Take off the gloves

[Dregruk]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

[Dbrought]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

you mean the America part? i'm just going to put this way. i was referring to the continents not the country. that said technically domestic terrorists still count as terrorists. also people kill people and killers come from any background nation or gender. also nations change. allies become enemies and enemies become allies. nobody ever will stay the same unless there are willing to go extinct by refusing to adapt to the new world

[Ashmoria]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

that you cant HAVE a war on an idea.

[Dregruk]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

that you cant HAVE a war on an idea.

Except.. with an idea? Wait... what?

[Ashmoria]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

that you cant HAVE a war on an idea.

Except.. with an idea? Wait... what?

terrorism is an IDEA, a tactic.

you cant have a war on an idea and you certainly cant have a total war on an idea.

the more brutal you are in killing innocents in an attempt to get the terrorists the more the idea spreads that terrorism is the only way to fight back.

[Dregruk]

i think that terrorism itself is an idea. ideas are immortal. they cannot be killed. you can kill all who know about it and burn all that speaks of it and it will still exist. There is evil in the world. It cannot be killed. Terrorist however can die and change. It will not always be the middle east that breeds them. hell in the future who knows where they might be from or background they have. Even America could be a place where terrorist harbor years from now. We cannot think battle an idea without having logic and reason on our side. We can battle people though with anything that will breed fear. Fear is also an immortal unchanging weapon and idea

...the hell are you on about?

that you cant HAVE a war on an idea.

Except.. with an idea? Wait... what?

terrorism is an IDEA, a tactic.

you cant have a war on an idea and you certainly cant have a total war on an idea.

the more brutal you are in killing innocents in an attempt to get the terrorists the more the idea spreads that terrorism is the only way to fight back.

Ah, okay. I agree with that then.

[Grave_n_idle]

How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about total war before it becomes apparent that I'm not talking about total war?

Do you know what you are talking about?

I mean - you seem to ave an idea that we need to treat our enemies as they treat us - but you don't seem to have any way to apply that in the real world.

No, I'm talking about the bulk of the cells the only thing that makes Al Qaeda dangerous is its organized structure without that we can just throw fundamentalist arabs on the pile with anarchists and skinheads and then pretend they don't exist until something else gets blown up.

You don't know much about global terrorism, do you?

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

By breaking them?

This is kind of like 'killing you IS curing you' logic....

[Grave_n_idle]

No, what we learned in WWII (and then promptly forgot) was never do an enemy a small injury.

Actually, what we learned in WW2 was what many armies have learned before then and since - fear is the mind-killer.

You don't win wars by killing people - you win wars by changing minds. Sometimes you change minds by killing people.

We didn't win in Germany because we killed Germans - we won in Germany because the German mind changed. We didn't win in Japan by killing people - we won because the Japanese mind changed. Italy didn't renegotiate it's loyalties because we killed Italians - but because the Italian mind changed.

We re-learned the same lesson in Vietnam.

The Mujahideen taught the Soviets the same lesson.

The British security forces and the (Provisional) IRA learned the same lesson.


Eventually - we'll learn the same lesson, too - but apparently, until then, we're doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

[Grave_n_idle]

OOf course you can't kill terrorism but you can however kill enough terrorists to cripple terrorism.

No, you can't.

There are more civilians than there are military soldiers - and that means there are more potential 'terrorists' than there can ever be soldiers to fight them.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

Me too...

We should hang all those who fight without a uniform,

That's not a punishable offense under international law. It only means they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions (except for common article 3 if they are in US custody in Guantanamo).

or use civilians as screens;

They had better get a fair trial. And plus, we don't usually hang people anymore.

utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers);

The Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare beg to differ unless the soldier is under a direct threat from the person using the shield.

and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities.

Committing an atrocity in retaliation against an atrocity is still an atrocity.

It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The UCMJ and Law of Land Warfare hold the soldier being ordered to commit the illegal act responsible as well as the authority who ordered it. But again, what's with the hanging?

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

I don't believe they mention hanging anywhere in them.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Never take the low road.

[Des-Bal]

How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about total war before it becomes apparent that I'm not talking about total war?

Do you know what you are talking about?

I mean - you seem to ave an idea that we need to treat our enemies as they treat us - but you don't seem to have any way to apply that in the real world.

No, I'm talking about the bulk of the cells the only thing that makes Al Qaeda dangerous is its organized structure without that we can just throw fundamentalist arabs on the pile with anarchists and skinheads and then pretend they don't exist until something else gets blown up.

You don't know much about global terrorism, do you?

That idea is irrelevant! My statement was that following the Hague conventions banning the use of certain weapons is completely stupid when your enemy does far worse.

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

[Dbrought]

I don't believe they mention hanging anywhere in them.

that said maybe we should think of awesome way to have them die. maybe ask a random dude from their group.. how do you guys not want to die. then make that the punishment for being a terrorists.
or we could just make a really big hole and put them all down the hole. when they are all in the hole they can't be out of the hole killing people. thus we win

[Soufrika]

I wish we'd put the Lieber Code (http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm) back into effect. Of course, that would require the (at least unofficial) dismissal of Geneva Conventions 3 and 4 (genital herpes upon the rest of the UN!). No more villagers not giving a hoot who's in power; no more neutrality. Either they actively, honestly assist the government, or they'll be considered hostile.
I am, however, very much aware of how complicated this would be in real application. Your average Afghan in the kishlaks still won't care about the government, let alone accept being lectured by some foreigner with a rifle. Then there's the fact that the government is chock full of the same warlords whom the Taliban—before they were corrupted by a bunch of foreign mullahs and al-Qaeda—formed to fight (some of these guys are also—if what I read in Kathy Gannon's I is For Infidel is true—the ones who really invited Osama and friends in-country and pointed fingers at their political enemies and cried "Taliban!" after we invaded). Trustworthy? Nooooope.
We could stop these guys at the source, too—kill the mullahs who fill their heads with "Death to America!" The Pakistanis are rather whiny about us bombarding the cannon fodder with UAV-launched missiles, on the other hand...

[Unchecked Expansion]

How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about total war before it becomes apparent that I'm not talking about total war?

Do you know what you are talking about?

I mean - you seem to ave an idea that we need to treat our enemies as they treat us - but you don't seem to have any way to apply that in the real world.

No, I'm talking about the bulk of the cells the only thing that makes Al Qaeda dangerous is its organized structure without that we can just throw fundamentalist arabs on the pile with anarchists and skinheads and then pretend they don't exist until something else gets blown up.

You don't know much about global terrorism, do you?

That idea is irrelevant! My statement was that following the Hague conventions banning the use of certain weapons is completely stupid when your enemy does far worse.

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

It's more the popular support and their extreme motivations. Two things you simply cannot get rid of through a more indiscriminate persecution of them.

[Dbrought]

I wish we'd put the Lieber Code (http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm) back into effect. Of course, that would require the (at least unofficial) dismissal of Geneva Conventions 3 and 4 (genital herpes upon the rest of the UN!). No more villagers not giving a hoot who's in power; no more neutrality. Either they actively, honestly assist the government, or they'll be considered hostile.
I am, however, very much aware of how complicated this would be in real application. Your average Afghan in the kishlaks still won't care about the government, let alone accept being lectured by some foreigner with a rifle. Then there's the fact that the government is chock full of the same warlords whom the Taliban—before they were corrupted by a bunch of foreign mullahs and al-Qaeda—formed to fight (some of these guys are also—if what I read in Kathy Gannon's I is For Infidel is true—the ones who really invited Osama and friends in-country and pointed fingers at their political enemies and cried "Taliban!" after we invaded). Trustworthy? Nooooope.
We could stop these guys at the source, too—kill the mullahs who fill their heads with "Death to America!" The Pakistanis are rather whiny about us bombarding the cannon fodder with UAV-launched missiles, on the other hand...

Yay UAVs! just goes to show that all my childhood daydreams are things that turned out to be true. Also that might make it much better for us. we won't have to invade with troops anymore if we can make good UGVs that can fight.

[Dododecapod]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

Me too...

We should hang all those who fight without a uniform,

That's not a punishable offense under international law. It only means they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions (except for common article 3 if they are in US custody in Guantanamo).

or use civilians as screens;

They had better get a fair trial. And plus, we don't usually hang people anymore.

utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers);

The Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare beg to differ unless the soldier is under a direct threat from the person using the shield.

and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities.

Committing an atrocity in retaliation against an atrocity is still an atrocity.

It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The UCMJ and Law of Land Warfare hold the soldier being ordered to commit the illegal act responsible as well as the authority who ordered it. But again, what's with the hanging?

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

I don't believe they mention hanging anywhere in them.

I would suggest you take a look at the Hague conventions. They, not the Geneva conventions, supply the bulk of the Laws of War; the Geneva Conventions are in addition to the Hague Conventions (and generally a very good thing, too, of course, but they DO NOT obviate the earlier Convention). The Hague Convention mandates execution for fighting without identifiers, and enshrines right of reprisal in response to violations.

[Grave_n_idle]

That idea is irrelevant! My statement was that following the Hague conventions banning the use of certain weapons is completely stupid when your enemy does far worse.

Then I don't think you understand the rationale behind limiting weapons of war.

It's not because war is a game, and we've got to make it fair.

It's not to handicap the big guys to give the little guys an even field.

If THOSE were the reasons, there might be some sense to deciding to free ourselves from the restrictions of Convention, and fighting a less regulated approach.


But that's not WHY nations sign to these treaties.

We SIGN those treaties, because they stop war from spilling over in really, really unpleasant ways.

If you WANT to see a future where a conflict in the Middle-East turns into NBC weapons in American cities, then you're right - we should 'take off the gloves'.

Plenty. It exists and it will always exist the only thing making Al Qaeda more dangerous than the rest of them is organization.

Not even vaguely true - the IRA was far more organised than Al Qaeda.

What differentiates Al Qaeda is almost exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said - it's the fact that it's global, and totally de-centralised.

You can't kill Al Qaeda by invading a nation. ANY nation.

[Tergnitz]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.

Now this man knows what he is talking about. If everyone of your foes are dead, then you've won haven't you.

No, because you'll make new foes in bringing it to pass.

Eventually, it'll just be you, alone - because you'll have found cause for war with every other person.

It's a Pyrrhic victory. At best.

Not really, after you defeat enough foes. The remaining nations will either be your allies or they will be too afraid of your military might to dare attack you.

[Robarya]

The idea of nations following a set of rules in a war of survival is ridiculous at best. If your fellow countrymen, incl. family, are being killed in a conflict, you are not going to care the slightest whether your side plays it by the rules or not. Infact, you will most definitely want it to use any means necessary required for you and your own blood to make it out alive.

[Chumblywumbly]

Infact, you will most definitely want it to use any means necessary required for you and your own blood to make it out alive.

Surely this assumes the only goal of a war - and the circumstances surrounding it - be survival?

[Dododecapod]

I believe we should enforce the laws of war strictly.

This means: We should hang all those who fight without a uniform, or use civilians as screens; utilize appropriate force on any combatant, regardless of location (endangerment of civilians is invariably the responsibility of those who are using them as shields, never that of their attackers); and and exercise our right to retaliatory actions when and if our opponent commits atrocities. It also means we should hang any and all of our own troops who conduct atrocities, unless ordered to do so by a higher authority, at which point said authority should be hanged.

The people we fight get away with violating the laws of war because we let them. We should grow some balls and enforce the conventions, as they were intended to be.

And tell me, John, what do we then do when someone starts complaining that the US Air Force firebombed her entire town because they saw a terrorist run aside?

Those kind of brutally pragmatic, draconian measures may have been the norm during the Middle Ages. But the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are as much PR wars as they are shooting wars. If you want any hope for lasting peace in the Middle East, you can't leave the local populace bearing a grudge. The whole world learnt that when World War II reared its ugly head.

No, what we learned in WWII (and then promptly forgot) was never do an enemy a small injury.

In WWII we SMASHED Germany, Italy, Japan and the other Axis nations. We BEAT them, CRUSHED their armies, LEVELED their cities and basically shoved their leaders (such as survived) and the citizens (ditto) noses in the fact that they LOST. BIG TIME.

Eh...no.

The whole point of the aftermath of World War II was that we learned from World War I; if you leave someone with a grievance, they will avenge it. BIG TIME. That's why we rebuilt Germany, instead of isolating it. That's why the settlement of World War II was less harsh than the settlement of World War I - even though Germany had caused it. We learned that your infantile, jingoistic "BLOOD OF THE INFANTS JNFIUghakufuiwh" babble will never set the foundations for lasting peace.

Really?

I don't think so. Helping them rebuild made them our friends - but only AFTER we'd blasted them back into the stone age. Little of what had been Germany remained post WWII - and that included their attitudes and a big part of their culture. The same is true of Japan. Italy actually took less damage, but their humiliation was every bit as total.
In WWI we dealt the Germans a small injury. The populace did not believe they had been beaten - this was one of the aspects Adolf Hitler used to rally support for his Chancellorship. They WANTED another war - and while Hitler didn't especially want to fight France and Germany again, he certainly didn't back down. And notably, HE didn't make the same error - he presented the French with irrefutable proof of their loss - and without any need for atrocities, either. He just got the psychology right - a march through Paris, occupation of a chunk of the country, the Train Car and an imposed government.

Our mistake in Gulf 1, Iraq and Afghanistan is that we were far too humane.

That's our "mistake"?

I take it our mistake in World War II was that we didn't up all our Jews and put them into a furnace. After all, apparantly the way to win a war is to make yourself absolutely indistinguishable from your opponent.

So, because I advocate the kind of tough war we used in WWII, you say I'm saying we were too lenient, and am advocating violating the laws of war when what I'm doing is advocating their full USE?

Your logic centre needs a reboot, mate.

Gulf 1, especially - we basically didn't do anything much to Iraq. Oh, there were a few embargoes, and they lost a big chunk of their army - but armies are made to get smashed, reformed and rebuilt. Saddam Hussein lost nothing but a bit of prestige.

And his ability to wage any warfare, of any kind.

Bollocks. Seriously, your statement is pure bullshit. He was able to prosecute successful campaigns against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs pretty much Immediately after he got butt-kicked out of Kuwait. We did significant damage to the Iraqi military in Desert Storm, but we didn't even come CLOSE to destroying it.

Hence why he was sitting around, doing nothing, when we invaded him the second time.

No, he was sitting around, doing nothing because the eyes of the entire planet were upon him. His military was perfectly functional - it wasn't their fault they weren't up to taking on the most technologically advanced miltary in the world

Now, Iraq was a mistake, but if we're going to take out a country we need to TAKE IT OUT. Destroy their civilian morale, shatter their military, DESTROY THEIR CAPACITY TO RESIST. Instead, we pussyfooted around, avoided civilian casualties even when justified, avoided doing too much infrastructure damage, basically left the country a mess but functional.

Or to put it another way, we dealt the Iraqi people a small injury.

You're insane.

You know that, right?

No, I'm right.

War is not something to get into lightly. It is not a game, or an opportunity for profit. It is the cold blooded imposition of one nations will upon another by force. Note that I say nation, not government. In some cases that is a distinction without a difference, such as the Panama invasion, where general Noriega had little true support among the populace. But in most modern states, you are not fighting a government, you are fighting a nation, united in the belief that regardless of their government, it is at least theirs, and not the imposition of foreigners.
Or to put it another way, you are up against the whole population.
That means you have to BEAT the whole population. Defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy. You have to psychologically CONVINCE them they are beaten...or they aren't.

Of course they resisted! Of course the occupation was a joke! The Iraqis did not respect us. They did not fear us. They had no reason to believe there would be consequences. And by and large, they were right.

Actually, the Iraqi people initially accepted you with welcome arms. Until you started dropping incendiary bombs on their houses.

Once again, you fail to see why "crushing" your opponent's morale will backfire on you. Badly.

Been reading too much Bushevik propaganda, I see. The Iraqis never "welcomed" us. There was a period of being stunned and shocked at the ease of the defeat of their army, and a good round of psychological propaganda might have been able to do something with that; no such attempt was made.
Then the Sunnis turned around and started shooting. The Shi'ites and Kurds were glad to see the end of Hussein, but the Shi'ites opened up too after a while - likely supported by Iran, which has a certain understandable desire to not have US troops at it's borders.
And note that this happened AFTER military operations had changed to peacekeeping and rebuilding drives. Nobody was dropping incendiaries on anybody's houses then, no one was gunning down kids - until they started blowing up our troops (and their people - but this is about OUR mistakes, not theirs).

War is, must be, the final option. All else needs to be tried first, and preferably twice, and yes, let's GO that extra mile for the sake of peace. But when war is upon you, and no other option remains, then we must fight with EVERYTHING we have. We must show the enemy his mistake, in no uncertain terms. There must be pain, and death, and consequences. And in the modern world, when you defeat a foe, you must show him that he is beaten, that he has lost. Defeat occurs, not on the battlefield, but in the mind of the enemy. Until that happens, victory means nothing.

Sorry to interrupt you, General Shepherd, but apparantly we were the ones who declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan.

[/quote]

And? Britain and France were the ones that declared war on Germany in WWII. The mistake is as often to do something that causes another to declare war as it is declaring war itself.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

[Dbrought]

I´d suggest, you "Mericans" rethink most of your made statements from the point of view, that you and your country is the one to be invaded...and you´re the ones suffering an occupying army on your nation´s territory then - and I´m quite sure, thias would change your arguements seriously (maybe except of the few idiots who simply argue "why not nuking them, `cause we can").

nuking is only a last resort. simply because of the MAD concept. however use of any type of surgical strike or UAV missile strike i would justify. even if there were civilian casualties we need to get rid of them. just think of the damage one bomber can cause in a populated area. they are all capable of pulling off a roadside of suicide bomb. as long as the civ casualties are projected to be considerably less than what the enemy would kill if they decided to go on a shootout or bomb spree then you can consider their deaths a necessary sacrifice to save more lives. We need to strike them where they are. We need them to know that we are not too afraid to go after them when they hide with civs. think about it. if they realized we were not afraid to shoot through the shoulder of the human shield to kill them would they bother going to the trouble of taking effort to have a human shield?