War Against Taleban(Afganistan).

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:43 pm

Sanctions are the worst answer, violent men only know violent actions.

Every life lost is a waste, a terrible wrong. But in this existance there are just some times that the only choices are all wrong. Bombing Afghanistan is wrong. Having nuclear weapons is wrong. Killing civilians is wrong.

It's what I call a necessary evil. The wrong choice is bombing afghanistan. The even more wrong choice is no retribution, the path of weakness. Building and storing nukes is wrong, but denying ourselves it while others freely build is more wrong (MAD may be insane but it's the only thing that was consistant in the cold war).

Already in the current semester I've read to things (in what I call my philosophy-lite class) that reaffirm my beliefs.

In two different readings, both Aristotle and the Bhagavad-Gita (spelling?), one of the Hindu texts, state that the worst action one can take is inaction. Freezing because you doubt your actions leaves you with nothing, you're in a weakened state easily controlled. Accepting that you will commit 'bad' acts in the process of heading towards good is necessary to survive.

America is in action right now, against something which almost nobody considers right. I could not possibly bring myself to disagree with this. The loss of one single life in Afghanistan is deplorable; but the loss of thousands of lives on Sept 11 must never be forgotten.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:16 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
I've heard estimates that it would have taken three times as many lives to invade Japan than dropping the bomb.

There are estimates hat say it might have been 500 000 - 1 000 000 casualities in a land invasion. Casualites is not the same things as deaths. Moreover, nothing says that A-bombing and land invasion were the only two alternatives. For instance, the US could have taken the advice from the Scientific committee to threat Japan by demonstrating the power of an atom bomb at an uninhabited island. But the US declined that suggestion since it wanted to hit Japan without warning.

We will never know whether the A-bombs were necessary to end the war or not. Most likely they were not, but the US did not know or realise that at the time. This however, is different from stating the A-bombs saved lives. I suggest you catch up with some reading on the subject. Here is a nice link to start with, but you'll find plenty of information including declassified original documents, Truman's and Stimsons diaries, Interim protocols etc.
[url="http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html"]http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html[/url]

This is also good, an contains links to many original docs.
[url="http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm"]http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm[/url]

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:49 am

Originally posted by Aragorn of OC:
We did not use total war with vietnam, look what happened there, not very succesful.

Are you serious? 1/2 million soldiers, more tons of bombs then during WW2 and attempts to strip the forests of its leaves. If that is not total war, what is?

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

CM · Post by CM » Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:54 am

Yippee!
I am sorry but i am just glad that i have no post to discuss today in this thread.

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 2:50 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
Terrorist attack: The intentional targetting of non-combatants/civilians in a civilian or non-com environment, with attacks intended to cause the most civilian casualties. For the express purpose of terrorising civilians to obtain ones political end.

Could you explain what you think an "unorthodox warfare attack" is? I have no idea what that you are referring to and cannot answer. If you are referring to the killing of Afghan civilians, I see nothing unorthodox about bombing a Terrorist regime that has supported acts of Terror against civilians. They have provoked a response. Accidents happen. The bombs would not be falling if September 11th had just been a normal day.

In what context do you mean tactical and strategic? What means are you referring to?

A simple definition of tactics: methods used to win a battle.

A simple definition of strategy: using battles to win a war.

Seems to me you are avoiding the subject.However let me list a few definitions:
1.Unorthodox warfare is the use OF ANY MEANS NECESSARY TO DISRUPT THE SOCIAL ORDER AND THEREFORE THE WILL TO FIGHT OF AN ENEMY.Legitimate targets/means,if I may call them that,range from assasinations to blowing up power stations,to incapacitating industrial potential,to poisoning water reservoirs.Now tell me that no "civilian" casualties will be incurred.
2.Tactical warfare aims at aquiring a local advantage,it is therefore restrictive to the FEBA,albeit now,we cannot define where that is.
3.Strategic warfare aims at disrupting the Logistics potential of the enemy.Easily understood what targets will be hit and what "collateral" damage will be incurred.
4.Quote:"The terrorist is a political creature.Its actions are aimed at aquiring the most publicity,to advance its beliefs,whether these make sense to the society at large."Unquote.How many nation-states fund and train these creatures,using them for attaining their purposes?
How many undeclared wars(terrorist wars)are going on right now?
Reading your other post,I understand how you feel.Years ago,I lived through such an act in Ireland.I was 19 then,and It changed my life.Enough said,I'll be at the UK beginning of December,I'll gladly buy the first 4 rounds and share some pretzels and exchange views.

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 3:20 am

Originally posted by Minerva:
You made me break the vow I made earlier today. Still, I am not going to ignore this.

You are ignorant the fact people are still dying from two atomic bombs 56 years ago. It is not only Japanese but also many Koreans and Chinese who were taken from their home countries and forced to work in Japan, were still suffered from cancer, leukemia, ulcer, and so on, and many were born with disabilities.

Don't you dare call it "saving lives".

I've visited both cities.Really moved by the monuments there and the burning insense.The odd part is that I was invited to share tee,me a gaijin and a tall one at that.The stories that followed,well,I'm glad I had my mini tape with me.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 5:17 am

Aragorn of OC:
well, i'm sorry but i would have to disagree, i believe that 10 innocent lives definitely not a good thing. and neither is 1. but here's my thinking, they're diferent. not the same, i'd say 10 would be worse, but really what do i know. in the words of stalin "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." i believe this to be true. for example, over 60 million people have died from the black plague, there have been 7 recent deaths from anthrax, now for some reason everyone thinks that anthrax is a big deal. but nobody ever thinks about how many people have died of the black plague. also, i know this sounds kind of mean on my part, but if you look at it, not that many people die from war. this is a true statisic, i think, i heard it on the radio so don't quote me on this one. more people have died from gunshot wounds in the last 20 in the united states from accidents/gangfights etc. than from all the deaths of americans in every american war, including the revolutionary war. once again, i only heard it on the radio, feel free to yell at me for being mean, and please say mean things to me for quoting stalin.

It is dificult to me see your point. I really think even 2 lives are something bigger than 1 live(I am atheist). Simply because of the fact that this 1 can be you, your mother; what is bigger than this? IMO nothing.

Quark:
Every life lost is a waste, a terrible wrong. But in this existance there are just some times that the only choices are all wrong. Bombing Afghanistan is wrong. Having nuclear weapons is wrong. Killing civilians is wrong.

It's what I call a necessary evil. The wrong choice is bombing afghanistan. The even more wrong choice is no retribution, the path of weakness. Building and storing nukes is wrong, but denying ourselves it while others freely build is more wrong (MAD may be insane but it's the only thing that was consistant in the cold war).

No, sometimes the dicisions are dificult to be made. It is not the case. Do not attack the taliban, beause they are hidding themselfs in civilian area, is not something dificult.
I think you don't want to see this good path, saying that only exist evil paths.

The public opinion in USA is changing. The news now are more sensate, reporting some dificulties and resrictions to the attack over Afeganistan.

Quark:
In two different readings, both Aristotle and the Bhagavad-Gita (spelling?), one of the Hindu texts, state that the worst action one can take is inaction. Freezing because you doubt your actions leaves you with nothing, you're in a weakened state easily controlled. Accepting that you will commit 'bad' acts in the process of heading towards good is necessary to survive.

Do not attack civilians is not the week path, is the humanitarian path.

Quark:
The loss of one single life in Afghanistan is deplorable; but the loss of thousands of lives on Sept 11 must never be forgotten.

They will never be forgotten.
But if they are remembered associated with a revenge and more civil deaths, than will be something to be forgotten. That is what am I talking. Let remember them associated with the punishement of the true responsible by that acts, not others inocents.

Aragorn of OC:
i agree with you very much quark. sometimes you have to bad things to get good things done. the ends justify the means. i'm one of those outcome thinking people.

"The ends justify the means". One of the phrases I most disagree. Machiavelli isn't it?.

Aragorn of OC:
i know you have all probably heard enough of me, but i would just like to say that i'm all for total war. burn everything destroy everything, no rules, it's war. I think that this is the only way it can be done. We did not use total war with vietnam, look what happened there, not very succesful. Now look at the civil war. Sherman started burning every thing there was in the south, that's railroads, barns, feilds, everything in nov. of '64, in may of '65 the war that had been raging for 4 years was over. now, i'm not trying to commint any post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies here, so don't yell at me, I know it's not the only reason, it's just an example.

War. You are talking about the same war that I know? You lost anything in any War?
War is lost, pain, death, insane. And you like the TOTAL ones. You can imagine what is a total War.
I don't believe in what you are talking.
Let me give you an example of a total War.

War of Paraguai
Brasil, Argentina, Uruguai X Paraguai
Paraguai was a prosperous country, independent. the only country of the Latine America who don't have nothing with the Colonialist England. 1864, the war start. Was a massacre. The Aliance(Brasil, Argentina, Uruguai)destroy everything. When there is no more man to combate in the Paraguay side, a troop of Childrens and Womans try to resist. Los Ninos Combatientes was dizimated too. Can you imagine what is a regular Army to kill children and woman?
The role war include also Hospital burns, and so on...
1870 in Paraguay exist one man to 28 womans.
Total War
One of the most sad events of the Hystory.

ps: Vietnam was a Total war. Orange Agent is Total War

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:58 am

Originally posted by Dottie:

Are you serious? 1/2 million soldiers, more tons of bombs then during WW2 and attempts to strip the forests of its leaves. If that is not total war, what is?

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

The forces in Viet Nam operated within guidelines laid out by politicians. No forces en mass into Laos, limited juristiction into the north and so on. Rules of engagement do not exist in total war. IMHO total war would have meant an overwhelming thrust north to include occupation of the territory and even engaging the Chinese.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 7:54 am

[/QUOTE][/QB]
<snip>Even if this estimates are true. One live cannot be saved by the cost of other inocent live. One lost inocent live is not something you can measure(atribute valor). 10 innocent lives lost is no more or no less than 1 innocent live lost.
You already know this too.<snip>[/QB][/QUOTE]

I dont understand. 1=10?
If so, then a question...
Would you rather lose one finger or ten?

You can justify killing citizens with the conclusion that you are handicapping their ability to wage war by disrupting their war production. In essence, kill their people so they cant produce the devices that will kill ours. War is nasty business indeed.

You have to remember the object of a war is to win. The Japanese sent hundreds of dangerous, though not very effective, balloons filled with bombs into the US via the East West jetstream. The balloons were launched from the main islands. The idea was to terrorize and kill civilians with direct blasts and the subsequent fires. The balloons did not achieve any major success and were largely kept secret by the US government.
Point being again, the object of war is to win.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:11 am

Originally posted by Weasel:


I might be cold hearted, but I believe in giving back what you give me. In double.

Revenge and Hatred breeds more revenge and hatred.

What you said is not cold hearted - its mad.

Kill them all. kill the children so they don’t grow up remembering their fathers killers. kill the mothers so they dont have children.

Please Please dont think like that. many people feel hurt - angry. this is how it starts. look at northen ireland an endless cycle of violence. how are we making progress? negotiation, patience and understanding. The Middle east? a higly trained army backed by the USA are still fighting after soon fifty years. no end in sight. do you really think that conflict can be won by the gun?

South africa - the truth and reconciliation commities. It can work - its hard but its the right way.

I know it has been said a lot lately but it is true nonetheless ‘An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind’.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:12 am

Ivan, please show me a "good" path, one that will 1)work and 2)does not harm civilians.

That's all I ask.

I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Even in this case, the lose in human life is unjustifiable. I still consider it necessary, though. There's a huge difference there.

Vietnam was a horrible war, yes, but not a total war. RoE; Rules of Engagement. There were strict guidlines in Vietnam, guidlines which may have helped lose the war.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:23 am

@Quark: You should be aware that Ivan is 100% against ANY kind of intervention - that goes for any country under any circumstances. You can check out the "Attack on Afghanistan" thread (it's buried a bit now, but its around), where he details his opinions very well (page five).

@Ivan: let me know if the above description of you does not fit right.

@All: I think one thing to keep in mind about this whole civilian casualties issue is just this: it is the responsibility of each individual nation to protect its own citizens. The US, through its actions in Afghanistan is making every attempt to do that without undue harm to civilians. But it is NOT proper for us to FAIL TO ACT simply because some non-Taliban / non-Al Queda people may die. It is the Taliban's right and obligation to protect their people - not the United States. This applies equally to the use of the atomic bomb in WWII: we did it to save AMERICAN lives. That was our respsonsibility. Japanese lives were NOT our respsonsibility. And lets not forget WHO started that war of aggression.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:27 am

Originally posted by Xandax:
Name them, and give me your oppinion of them, and what should be done.
I just asked what was your belive on what should be done.

Not one thing but a whole range of things and many of them are being done.

freezing accounts and greater scrutiny of finance. improved security in plains and airports and on the ground. Greater international co-operation and a hundred other things that the specialists in this can work out.

those thinges are not exiting. not like stealth bombers with laser guided bunker fragmentation bombs. not exiting like manly special forces that go in like heroes.

This will not eliminate threat from terrorism but nothing will. A war in this case will make things worse I belive.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:33 am

Originally posted by Tom:
Revenge and Hatred breeds more revenge and hatred.

What you said is not cold hearted - its mad.

Kill them all. kill the children so they don’t grow up remembering their fathers killers. kill the mothers so they dont have children.<snip>

Well isen't this what has been done against the US.
These fundamentalistic groups was perfermoing their anti US/West actions, propaganda, terrorist acts before the WTC.
It was just the final drop, that made the glass flow over, so to speak, that made the US react.

These groups, that so happen runs the country of Afganistan would most likely continue their actions because their whole belif system(not religious, even though they use it as justification) has been build up around the fact that the US and Western Civilization is decadent, imperialistic, evil etc.

How do you reason with fanatics?, give them what they want? Ignore them? Talk to them and expect them to listen?

What I keep hearing from many people is that the bombing of Afganistan is wrong, because civilians are also becoming casulties, then what should be done.

I think only Fas has given his views on this.

My question from yesteday remains - what, if not military actions, should be done to resolve the fact that these fundamentalistic groups, people, goverments would most likely continue to perform terroristic acts against civilians.

The US at least tries not to hit civilians, but the terrorist prefere to attack civilians.
That IMO is a big difference.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:37 am

@Xandax: I agree.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:43 am

Originally posted by Tom:
Not one thing but a whole range of things and many of them are being done.

freezing accounts and greater scrutiny of finance.

This is also being done.
This would not stop such actions because much of these actions can/will be done with low cost.
A terrorist act need not cost a lot of money.

Originally posted by Tom:

improved security in plains and airports and on the ground.

This is also being done, there are talks about (don't know if it is implemented) about placing armed security inside planes.
But as we all know - what happened with bankrobbers when banks started posting armed guards - they just got more violent.
This would be the same.

BTW it would be near impossible to do full body search of everybody entering transportation vehicles. Think of the number of people alone in the states that every day takes the plane.

Originally posted by Tom:

Greater international co-operation and a hundred other things that the specialists in this can work out.

And we have thoudsands of (political)"left wing" talking about the fear of "Big Brother" - the goverment watching and registring all your movements.

Originally posted by Tom:

those thinges are not exiting. not like stealth bombers with laser guided bunker fragmentation bombs. not exiting like manly special forces that go in like heroes.

No you are right - it is not exciting to alter your own way of life, because some groups dosen't like your country/way of life, and like to attack civiliance/innocent people.
It is not exciting to have your country turn into a policestate because some fanatical groups want to kill everybody else.

Originally posted by Tom:

This will not eliminate threat from terrorism but nothing will. A war in this case will make things worse I belive.

No these suggestions you have proposed wont stop terrorisme, they would hardly even halt it.
I'm not saying that the attack on (currently) Afganistan will either. But currently it seems the best bet to take focus away from the targetzones and into the groups own homeland.
It is a well known tactic in everything - to take the battle to the enemy.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:04 am

Putting on my moderator's cap, I'd like to again remind all participants to remember that you're writing to people who have strong views about an emotive theme--much like yourselves; and people in such situations are apt to replace minutely detailed explanations for their views with simple, powerful, all-inconclusive statements, designed to get across feeling rather than content.

So cut your opponents some slack. And while you're at it, back off a bit, take a few deep breaths, and cut yourself some slack, too.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:14 am

Originally posted by fable:
Putting on my moderator's cap, I'd like to again remind all participants to remember that you're writing to people who have strong views about an emotive theme--much like yourselves; and people in such situations are apt to replace minutely detailed explanations for their views with simple, powerful, all-inconclusive statements, designed to get across feeling rather than content.

So cut your opponents some slack. And while you're at it, back off a bit, take a few deep breaths, and cut yourself some slack, too.

ay ay captin I hear you.