Is War Over? (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

duuhhh

?

To be fair, my response still fits. I was looking at war in the traditional sense of going and blowing stuff up. If I ignore my interpretation of the word 'war', the response still fits.

 

[wuddie]

what war? we never had a war. it is always one side hammering the other.

 

[Partisan]

Maybe Azrael's claim that nukes can end wards is a true statement but Clyne's statement mentioning that nukes will result in a blinding blade of light resulting in shattered lives and hopes.

Realistically, the Allied force's technology is better than the insurgents but the insurgents can hide like animals in caves and any other concealed locations and slowly kill off Allied forces with hidden explosives and more primitive methods.

Allied forces need to be able to find insurgents more easily, it is very difficult kill what you can't see.
They have the firepower but need enhanced detection and perception methods and technologies.

 

[Iron]

Maybe Azrael's claim that nukes can end wards is a true statement but Clyne's statement mentioning that nukes will result in a blinding blade of light resulting in shattered lives and hopes.

Realistically, the Allied force's technology is better than the insurgents but the insurgents can hide like animals in caves and any other concealed locations and slowly kill off Allied forces with hidden explosives and more primitive methods.

Allied forces need to be able to find insurgents more easily, it is very difficult kill what you can't see.
They have the firepower but need enhanced detection and perception methods and technologies.

Well that's the interesting thing about the modern age. In almost every respect, America is superior to the Roman Empire, but it cant do what they did 2000 years ago. Despite their technological and economic power, they're bogged down in a shitty little desert. The greatest power the world has ever seen - on its knees and bleeding to death at the hands of 'insurgents'?
Doesnt this suggest that as long as there is serious resistance from a coherent group, even war without nuclear weapons is doomed to failure?

 

[katie_tully]

But when was the last time we nuked somebody? I am pretty sure that the only thing stopping America from nuking that sandy shit hole is the repercussions from the rest of the world.
I don't think they'd care about the civillian impact, I think they'd be more worried about the rest of the world boycotting them.

Doesnt this suggest that as long as there is serious resistance from a coherent group, even war without nuclear weapons is doomed to failure?

The last war I believe we definitively won was WW2, and we only really won that because the yanks nuked Japan. After that nobody has really gone to war with the same gusto. It's still war, but it is war with somewhat of a conscience; something that doesn't go hand in hand with blowing the crap out of people.

It's all about attacking the enemy but being mindful of not killing any civillians, where as before I don't think civilian casualties was high on the list of priorities. So you're not going to be as aggressive, so therefore youre more inclined to fail.

 

[banco55]

If you look at how the Arabs fight their own insurgencies they level cities, fill mass graves, torture shit loads of people. The difference is once they've finished doing it they stay in the country (usually because it's their country. Look at what Syria did to the town that rebelled in 1982. He just had it sealed off and then levelled it (with the population still inside).

 

[katie_tully]

I don't know what compells somebody to destruct their own towns and cities, it's counter productive. This is why we rule and they dont.

 

[flappinghippo]

Scarcity is the source of all conflict.

 

[Iron]

It's all about attacking the enemy but being mindful of not killing any civillians, where as before I don't think civilian casualties was high on the list of priorities. So you're not going to be as aggressive, so therefore youre more inclined to fail.

Id say that without a doubt there has been LESS concern for civilian casualties since WW1, firstly because of the bomber and secondly nuclear weapons.

Some would argue that in terms of total war, everyone (soldier and civilian) contributes something to the war effort and are therefore legitimate targets.
Others would say that by knocking out sensitive civilian areas (like a capitol city), you shock the enemy into surrender and thereby save countless lives which may have been lost in longer, messier, more costly, WWI-esque fighting

The only deterent since the bomber and bomb has been to convince the enemy that you have the power to inflict more damage on them, you have the power to totally destroy them, you have the power to destroy the world. We've been at this natural point for about 50 years. My question is, can war seriously remain "politics by other means"?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Id say that without a doubt there has been LESS concern for civilian casualties since WW1, firstly because of the bomber and secondly nuclear weapons.

There may have been less concern in the mid 1900's, but there's more concern now. I think that's the point Katie is making.

 

[Iron]

The point IM making is that as far as it IS a greater concern, it is because militaries can now, more than ever, target civilians directly - and there are lots of strategic reasons to do so.

 

[katie_tully]

But in the long run is it worth it? I'm sure the war in the Middle East could end tomorrow if they just went hell for leather and blew the shit out of everything, not mindful of civilian casualties.
Obviously the ramifications at home and abroad would be too drastic and I think we'd see a world wide boycott on America/Britain/Australia if it were to happen.

I personally think it's one of the major reasons why the war in the Middle East appears to be a great failure. You cannot win a war when you're worried about killing as few civilians as possible - otherwise they'd just be flooring everything

 

[katie_tully]

I had a big thing about globalisation typed out and IE just died on me. Gah.

 

[Iron]

I think you underestimate how much the war in Iraq really is about 'energy security'. Stability is vital in extracting the oil peacefully and keeping the economies of the world ticking over. That's why Japan and China have basically financed the war for America.

At any rate, it's a mistake to call Iraq a war at the moment. America may be caught up in a CIVIL war there, but the reality is that their role is an immensely huge policing one - keeping law and order. Regime change isnt the oldest concept either. It has only really been in vogue since Roosevelt insisted on "unconditonal surrender" from the Axis

But anyway, surely youre not suggesting that anything will ever be achieved through protest?

 

[katie_tully]

But anyway, surely youre not suggesting that anything will ever be achieved through protest?

Never ever has protesting achieved anything. But maybe there will be a trend 'away' from military with ever increasing advances in technology. Surely now that we're all a click of a button away from each other, negotiations should be paramount?

In regards to the boycott, I was heading towards more trade and travel boycotts more so than a few hippies burning effigies of George Bush.

 

[Iron]

Who the fuck knows. But overwhelming technological superiority hasnt helped the states out too much in Iraq or even Vietnam. I think we tend to invest too much faith in technology's ability to win our battles for us.
But the other arguemtn could be easily made - the technology which has led to globalisation has only served to accentuate and emphasise 3rd world inequality, which has been crucial to the rise of terrorism

 

[katie_tully]

We will all die by our own swords.

 

[sam04u]

War has become much less acceptable in recent years. I don't know if somebody has suggested this, but it's much to do with technology. People seeing images of war on media, or mass production of poems and literature criticising war.

They've all contributed to war being not favourable by most people. Except muslims ofcourse. They still know that war is ordained by Allah, and that Allah will accept those who die whilst struggling (Jihad) in to the realms of heaven. (The great garden.)

You cannot win a war when you're worried about killing as few civilians as possible.

Yes, we must not rest untill all the KUFFAR are dead. As Abu Ghraib says, "the ideology of atheism will be wiped off the map, like socialism and nazism before it".

They breed like rabbits

Subhan'Allah, he has blessed the believers with a great and epic birth rate. While he has condemned the dogs (disbelievers) with negative birth rate and homosexuality.

We will all die by our own swords.

Insh'Allah, this is also true. The shaitan has cursed you pigs with "emo" music, and now many of you die by seppuku. Even soldiers coming from the wars you wage have unjustness in them and take their own life.

 

[katie_tully]

Whose troll are you Sam?

 

[volition]

Pilot of plane that bombed Hiroshima dies - Paul Tibbets, WWII commander of infamous B-29, requested no headstone

He added: “I sleep clearly every night.”

bull

Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.

The right thing to do? wtf man