be peace here one day. I also think the stronger my country is the faster the peace will come.

 

[LeMask]

I think that we are definetely on topic. Let's take Israel as an exemple. Who is the big enemy of Israel? The Palestinians are a people who are suffering of a mix between religion and nationalism. It's my definition of Islamism. It's the religion at the service of the nation.

Following their own faith, god bans suicide and killing women, children and non-combatants. But as their nation benefits from people ready to blow themselves up with explosives... They twisted their own religion to allow suicide attacks against civilians, non combatants, women and children... Everybody is a legit target.

And I'm sure that all these people who are ready to fight against all odds are champions in national pride.

But I can take it even further. You talk about "no national pride" and "traitors"... Tell me about these people who were bannished from their own lands by god or by Romans... I dont know... Who spent centuries saying "next year in Jerusalem"?

Werent they accused of being traitors in the last century? It's the same problem. I can find a French zionnist today and tell him what is the nation he loves most. And if he says Israel... Should I call him a traitor? I would never do that, but some people do.

In the french parlement, there is a guy who wants to force the athletes to sing the Marsaillaise. A guy from the UMP, the right wing in France. The actual president is from this political group.

I definetely think that we should respect the human rights principles. And see other people as our brothers and sisters. And for those who dont believe in the ever lasting peace... Know that this wont buy peace, it will just put peace between the different nations. We will always be at war against those among us who dont respect the laws of civilization (criminals).