• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How far would you go in defending your country?

whitefork

None of the above
whitefork
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
2,326
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
 
whitefork said:
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

suicide bombings - yes
guerilla warfare - definitely since it seems very American anyway!
Faked surrender - no, it poisons the well for others who surrender.
Human shields - yes
torture - Definitely not!

That's my take on it. I'll be interested to hear other responses.

Lurker
 
whitefork said:
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

The Iraqis who are suicide bombing are doing so under pressure from a leftist radical totalitarian regime.

That is different than fighting for "freedom". When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.

That said, I would use every ounce of military training I received and would also use my extensive war experience to defend the United States if it were invaded. It would be the duty of all Amricans to do so because we are a free country, and to invade us means that the country invading was very evil and had to be destroyed.

There is no moral relativism between the invasion of Iraq and a hypothetical invasion of the United States. Iraq is a terror nation-state, while the US is a free state. If you can't see that, perhaps 1,000 MG of leftistcillin is what you need lol.

If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK
 
Re: Re: How far would you go in defending your country?

Jedi Knight said:


The Iraqis who are suicide bombing are doing so under pressure from a leftist radical totalitarian regime.

That is different than fighting for "freedom". When fighting for freedom, a soldier is morally more perfect and righteous. They will not commit crimes against humanity because the soldier from the free state is the moral man.
Click to expand...

Wow! JK knows what is in the mind of suicide bombers. Soon he will be a guest on Montel Williams alongside Sylvia Browne.

JK, you don't think the suicide bomber for the PLO is thinking he is doing it for the freedom of HIS people?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi Knight



If the US was ever invaded I would be a General Officer in command of a covert light infantry division of some type.

JK [/QUOTE]

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

Lurker
 
I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether the more extreme Iraqi tactics are justified here, or not, Jedi - others can argue that better than I.

As the leader of some kind of covert operation, would you draw the line anywhere in defense of your country? Are all conceivable tactics on the table?

Presumably, If the Soviet Union had invaded the US in such a way that military retaliation was impossible, you would NOT have bombed buildings in Moscow or hijacked an Aeroflot passenger liner and crashed it into the Kremlin, since these would constitute crimes against humanity.

But where's the line to be drawn? You don't speak of suicide bombings. Does the moral rightness of one's cause justify the means used to defend one's country? If so, the Iraqis, merely by fighting against the coalition troops, has committed immoral acts, no? (OK, so I am asking if the Iraqi tactics are justified).

(edited for the NOT in caps)
 
Re: Re: Re: How far would you go in defending your country?

Originally posted by Lurker
JK, you don't think the suicide bomber for the PLO is thinking he is doing it for the freedom of HIS people?

No, the suicide bomber for the PLO is uneducated and unfree, not due to Israel, but due to the PLO fascism that keeps those people in bondage.

My, someone has delusions of grandeur.

No, just an acknowledgement of capability.

JK
 
whitefork said:
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...


Speeking as some one that lives in Canada, if we were invaded, it may take a while , but we would eventually organize a resistance after the initial shock passed.

Suicide Bombing - never, live to fight another day (or run away to live to run away another day :))

Guerilla Warfare- definately, take advantage of geography, stay away from civilian centres to avoid retribution on civilians by invaders

Human shields,- unlikely, using fellow Canadians for shields would not sit well. Counterproductive. Invites the invader to target non-combatants. Look for different solutions 1st.

Torture of captured invading troops: not likely, probably give them quarter. if the captured invader is reasonable that is. If more trouble than it is worth and our resistance cell needed to stay mobile and there was no feasable way to deliver them to POW camp then shoot them as last resort.

If invading army threatened to kill civilians if our resistance cells refused to capitulate then other options would have to be discussed and possibly acted on.

Surrender is never an option.

The actions of the invading army would determine the resistance cells tactics. Many of Sun Tsu's tactics and strategies may need to be applied. Try not to restrict options, look for targets of opportunity, and resist, resist, resist.

and , if the invading army is any other than American, beg for help if the US has not already taken action. An agressive army invading Canada would not be tolerated by Americans. There intersests would be threatened.

I am not sure that Canada has a "blank check" from the Americans, but I know it would be a lot easier to resist an invading army having the USA on our side.
 
Ever see the movie RED DAWN. (starring Patrick Swaze). It was about a small band of teen rebels fighting the occupying Soviet troops in the hills of Colorado


When I was a kid I remember think thing that it was such a good movie. If you watch it now its a laughable piece of cold war propaganda. Just like those commie Smurfs cartoon.
 
whitefork said:
I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether the more extreme Iraqi tactics are justified here, or not, Jedi - others can argue that better than I.

As the leader of some kind of covert operation, would you draw the line anywhere in defense of your country? Are all conceivable tactics on the table?

Presumably, If the Soviet Union had invaded the US in such a way that military retaliation was impossible, you would NOT have bombed buildings in Moscow or hijacked an Aeroflot passenger liner and crashed it into the Kremlin, since these would constitute crimes against humanity.

But where's the line to be drawn? You don't speak of suicide bombings. Does the moral rightness of one's cause justify the means used to defend one's country? If so, the Iraqis, merely by fighting against the coalition troops, has committed immoral acts, no? (OK, so I am asking if the Iraqi tactics are justified).

(edited for the NOT in caps)
Click to expand...

Terrorism is the immoral war, the unjust war and dishonorable war. Only dishonorable men use tactics of terrorism because terrorism lacks moral civility.

That is what separates the moral men representing the United States and the immoral men who conduct terrorist operations. The moral war is fought by disciplined armies. Terrorism is not conducted by disciplined armies because terrorism is the total disregard for discipline and moral grounding.

JK
 
Suicide bombing? No. I mean if you wanna do it then fine. But I look at it from the perspective of why instantly give up my life and not have a chance to enjoy the freedom I'm fighting for.

Guerilla warfare? Yep. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Faked surrender? No. There's no honor in that and it'll screw others that may have to later.

Human shields? Nope. Too cowardly to hide behind non-combatants.

Torture. Of a POW? Nope.
 
My 10 million commie friends an I would welcome the invaders and try to win their favor so we can secure high positions in the newly formed Commie States of America.

(pssssssssst dont tell Jedi)
 
whitefork said:
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Suicide Bombing - no. As someone earlier pointed out, live to fight another day.

Guerilla Warfare - You bet!

Faked Surrender - Probably. It would depend on circumstances. Would make a good ambush. I would form a "L" shaped ambush, with "surrendered" troops forming part of the "L". JK knows what I am talking about.

Human Shields - no.

Torture - Probably not. I couldn't completely discount it, though.

I'll add one that wasn't listed:

Exectute POW's - Maybe. Do I have the facility to imprison POW's? If I don't, then I can't let them go free. If I do, then I would imprison them. I would also expect a very harsh reaction from the other side.
 
whitefork said:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...
There was a time, way back, when a friend and I fenced (the foil and mask kind, not the hammer and nail kind). It was just a friendly game we played and not taken seriously. However, I had a tendency to fight dirty. My favorite example of that is when, just after starting, I tilted my head and looked obviously over my friend's sholder. He stared at me, lowered his sword, and turned around to see what I was looking at. I walked up to him and tapped him on the back with the tip of my foil, unchallenged.

Misdirection is one of my favorite tactics and I use it in almost every competition-like activity that I can. And that's when my life isn't on the line. So:

Suicide bombing? No. The point at best is to win, at least is to survive. Suicide bombing is a false victory.
Guerilla warfare? Americans used Guerilla warfare in almost every war from the Revolutionary War to Korea and Vietnam. I see no reason why it shouldn't be used (unless I misunderstand the definition).
Faked surrender? Again, I'd be a hypocrite if I said "No". I use misdirection all the time. Yes, it poisons the well for any true surrenders, but dang it, I usually play to win. I don't usually plan on ever being in a position to where I need to actually surrender.
Human shields? If the shield consists of the enemy's own self (i.e. I've managed to menuver a place where a group of the enemy's own troops are between me and them), absolutely. If the shield consists of civilians, captured troops, or my own troops, never.
Torture of captured invading forces? Never. I can't think of a single instance where such a thing would be justifiable.

The dividing line is that it depends on if the people involved had a choice in being where they are. Compative soldiers/armies/whatever are there because they choose to be. Captured soldiers/civilians have little to no choice in the matter.
 
I will add that although I would suicide bomb it would only be done under very specific conditions:

1. The objective were truly pivotal in the war.
2. Only against military targets.

Some things I am willing to die for.

Lurker
 
Interesting, the negative opinions on suicide bombing. Did it not work in Lebanon? If you can take out 241 enemy combatants at the cost of one of your own, isn't that a pretty good bargain?

How many of the items on my list are prohibited by the various Geneva Conventions, anyway?
 
whitefork said:
If your country were being invaded would you feel justified in:

Suicide bombing?
Guerilla warfare?
Faked surrender?
Human shields?
Torture of captured invading forces?

Where would you stop? Would you do anything differently than what you believe the Iraqis have done?

In short, why should you adhere to any of the rules of war?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

In my case, I think my behavour would, for the most part, be based largely on the nature and mthods of the invading army. The most extreme cases I can think of are:

A) Invasion by angry Canadians upset over piss poor American beer, or to liberate us from our 'intellectually changled' president. In which case I would advocate nothing stronger than a bop on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, coupled with intense taunting.

B) Invasion by parasitic aliens similar to those in the movie 'puppet masters'. In that movie, most of the tatics listed above were used and justly so. [/b]:)

edited to fix html
 
I wouldn't go beyond the end of my street to defend my country. (And I'd be defending my locality against threat). If I was defending a way of life that I valued, that would be a different thing. Patriotism is, in my opinion, for fools. As Rudyard Kipling put it :
"It's Tommy this and Tommy that,
And 'Tommy here's my boot'.
But it's 'Tommy, you're a hero'
When the guns begin to shoot."

(I think it was Kipling.)

From Lurker:
1. The objective were truly pivotal in the war.
Click to expand...
Over-stated, I think. There would have to be some good reason, a major potential pay-off in pursuit of a rational startegy. Heroes of legend have behaved suicidally in many cultures, and need I mention Thermopylae?

2. Only against military targets.
Click to expand...
Too limiting. What about economic targets? Targets meant to sap the enemy's will to fight? War is intended to achieve ends - in this case, shall we say defence of something valuable against aggression - by military means. So the ends must be weighed against the effects of a particular attack to decide if they are justified. The nature of the enemy, and the results of their victory, are crucial here - many peoples have been conquered in the past without great practical effect, whereas having Hitler's Wehrmacht or Saddam's Republican Guard bearing down on you is a different thing. And many peoples have destroyed themselves, or just made their future far worse, by fighting on for nationalist, patriotic reasons. See, for instance, the different experiences of the Serbs and the Bosnians when the Ottomans turned up.

Faked surrender is always out. It not only dishonours you, it betrays your comrades. As in Mazar-i-Sharif. Soldiers have always considered it a most heinous crime - worse than killing the wounded.

Torture is a tricky one, but treatment of prisoners is likely to be reflected by the opposition, so again we're into betraying comrades. (See Eastern front, WW2.) It can only be in the most dire of circumstances.

Guerilla warfare, why not? Perfectly legitimate tactic, used many times by people of great honour, such as the Welsh.

Human shields - what are you actually defending here?
 
Come on you wheelchair generals, you monday-morning quarterbacks. I was hoping for some creativity here.

If your country is invaded, would you poison the water supplies where the enemy drinks? Set off a dirty nuclear device under the command headquarters?

We speak of the priceless nature of freedom, yet how would you be willing to pay to get it back?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom