Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: War (Read 173082 times)
  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
War
(I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… :) )

Why do we fight wars?
Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.
There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! :)
But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).
The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.
Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.

I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)

What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:

To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!
—————————————————————————————————
I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…
Are any of you brave enough? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #50 –
Too many Mojitos, Mr. Belfrager.

You've made the common mistake of overgeneralizing. Did you mean some Americans? Most Americans? Too many Americans? Too many Republicans?

You don't dislike an entire nation of people, do you? In that case, I dub you RjBelfrager.

Re: War

Reply #51 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on
Of what am I ignorant? (Some specifics would help me understand what you're trying to say…)
"You are yourself and your circumstances" makes a good bumper-sticker, almost guaranteed to cause minor road accidents!  :)

Sorry, almost jumped that post, you've been a very prolific poster these last days. Trying to save the world with your wise words? :)

On the subject, I never "try to say", I always say very clearly what I said. Recognize however that I forgot frequently that I must talk in a b-a: ba kind of way to certain readers.

You're ignorant that you're a Sophist, nothing but a Sophist and, very coherently, you don't even know what being a Sophist means.

(I'm afraid that not even the Wikipedi'as censorship to shape the world to the Saxonic teaching system will help you with this one.)

So, I suggest that without further delays we go to where we should be, at War. :)

I suppose that nobody said yet the first of things about War, that in War, as in Love, everything goes. :)
Quote from: Jimbro3738 – on

RjBelfrager.

:) RjB?
I insist in be named firstly, BjR sounds better.

Course I don't dislike all Americans, very much the contrary, I feel very proud of considering many American people from here as my personal friends and I would treat you all very generously and kindly if you ever visit this part of the world. I just don't like your Governments (as many of you do, I suppose) and certain aspects of your culture.
A matter of attitude.

Re: War

Reply #52 –
How about Star Trek's V'Ger?

Re: War

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Belfrager – on
I just don't like your Governments (as many of you do, I suppose) and certain aspects of your culture.

Well, then, we're in agreement. Our excessive involvement in too many places in the world bothers me.
That may change unless we get a Republican president in 2016, in which case all bets are off. Or....

Re: War

Reply #54 –
As an enemy, I'm neutral. I fight Democrats and Republicans indistinctly.
But I confess I use separate punctuations, some values more than the others...
A matter of attitude.

Re: War

Reply #55 –
Enemies can be neutral? I'm a bit confused.

Re: War

Reply #58 –
I'm not going to get into, was Nuking the Japs a war crime......unless you outlaw war itself & make punishment for it retroactive you've got to be smoking angel-dust on that one..........,should we apologize, or not, or will an apology of words suffice, or not.

No, I'm going to be as blunt & crass as always.........I think my favorite part (based on historical records, not memory for I came to this world in the next decade) my favorite part of WWII was the Atomic Bombing of those 2 cities in Japan. The Nips got just what they deserved, or maybe even wanted. It was as fitting as the icing on a fine cake.....a piece we would all savor.

I enjoyed, & still enjoy the company of those for who would not be alive today if those bombs hadn't been dropped.......The thousands upon thousands of lives that would have been lost if we had to defeat the Japs in a more 'civil manner', because they lived, they have given birth to millions of progeny that wouldn't have had their first breaths of free air if those bombs went undelivered.

To this I dance with glee on the anniversaries of the dropping of those bombs, & my pity rests not with the dead, & suffering innocents who were pawns to their emperor, my sorrow rests solely with those who had to endure all those hardships the years prior to the development of those bombs that I wished had come sooner. I also have a place in my heart for those that developed the bombs themselves, one being my uncle who played a vital, but albeit a minor role, who spent untold sleepless nights during & after the bombs creation.

Though the bombs came too late to save my other uncle, who according to accounts died a horrifying death at the hands of his Jap captors, I can only wish, without reserve, an eternal suffering for those peoples the bombs detonated above, & the country that spawned them!

On another note, if my government ever decided to drop a nuke, or two, or few dozen somewhere in the middle east to eradicate those jihadist infestations & all their brethren, I say.....gung ho with gusto to that!

'nuff said, I think I made my point, & just one note more.............having been to war myself, & having to do what I did, not only because I had to, but because I wanted to....it was the right thing to do.....having been to war myself allows me to say "I don't do guilt" when it comes to war's necessary evils.

Re: War

Reply #59 –
What a ludicrous comment that was!

Si using the A bombs was fine as that is war? That okays the Nazis then on that weird idea. You totally ignored the historical fact of what was going on behind the scenes  regarding Japan dropping out the war. Being so absorbed by your own culture and ways you took no notice of the way Japanes culture worked even if it meant giving them a couple of things just to get the damn war over with. They knew they were finishedand were also trying to fin a way of giving up that would give them even a superficial thing to get where we all wanted - an end. I also made it clear about General McArthur already knew that the Japanese were coming round to an end and it was a play on the word 'surrender.' When the war did end it gave your corporates (as usual) a chance to make money out of those oh, so terrible Japs!

Japan was in ruins, food and equipment running out and the old tale is that the Japs would have fought for every inch so we must blast them to Hell. It is people like your neck of the woods that give your country a laugh for the rest of us but those bombs should never have been dropped. as the chidren of many of the injured were effected. You were gung-ho about dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam to so-called speed things up yet to this day there are still offspring of US soldiers who served there and got infected by your damn spraying. Does anyone take any notice of them - I bet they don't. Even the Emperor knew what had to be done and instead of pushing the things that were going on behind those scenes you did the usual to hell with anybody. Disgusting and immoral.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: War

Reply #60 –
Quote
Disgusting and immoral


There is no war that not Disgusting and immoral .

on the other hand ,  luckily The U.S Nuke the Nation of  Smart People .
Smart people will understand, and retreat if they meet stronger enemies .

but i guess that methode wont works , in Mid-east .

because you deal with idiots there .

Idiots , will never give up even they meet stronger enemy .
they will  keep fighting even must lost everything .

Re: War

Reply #61 –
Smiley, I agree with most of what you said — up to the last two paragraphs…
Sparta, I really wish I knew your first language: The points you just made are -as the Brits say- spot-on! Your understanding is keen.

@Smiley: I'm a Vietnam era vet — no combat experience. But I remember a California legislator who said the obvious: "War is killing people and breaking things." I'm still amazed at how few people understand this…

@Howie: You're more the type to clack her knitting needles, aren't you? :) You said, "Even the Emperor knew what had to be done and instead of pushing the things that were going on behind those scenes you did the usual to hell with anybody. Disgusting and immoral."
We effected the end without invading the home islands. And precluded the Russians from doing so… (Not an inconsequential feat!)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #62 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

But I remember a California legislator who said the obvious: "War is killing people and breaking things." I'm still amazed at how few people understand this…

Point out anyone who doesn't understand this. Everybody understands this. And this is the very reason why nobody wants to end up in a war. You have to be a pretty sick puppy to know war and like it.

Re: War

Reply #63 –
Does a surgeon just like cutting people open? (And what about the coroner? :) ) Surely you know more of history than your recent comments indicate…

@Smiley: As Pournelle and Possony said (if I remember correctly…) in their Strategy of Technology, the ways of war change and our best hope of winning is to change them in our favor — by the means which we master, before others can. (Clumsy sentence, I know. What follows was what I wanted to say; this was just to give you a hint to its source.)
I presume that we have given up research on neutron bombs, and tactical nukes of all sorts — for humanitarian reasons, no doubt! That is to say, most of the people in positions of power would cause as much destruction and death as possible — rather than win against a determined enemy.

(I've found [ftp=ftp://cpc1-seac23-2-0-cust35.7-2.cable.virginm.net/shares/USB_Storage/Media/Books/Non-Medical/Jerry%20Pournelle/Jerry%20Pournelle%20-%20The%20Strategy%20of%20Technology.pdf]a new edition[/ftp] in PDF-format, and free. I've not read it yet…)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #64 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Does a surgeon just like cutting people open? (And what about the coroner? :) )

They don't just like it, but they do like it. Why else did they pick the job?

The same applies to executioners. Warmongerers are closer to executioners, not surgeons. Except that executioners have authorities above them who tell whom to execute, and the executioner obeys with precision. Executioners are not allowed "collateral damage" or "friendly fire".

Warmongerers have no such authority above themselves nor vested in themselves, so they are more like psychopathic serial killers on the loose. Now try to tell me I don't understand war.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Surely you know more of history than your recent comments indicate…

Indeed, I know so much that it's tough to fit it all into brief comments. You, on the other hand know nothing and you don't want to know either, as your recent comments amply indicate.

Re: War

Reply #65 –
Quote from: ersi – on
They don't just like it, but they do like it. Why else did they pick the job?

The same applies to executioners. War-mongerers are closer to executioners, not surgeons. Except that executioners have authorities above them who tell whom to execute, and the executioner obeys with precision. Executioners are not allowed "collateral damage" or "friendly fire".

War-mongerers have no such authority above themselves nor vested in themselves, so they are more like psychopathic serial killers on the loose. Now try to tell me I don't understand war.
Easily: You're the psychopath who would let his civilization die, so that he, himself can seem pure…
You don't understand war because you reject most of human history. (I suspect your "system" doesn't accommodate what should probably be called "reality"… But. for you, that's no impediment! You have a logic based upon people you've never known and whom you can't understand. But you would play the fool… Estonia should remain free and prosper; but -do I miss my guess?- you don't think so? (Is it merely their NATO membership, and -perhaps- their commitment to capitalism? If so, your "indoctrination" was very effective!
Mine was too: I am an American. I don't really know what you are. I don't think you do, either.)
If you have a means to preclude War, by all means: Pontificate!
(Or masturbate — I think, is the more appropriate term.)
But if you think you understand those who fight wars (or even those who order wars to be fought…) you're dumber than I could have imagined!
Or you've remained deliberately silent…
Why would you do that?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #66 –
A quote from the linked-to book:
Quote
[…] opponent, not with hopes and dreams about his goal is. [I let this go, because it is very ersi and Belfrager-like… :) ] The dynamics of dictatorship provide continuing source of ambitious advisors who will counsel the rulers of the Soviet Union toward aggressive action, and only through continuous engagement in the Technological War can the United States ensure peace and survival.
Because the goals of the United States and the U.S.S.R.  are asymmetric, the strategies each employ in the Technological War necessarily are different. The United States is dedicated to a strategy of stability. We are a stabilizing rather than a disturbing power and our goal is preserving the status quo and the balance of power rather than seeking conquest and the final solution to the problems of international conflict through occupation or extermination of all opponents. In a word, the U.S. sees the Technological War as an infinite game, one played for the sake of continuing to play, rather than for the sake of "victory" in the narrow sense. The U.S.S.R. is expansionist; aggressive; a disturber power which officially states that the only true peace is that of world Communism. Marxist theory would make the Technological War a finite game, to be ended with a clean win.
I'm pretty sure you will not understand this…
But others will.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #67 –
I'll have mercy on you and ignore most of your drivel. Just the faint points that remotely show some dim rationality.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Estonia should remain free and prosper; but -do I miss my guess?- you don't think so?

Yes, you missed it by a wide margin. Thanks for having the sense to ask.

Now, let me guess: Estonia should remain free and prosper - but on your terms. Anything else but your terms are not freedom and prosperity and countries that don't live on your terms should feel the full wrath of war. (No need to answer, by the way. Hitherto you have gracefully allowed all my rhetorical questions make their point, so don't slip here.)

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

If you have a means to preclude War, by all means: ----

Ferociously equivocating on is and should, aren't we? By your twisted reasoning, everything that is is, but should is not.

Whereas by my reasoning, morality is all about should. There are loons and psychos loose sowing mayhem and chaos - this is an is. Rightly, they should be locked up. Sometimes justice happens, but even when it doesn't, it does not make the loons and psychos any less loons or psychos and it does not obviate what they'd rightly deserve.

I am not someone to give up morality when morality is under trial, as opposed to you who never had it in the first place.

Re: War

Reply #68 –
War has codes. If not, it's proper of savages, animals and idiots.
Foolish the so called pacifists that thinks that war is not proper of man, foolish the imbeciles that thinks that war has no rules but the rule of the winner.
A matter of attitude.

Re: War

Reply #69 –
Quote from: ersi – on
Now, let me guess: Estonia should remain free and prosper - but on your terms. Anything else but your terms are not freedom and prosperity and countries that don't live on your terms should feel the full wrath of war.
There is a need to answer your strawman…
Neither my terms nor my nation's will matter — except insofar as NATO terms apply. The U.S. has treaty obligations… As do many other countries. (Don't worry about the near future: The Obama administration doesn't honor commitments…) Would you have Estonia leave NATO? Use your political and rhetorical power to effect that.
Did the Soviet Union behave in a moral way towards your country? Do you think the Russians will in the future?
But, I'd ask, What would you do about another take-over? What would you want others to do?
Quote from: Belfrager – on
War has codes.
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?
Tough choice, eh? :)

It seems to me that some intellectuals have a death wish… I can accept that, for the individuals themselves. But I don't like the idea that they would want to take so many others with them.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #70 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

There is a need to answer your strawman…
Neither my terms nor my nation's will matter — except insofar as NATO terms apply. The U.S. has treaty obligations…

Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None. It was just U.S. behaving on its own terms, disregarding all other reality. And this is a fact, has been a fact all along, not a strawman.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Did the Soviet Union behave in a moral way towards your country? Do you think the Russians will in the future?

By their behaviour I know what they are. By your behaviour I know what you are. Just a matter of observation. Doesn't even require much thinking.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

But, I'd ask, What would you do about another take-over? What would you want others to do?

If justice were acknowledged, we would not have international bullies and countries that behave like subhuman moral bastards. But I am not someone to strawman the world. Nor am I someone to draw up the world according to my own liking. Reality simply exists to draw the right and true conclusions about it.

So, to answer your question, the principle is that when someone is in distress, you can help, but if you intend to be a bitch about it, better don't help, because you are obviously not helping really, only adding to the distress.

You are evidently aiming to boast that U.S. is the best and nicest taker-over of the world, but those who have been taken over have a whole different perspective that you are constantly refusing to acknowledge. And this refusal makes U.S. just another bully, not too different from Russia.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Quote from: Belfrager – on
War has codes.
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?
Tough choice, eh? :)

Doesn't it matter at all how you win? And if not, then why should winning itself matter?

I say that the wrong way of winning is worse than losing.

Re: War

Reply #71 –
Quote from: ersi – on
Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None.
Not quite none…
Japan declared de facto war on the U.S. by bombing the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. We fought for years and, finally, won — without having to kill them all. I doubt many of their other enemies would have been so kind…

Fourteen U.N. Security Counsel resolutions went unfulfilled by Iraq… And Saddam attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president! But you believe in international law, etc., right?

If it makes you feel any better, I'll ask NATO to free your country from its "foreign entanglements". (I don't think my specification of "just you" will hold water…)
Quote from: ersi – on
Doesn't it matter at all how you win?
Of course. Are you saying you'd have preferred more death and destruction? You're a strange sort of pacifist. (Almost a Gandhi! He thought the Jews should be willing to become dust to please his "system". The NAZIs would have felt so bad…)
Quote from: ersi – on
And if not, then why should winning itself matter?
I say that the wrong way of winning is worse than losing.
You can say that. But you know what that makes you…
Specially if your own ass isn't on the line.

If you grow up defeated and accept it, you will -no matter what- remain defeated. But who would you wish others to be? An image of your crippled self? Is it a form of "misery loves company"?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: War

Reply #72 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Quote from: ersi – on
Remember, this discussion started with nuking of Japan and with Iraq war. What treaty obligations necessitated these actions? None.
Not quite none…
Japan declared de facto war on the U.S. by bombing the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. We fought for years and, finally, won — without having to kill them all. I doubt many of their other enemies would have been so kind…

One bully beats another bully up. The moral lesson you draw is "That was kind." Telling.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on

Fourteen U.N. Security Counsel resolutions went unfulfilled by Iraq… And Saddam attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president! But you believe in international law, etc., right?

What was the content of those resolutions? Did any of them call for invasion? Let's see what National Security Archive has to say about the invasion.

Quote from: National Security Archive, http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. [...]

Over the next several months, inspections continued in Iraq, and the chief inspectors, Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) and Mohammed El Baradei (IAEA) provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities, and declared that if it continued along that path, "serious consequences" - that is, invasion - should follow.

The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched [the invasion].

So, to summarise, the first paragraph says the U.S and "allies" pressured U.N. for more inspections - and got it. And Iraq agreed to it.

Next paragraph says that inspections began. Earlier I quoted Baradei saying that Iraq was fully cooperative, but National Security Archive here recalls that U.S. and "allies" charged that Iraq was not compliant enough. Who is to be believed in case of such conflict? Inspectors were there to precisely to determine the facts, and they were there precisely because the security council had demanded it, but U.S. and allies were rejecting the facts, because facts were not suitable to justify the invasion.

And the last paragraph says that U.S. and "allies" finally got impatient, dropped any pretense of due procedure and simply invaded regardless of any U.N. resolutions.

Does this agree with the way you remember the course of events or not? It does with mine.

I would gladly give some credit to you if some little fact were on your side, but unfortunately I cannot. None of the facts is on your side. Your talk consists entirely of puffed-up nationalistically deluded ideological bluff.

Re: War

Reply #73 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on
When you fight others whose "code" is very different from yours, should you just let them win? Or should you adapt to the enemy's way of war and defeat him?

If there's a war it's because I don't let them win nor I adapt to anything at all... duhhh

Your refusal about accepting that using atomic bombs over defenseless civilian populations it's unacceptable only shows to the world the danger your country is to civilization. Keep on saying it and say it loud, it's favor you do to me.

That's not the better way of defending yourselves, unlike with Japan today there's a lot of people that may want to experiment your own theories on you.
A matter of attitude.

Re: War

Reply #74 –
Quote from: Belfrager – on

Your refusal about accepting that using atomic bombs over defenseless civilian populations it's unacceptable only shows to the world the danger your country is to civilization.

In fact, what OakdaleFTL tries to defend desperately is nothing else but the new US war doctrine.
Quote
I pointed out years ago that the Bush regime had changed U.S. war doctrine such that the role of nuclear weapons was no longer retaliatory to be used in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. It was elevated to a first strike position. It is now our war doctrine that we can initiate a nuclear war on somebody we don’t like, or who we think might not agree with us, or who we think might be prepared to go to war against us. This doctrine applies to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

source


So it doesn't come as a surprise if the USA is perceived as the biggest threat to world piece.