Written 9-12-01

[Brian]

I don't think my outlook justifies or gives validity to warfare.

It's just this. A heart surgeon, a Garbageman, a homeless person & a rapist. I value the lives of the first 3 equally and the 4th not at all.

 

[Kodiak]

Yes you should know, but I doubt that you do.

Brian was referring to a specific case and the role of specific individuals in that case.

As opposed to your more general statements about how some lives are worth more than others, and that killing is a necessary part of the modern state, and how the USA should get out of the UN, etc.

You have no idea how thankful I am that no one ever has to go into battle under your command.

Since you still don't (or refuse to) understand, I'll make it simple: try watching U-571, Saving Private Ryan, or Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. All three films address what I'm talking about.

 

[Kodiak]

I don't think my outlook justifies or gives validity to warfare.

It's just this. A heart surgeon, a Garbageman, a homeless person & a rapist. I value the lives of the first 3 equally and the 4th not at all.

Crossbow and the others are probably fine with you then...

 

[Ziggurat]

I was not talking about Saddam, I was talking about Al-Queda. The guys from Al-Queda hated Saddam too, it has validated the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalists that aggression is the way to do things.

What, are you suggesting pacifism on our part would have convinced Al-Queda to use peaceful methods? I don't think so. They already fully believed in violence, they needed no validation of that. Al-Queda may not have liked Saddam, but we were clearly the enemy, not him. They hoped that the population of Iraq would rise up against us, but it didn't. Why? Because our evil, corrupting, secular western ways aren't really the source of their problems, Saddam was, and the people of Iraq knew that even if Al-Queda and much of the Arab world wanted to pretend differently. And that's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not just the terrorists, but much of the arab world blamed us for the misery that Saddam was inflicting on his own people. Want to disprove that? Take over and show them the real difference between how we run things and how Saddam ran things.

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

 

[Kodiak]

What, are you suggesting pacifism on our part would have convinced Al-Queda to use peaceful methods? I don't think so. They already fully believed in violence, they needed no validation of that. Al-Queda may not have liked Saddam, but we were clearly the enemy, not him. They hoped that the population of Iraq would rise up against us, but it didn't. Why? Because our evil, corrupting, secular western ways aren't really the source of their problems, Saddam was, and the people of Iraq knew that even if Al-Queda and much of the Arab world wanted to pretend differently. And that's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not just the terrorists, but much of the arab world blamed us for the misery that Saddam was inflicting on his own people. Want to disprove that? Take over and show them the real difference between how we run things and how Saddam ran things.

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

Most of the current combatants attacking coalition forces and the new Iraqi police are non-Iraqi fundamentalists coming into the country specifically to harass and kill officials of the new democratic government and the US/UK forces still in-country.

 

[Kodiak]

80 foreign jihadists captured by U.S. forces in Northern Iraq

 

[Crossbow]

You have no idea how thankful I am that no one ever has to go into battle under your command.

Since you still don't (or refuse to) understand, I'll make it simple: try watching U-571, Saving Private Ryan, or Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. All three films address what I'm talking about.

I would not want to lead anyone into battle nor would I like to go into battle myself, and I am quite glad that has not happened.

And I have seen all those films you mentioned and I fail to see how they address what you are talking about.

 

[Kodiak]

And I have seen all those films you mentioned and I fail to see how they address what you are talking about.

U-571: The sacrificing of lives for the success of the mission, or for the greater good, even if that means suicide...

Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Saving Private Ryan: Protecting civilians interferes with the success of the mission and puts soldiers at an unacceptable risk. The life of one man is more valuable than an entire squad of Rangers...

 

[Furious]

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

Well said in regards to Islamo-fascists such as Al-Queda.

With regards to Iraq, I believe this is the general feeling among Iraqis:

Thanks for getting rid of Saddam, we couldn't have done it without you. However, don't feed me the "We care about Iraqi freedom" ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, otherwise you would have done something during the Shia revolt ten years ago when we wanted your help. Get us back on our feet and get the hell out, please.

We should be in Iraq for as long as it takes, and not a moment longer.

 

[Crossbow]

U-571: The sacrificing of lives for the success of the mission, or for the greater good, even if that means suicide...

Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Saving Private Ryan: Protecting civilians interferes with the success of the mission and puts soldiers at an unacceptable risk. The life of one man is more valuable than an entire squad of Rangers...

Well, Kodiak, while those three movies are a very good form of entertainment and they do present some good information, one should be aware that they are works of fiction and as such one has to be rather careful about applying what is presented to the real world.

Now then, if you want to get a good idea of what war actually about (the training, the preparation, the planning, the weapons, the traveling, the physical exhaustion, the fear, the death, the killing, and the living with it after the war is over) without actually going to war, then I suggest the following (note: most of these books had accompanying video programs or were made into movies, and all of them, except the last book, are non-fiction).

War by G. Dyer
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and The Last Battle by Corneilus Ryan
The Execution of Private Slovik, sorry I do not recall the author
The Objector, sorry I do not recall the author
All Quite on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque
About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, by David H. Hackworth
The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage Counterespionage and Covert Action, by Harry Rositzke
A Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer
Miracle at Midway, by Gordon William Prange
Pearl Harbor, by Randall Wallace
Hitler: The Last Ten Days.,by Boldt Gerhard
Angles of Attack: An A-6 Intruder Pilot's War, by Peter Hunt
Flight of the Intruder, by Stephen Coonts
And there are numerous documentaries and interviews with war veterans, historical re-enactors, scholars, etc. that are available in several different formats.

 

[Kodiak]

Well, Kodiak, while those three movies are a very good form of entertainment and they do present some good information, one should be aware that they are works of fiction and as such one has to be rather careful about applying what is presented to the real world.

Now then, if you want to get a good idea of what war actually about (the training, the preparation, the planning, the weapons, the traveling, the physical exhaustion, the fear, the death, the killing, and the living with it after the war is over) without actually going to war, then I suggest the following (note: most of these books had accompanying video programs or were made into movies, and all of them, except the last book, are non-fiction).

War by G. Dyer
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and The Last Battle by Corneilus Ryan
The Execution of Private Slovik, sorry I do not recall the author
The Objector, sorry I do not recall the author
All Quite on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque
About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, by David H. Hackworth
The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage Counterespionage and Covert Action, by Harry Rositzke
A Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer
Miracle at Midway, by Gordon William Prange
Pearl Harbor, by Randall Wallace
Hitler: The Last Ten Days.,by Boldt Gerhard
Angles of Attack: An A-6 Intruder Pilot's War, by Peter Hunt
Flight of the Intruder, by Stephen Coonts
And there are numerous documentaries and interviews with war veterans, historical re-enactors, scholars, etc. that are available in several different formats.

I chose those specific examples in the hope you would be familiar with them. Even works of fiction can carry truths within them.

Like I said in a previous post, I was keeping it simple because you said you didn't understand, and then I had to expand on each example because you said you still didn't understand.

An excellent, though incomplete, list (obvious even to you, I'm sure). I can recommend at least a dozen books that delve much deeper into the tactics, strategy, and philosophy of modern (or ancient, or anywhere in-between) warfare, if you're interested. (quick modern examples would be Churchill, Patton, Guderian, MacArthur, Galland, Rommel, Clausewitz (SP?), Toland, Schwartzkopf, ect...)

Its seems you were playing stupid after all!!

 

[King of the Americas]

Alright...

First and foremost, I think it is chicken-sh!t to kill 'leaders' of groups, organizations, or nations. I'd much rather bring them to justice to serve trial in a gobal court. THAT is why you don't set out to bomb Osama or Saddam. Instead, you bomb whose who put him into power, so that they see the error in their ways and offer him up to you.

Basically, I believe you have to hold people accountable for their actions, and NOT their beliefs.

Personally, I don't CARE that these guys don't like our way of life, but I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you.

'I' don't have a problem with Osama or Saddam, until they send troops into North Texas to force us all to worship Allah and Mohamad or die.

The WTC & the Pentagon are 'symbols of oppression', to many people, around the world. Those who died were not targeted because of the personal freedom, but rather for the sins of the institutions which they worked for.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Alright...

'I' don't have a problem with Osama or Saddam, until they send troops into North Texas to force us all to worship Allah and Mohamad or die.
[/B]

What, so Osama's attack on New York doesn't matter because it wasn't Texas? Saddam's attacks against the Kurds don't matter because they're also Iraqis? What the hell is wrong with you? You have no morals that include anything other than your own self-interest, you evidently have no scruples, why the hell should anyone care at ALL about your opinion on this matter?

 

[King of the Americas]

No...

Not that it doesn't 'matter', bu that it doe shave a different 'meaning' than is currently being implied.

The 9-11 attacks were a 'jab' to get our attention.

We will continue to get 'jabbed', because our over-extension has left us open to such attacks, and it is our over-extended occupation that is causing these reactive jabs to occur. 'I' don't fear from such things because the mere odds are greatly in my favor. Moreover, these jabs aren't at my personal freedom or liberty, but are rather at symbols that can be re-built. "America" can never be destroyed, for it is not a building or a person, but rather the concept of personal freedom.

So in these regards, the attacks DO 'matter', but they aren't meant to be a danger to my democratic livelyhood.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Alright...

but I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you.

Pretense.

Care to explain, then, why the vast majority of those fighting the US/UK coalition forces in Iraq are non-Iraqis??

Again, from my earlier post above...

 

[Kodiak]

Re: No...

"America" can never be destroyed, for it is not a building or a person, but rather the concept of personal freedom.

And that is why they attack us.

 

[King of the Americas]

to Kodiak:

Iraq is the central front in a War, for control over a regional area. Iraq is but a single territory in this region, over which other middle easternERS don't wish to see under U.S. military control.

Imagine if China wanted to take over Oklahoma, and then during hte conflict china starts to find fighters coming from Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico. Well it is the same way in the Middle East. Iraq is a state, that suffered from inner governmental corruption, but that doesn't mean they WANT a replacement system built in OUR image. Moreover, it is perfectly clear, that their neighbors don't want to see it happen.

Got it chief?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: to Kodiak:

Iraq is the central front in a War, for control over a regional area. Iraq is but a single territory in this region, over which other middle easternERS don't wish to see under U.S. military control.

Imagine if China wanted to take over Oklahoma, and then during hte conflict china starts to find fighters coming from Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico. Well it is the same way in the Middle East. Iraq is a state, that suffered from inner governmental corruption, but that doesn't mean they WANT a replacement system built in OUR image. Moreover, it is perfectly clear, that their neighbors don't want to see it happen.

Got it chief?

Tripe...

Jihadists don't want to see us there, obviously.

I don't see any of Iraqs "neighbors" sending troops in to stop us.

Besides, you said: "...I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you."

Are you now trying to tell me you were referring to Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Yemenese??

 

[King of the Americas]

To Kodiak:

Isn't Syria right NEXT to Iraq? Doesn't that make them a 'Iraqi neighbor'?

The same with Saudi Arabia...

And yes, I WAS referring to other middle eastern-ERS. WE are trying to invade THEIR region, and they are fighting against this invasion and occupation.

They see Iraq as an American Occupatory Attempt at regional control over the middle east, and people in states other than Iraq are coming to see that it fails.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: No...

'I' don't fear from such things because the mere odds are greatly in my favor. Moreover, these jabs aren't at my personal freedom or liberty, but are rather at symbols that can be re-built.

Yup, I was right, you're a selfish little worm. A dead person's life cannot be rebuilt. The terrorists have explicitly said that they want to kill millions of Americans. Those aren't symbols, they're people. But you don't care, because it's not you. At least not yet. But I do care. I do fear the death of other Americans. Am I not enough of a callous bastard for your tastes for feeling this way?