Dowding, you seem upset by the way things are being run...what would you do?

[Fatty]

I'm sorry Wotan, you will never convince me consumerism is a bad thing (in fact it's really nothing more than an intangible spectre brought up lacking any real enemy or argument vs capitalism).  I am of the camp that sees all these products pushed at me, and yes I'll even grant pushed, as good for me and a side effect good for the corporations pushing them at me.

Ultimately it is the consumer's choice, not some mad conspiratorial brainwashing.  ATI has not hypnotized me into purchasing a radeon card, I and the rest of my mass market have forced ATI into producing one if they want to make money (and on top of that providing more reliable support for them).

A drug?  Perhaps as an extremely vague metaphor, but I really don't think HTC is the new imperialist.

[Hangtime]

I have a few qualms about an extended engagement series of fire base excurions reminescient of the Vietnam War.

On the plus side, we've significantly refinined 'search and destroy'... a tactic we were just starting to learn how to employ back in my day. Today's technology and tactics, and in this case most especially the terrain favor 'hunting trips'. Nice anlogy Toad.  

So far, so good. Bummer the Blackhawk augered, this kinda stuffs part of the job.  

At some point in all this, a nation whose borders get violated by one of these 'search and destroy' sorties will object with a declaration of war. Or; an Arab nation will roll on Israel when they start whackin the hell outta the palestenian leaders.

Then Toads Definition will apply... and the gloves will come off. Describing the escalating regional situation as a "powder keg" does not even come close to highlighting the urgency of the situation. I suspect the Middle East will look yery very diffrent by ths time next year.

Ok, on the home front; Anthrax at home when we started the bombing... what next now that we've actually (in the terrorist mind) "Invaded"??    I shudder to think...

[Wotan]

Toad  the Saudis/Kuwaits surely get US aid in the form of military support which they pay a share of but the majority of it is picked up by the US. Our government also intervenes in arm sales to the Saudis and Kuwaitis to get them to buy our gear. We also keep there shipping lanes open as well as keep their 1 enemy in region contained. The Egyptians do need our aid and I agree with US policy.  If you have read my post you would have noticed that I am in agreement with US policy of relationships and engagement. My point was we do so not out of morality but the reality that oil is the life blood of the world. We have an interest and an obligation to keep it flowing.

Our country does turn its back when our "friends" act badly but this is necessary to maintain our influence in the area.

I should have included the turks as well as the syrians. The turks have had an ongoing war with the Kurds for decades. I just saw I documentery on kurds in turkey. They are oppressed killed and denied there culture. . Turkey is in Nato and a great friend of the US. We do nothing to protect kurds there. Iraqi kurds took an opportunity following the gulf war to act against Suddam in the documentary I saw the leaders of the Iraqi kurds said they did so with the understanding that the US would back them and we didn't. We sent food not guns. We encouraged the iraq iran conflict when Suddam was gassing his own people and Iranians we did nothing.

The Saudis kuwaitis Egyptians etc.. governments round up dissidents without any warrents they are detained for years or expelled. Executions are carried out for questionable crimes. Within these countries there is a minotity willing to fight back and they view US aid (whether it be direct monetary aid or through military support) as support for the actions of the regime. I didn't say they were of the same "terror" as Suddam I said in their "own right". Denial of rights to their women religious persecution etc.

I did say these governments (collectively) have killed more people then Suddam and I believe so.

I'm not going to do dueling internet searches with you so take it as bs if ya want.

The point of my post was to give my opinion on the calls that some have made for nuking/killing etc all the "ragheads" on the one hand and then try to wrap some morality around it.

We should kill him (osama)and we will but we will be  hardly "taking the high road" if our government follows the will of some who have called for "kill um all". But our government won't.

I dont believe I've said we should enforce democracy on anyone. I really dont what it is in anything I wrote that stated this so i don't have a  reply.

here were the points I was making:

1. Might is right regardless of any moral spin
 
2. That our (governmental)relationships with the world are based less on whos good or evil but on who supports our interest.

3. Our interest revolve more around economics then morality.(i am not going to explain that it would entail our relationship in that region and our need to remain and deal with those there).

I have made no claim as to a "better way" but an observation. I am perfectly fine using one devil to get a worse devil but I dont do it with freshly bleached halo on my head. Simple eye for an eye stuff may be biblical but its hardly moral.

[Toad]

Wotan, what you believe is your business.

If you choose to believe that a guy in a red suit is going to drop on your roof in a sleigh pulled by eight tiny reindeer and leave an X-box under your tree in December, so be it.

However, when you post your own version of "fact" without doing your homework, I'll certainly call you on it.

IE: "Toad the Saudis/Kuwaits surely get US aid in the form of military support which they pay a share of but the majority of it is picked up by the US."

Oh, really? Document that please? Oh, you can't? Because it isn't true?

Here:    http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm

"Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in  foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program during that same period....

Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer.  It receives no U.S. military assistance to finance these purchases,"

"I did say these governments (collectively) have killed more people then Suddam and I believe so."

The Saudis, Kuwaitis and Egyptians? You "believe so"?  Believe whatever you like; if you're going to state it as fact, please support it.

I referred you to Human Rights Watch; they're probably the most sensitive website on this subject that I know of.

Saudi Arabia: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html

Egypt: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/egypt.html

Kuwait: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/kuwait.html

Iraq: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iraq.html

I don't believe you can find any information or statistic to document your claim. I believe you can find lots of documentation that disproves your claim. No dueling websearch? Fine by me... but don't put out a bunch of unsupported ... um .. opinion and call it "fact" and expect it to float by unchallenged.

Points you did make? Most of them are unsupported opinion. You don't care to discuss whether or not the world is better off for US engagement and support of the Egyptian regime despite their problems. You simply fall back on the old "US supports bad guys" argument, ignoring the fact that since that engagement, the Egyptian regime is not nearly as "bad guy" as it was on the International stage prior to that engagement..

Under points you DIDN'T make you can put the difference in the way the entire world...not just the US... reacts to INTERNAL versus EXTERNAL agression in a Nation State. Again, the world WILL act in cases of external aggression. To fault the US alone... or any country ... for not intervening in internal aggression is laughable.

The line between an outside nation intervening against internal aggression in another country and simple extenal aggression by an outside nation is so fine that no one wants to get near it.

So believe what you want to believe. But please don't post your opinion as immutable fact unless you can support it with a little documentation.

[MrBill]

Originally posted by Toad:
Wotan, what you believe is your business.
(edited to save space)
So believe what you want to believe. But please don't post your opinion as immutable fact unless you can support it with a little documentation.

Come on Toad, if everyone only posted documented fact, how would we get the marvelous arguments going in the O Club?  

[Hangtime]

LOL... Toad kicks bellybutton in here; don't he??

 

[Torque]

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy
 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/terrorism/economics_behind.html

[Naso]

Very interesting reading, Torque.

There's a mistake in the name of the bank, the real name is: "banca nazionale del lavoro".

It's funny to know that the BNL have strong connections with Banca Vaticana, but this is another story.  

[Wotan]

Estimated 1996 US Military  Expenditures

 

GAO estimates that a total of 366 billion of the US Military dollars were spent on defending oil supplies in the Middle East from 1980 to 1990, about 33 billion per year (adjusted for inflation)

 

Persian Gulf Imports-Opec 12% (sourves of crude oil supplied in the us 1993)

2 other studies were done in attempt to seperate out what we actual spend to defend oil supplies.

 

These studies arrive, respectively, at an estimate of about $6.4 billion per year from 1980 to 1990, and an estimate of 14.3 billion per year  

Some would consider that while we maintain the defense of middle eastern oil supply (majority of the 12% is from Saudi Arabia) as "military support" if not "aid".

Read on in the link you will find that the majority of military expenditures (isreal) included are made to maintain regional stability. Some would consider this "military support or aid".

Estimated regional defense was estimated at 64.5 billion in 1990  and at 55 billion by fy 1996.

I thinks its a fair assumption that US taxpayers pay 20-60 per year to defend the regions oil supplies and to help maintain regional stability. The majority of this goes to aid not only the States within the region but the major importers of oil from there. We could in theory make up our 12% reliance on middle eastern oil from increasing domestic production and increasing imports from else where.

The Escalation of U.S. Security Commitments

 

U.S. involvement in the security of the Persian Gulf region has escalated dramatically since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of some $40 billion per year. Through a network of formal and informal bilateral relationships with Washington, the southern gulf states have effectively become a U.S. military protectorate.

Some would view that taking on the southern gulf states as a "military protectorate" as "military support or aid"

 

The southern gulf monarchies also face serious internal problems. The fall in oil revenues has severely strained the region's cradle-to-grave welfare states. That economic pressure has tremendous political implications in countries where corrupt and authoritarian rulers have long relied on state largesse to pacify restive populations. Consequently, gulf monarchs face increasingly serious internal security threats--which often have a strong element of anti-Americanism, as recent attacks, such as the bombing of the U.S. military installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, have indicated.  

Saudi Arabia is currently in dedt and to the radical in the region this is a "reason" to hate america.

 

U.S. efforts to bolster the national self-defense capabilities of the states that are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) have largely been confined to providing military advice and selling arms. The relatively small economies and tiny populations of those states, together with numerous military, political, and social factors, place great inherent constraints on their national military capabilities. Consequently, U.S. advice and arms sales have made only a marginal difference in their self-defense capabilities. The main result of the first tier of U.S. policy has been increased resentment of the United States in the region due to the erroneous belief that Washington has pressured the cash-strapped southern gulf monarchies to buy large quantities of American weapons since the gulf war.

The US is not the main exporter of arms to the area,

 

In fact, the United States is not the only--indeed, it is not even the dominant--supplier of arms to the southern gulf monarchies. The United States makes less than half of all arms sales to the region.6 Furthermore, the gulf war did not prompt a weapons-buying binge on the part of the gulf states. Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE concluded more arms purchase agreements in the period from 1991 to 1994--after the gulf war--than from 1987 to 1990. The agreements Saudi Arabia concluded in the earlier period were, however, worth some $15 billion more than those it concluded in the aftermath of the gulf war. Bahrain also signed more arms transfer agreements from 1987 to 1990 than it did after the war. Despite the three-tiered policy set forth in U.S. national security strategy documents, U.S. arms sales to the region have not increased substantially since the policy was adopted, nor is the U.S. contribution to the national self-defense capabilities of the GCC countries markedly greater than that of other arms producers.  

 

Because Washington has made it clear that the United States is prepared to take ultimate responsibility for the security of the region, however, that incentive has been nullified. The southern gulf states have not had to make serious efforts to build the cohesion that would be necessary for an effective alliance or even to form a functioning rapid-reaction corps. At a December 1995 GCC conference, for example, the question of strengthening the GCC rapid-reaction force, Peninsula Shield, "was sidelined before the summit began, when Saudi Arabia, which dominates the alliance, and Kuwait convinced their partners that only a limited expansion of Peninsula Shield is necessary as Western powers are committed to defending them under defence agreements."9 As Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) has commented, "As long as the USA acts as if it's going to do it all for them, it's going to do it all for them."10

Again an indication that the US is picking up the majority of the burden in defending the oil supply in the region and attempting to remain engaged to promote stability in the region.

 

Burden sharing is a major--and growing--problem. There is little tolerance in Congress and among the American public for paying for the security of oil-rich monarchies.16 Burden-sharing arrangements for Desert Shield and Desert Storm addressed that problem by billing the gulf states (and some U.S. allies outside the region who supported the coalition's aims but did not contribute troops, notably Germany and Japan) for most of the costs of the operations. As Patrick Clawson of the National Defense University observed, "Desert Storm/Shield operated in practice on the principle that the United States provides men but not money."17

While "burden sharing" sounds good a majority of us involvement in the gulf war and to maintain troops in the southern gulf states was paid by american taxpayers.

 

Even if the United States could bill the southern gulf states for services rendered, the gulf monarchies could not afford U.S. military protection for long. The price of the gulf war and the tremendous costs associated with southern gulf cradle-to-grave welfare states, together with the fall in oil prices, have thrown the once-wealthy gulf states into a serious economic crisis, which is expected to get much worse before it gets better. Moreover, because the generous welfare state is one of the primary means by which the repressive gulf regimes stifle dissent among their citizenry, making the necessary cuts in social spending carries immense political risk for the regimes in power. The southern gulf states simply cannot afford to pay the United States to defend them.  

 

Iraq expert Phebe Marr has observed, "Looming far larger than either the Iranian or Iraqi threat is `sticker shock' from the costs of defense."20 The United States, then, if it is determined to defend the southern gulf, must plan on covering much--probably most--of the costs. U.S. taxpayers currently spend at least $40 billion a year on defense of the gulf monarchies. That is an expense U.S. taxpayers cannot afford.21  

Arms Sales

I'll only touch this briefly do to time constraints. I will follow up later on to go into detail as well as address your contention that I'm mis-informed or a liar or diluded about human right issues. However you can read in your own links that certainly those countries are oppressive and some could conclude a "terror regimes in their own right"


 

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates

In December 1995, President Clinton telephoned Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Nahayan, president of this hugely prosperous federation of Arab sheikdoms on the Persian Gulf, with an unusual personal appeal: Buy American.

According to U.S. government and industry sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, Clinton urged Zayed to buy up to 80 F-16 strike planes from Lockheed Martin Corp., the Bethesda-based defense giant that is competing with a French and British manufacturer for the $6 billion deal.  

Of course the details of such a deal need to be explored before you can make any conclusion. I don't think it would be hard to show that incentives and pressure was used to encourage these type of deals. Especial since the US has been cutting its own Military budget (until gwb).  I will explore this later.

But I would preface this buy saying if I wanted to sell you a bmw and you are looking at a volkswagen and I dedcide to cut the price down to  $5 dollars and you pay cash for it then I eat the majority of the cost (or certainly a portion) can be considered "support or "aid".

I wont touch on whether or not if agree the US approach to the middle east is necessary because it was irrelevant to the points I spelled out in my last post. I will refer to my previous posts.

You may "disagree" with my "opinion" but it certainly wasn't pulled out of thin air.

[Toad]

I did take your "military aid" in the normal sense, that of supplying hardware/training. I see now that you mean it to cover all US expenditures involved in "stability in the Middle East".

Your documentation shows $40 billion/year in spent by the US in the Gulf for stability or defense. Now, what do all the nation-states that are "stabilized" spend in toto? Are they spending as much or more than the US? That's what's needed to prove or disprove your claim of "majority" under your definition of military aid.

Further, you have picked one region. The US has spent heavily since WW2 investing in "stability" in just about every region of the world. During the Cold War years, what did we spend in Europe? What have we spent in the Pacific? South America?

The point is that indeed we do invest in "world stability". All over the world. Nothing new or unusual about that.

Clearly, we invest in Middle East stability because of world... not just US... dependence on their oil. The world dependence is verified just by looking at the list of participants/supporters of Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Even Japan got involved. Face facts; we were and are the only military power that could have executed the war against Iraq (in a timely fashion) in the way it was done, ie: incredibly minimal loss of coalition forces. Just about everyone else joined in financially or militarily.

But we invest and have invested as much or more in many other regions of the world and supported some less than ideal governments in search of that illusive stability that benefits the entire human species.

So does the Middle East/Persian Gulf get some kind of a special "good deal"? Given the history of US "investment in stability" I don't think so.

As for Arms Sales, don't forget that US taxpayer unit costs go down as more units are produced. That savings is a "profit" for the US taxpayer. The upcoming Joint Strike Fighter is going to be sold to several nations and it won't be sold for "sticker price". There will be incentives and technology as well as job (labor/work) transfer involved. The bottom line is that it is still a "good deal" for the US to build more and sell some.

Does Ford sell cars for sticker? Yes, a few to people that don't do their homework. But  customer incentives and rebates abound. After all, just like arms, several vendors are in competition. There are dealer side incentives as well and the buyer can play to those, just like in arms sales. Sharp negotiating skills can help you lower the price as well, just like arms sales.

Additionally, some of these sales help us recoup your overall "military aid" expenditures in regions simply because we make a pure profit. In your example of $6 billion worth of F-16's to the UAE, just a decent profit on that one deal would pay for several years of "military aid" to the entire region.

Also, there's no real difference in the arms sales we make the Gulf region compared to those we make around the world, ie: we're not giving them anything we don't already give any other region (Japan for example). The sales give us a chance to recoup some of the stability costs.

With respect to Human Rights Issues, I look forward to your defense of your position that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt are worst than that of Iraq. "Oppressive"? Certainly by US standards and those of HRW... but terrorist? Not even HRW calls them that; it's just hyperbole.

Lastly, after all your "points" you have no suggestions on how to do it better and you will make no comment on whether "if agree the US approach to the middle east is necessary because it was irrelevant to the points I spelled out in my last post".

So basically, you're just b*tching because you don't like how it's being done?


"1. Might is right regardless of any moral spin"

Funny, it didn't turn out that way for Adolph Hitler or Slobodan Milosovich. Worked for a while but eventually the "right" of the world community prevailed.

2. That our (governmental)relationships with the world are based less on whos good or evil but on who supports our interest.

Of course Nation-states pursue their interests. Now look at the history of US involvement on the world stage. Do you think US interests are/have been good or evil for the world? Or was the world a "better place" prior to the post-WW2 role the US played? Do you think most of the world shares an interest in stability?


3. Our interest revolve more around economics then morality.(i am not going to explain that it would entail our relationship in that region and our need to remain and deal with those there).

Pure opinion and opinions are like noses.

[Torque]

"But we invest and have invested as much or more in many other regions of the world and supported some less than ideal governments in search of that illusive stability that benefits the entire human species.

So does the Middle East/Persian Gulf get some kind of a special "good deal"? Given the history of US "investment in stability" I don't think so."

I like the high morale ground people tend to walk on....

Precott Bush supported Hitlers war machine 1933-42 unitl the Union Bank's assest were seized under the "Trading with the Enemy Act"

Bush Sr and Saddam Hussein under the weapons transfer in '88 Saddam was given weapons and the technology to produce Sarin Gas and other biological weapons, also don't forget about the 19 containers of Anthrax Bush Sr also supplied Saddam with.

The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American soldiers in combat,  counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.

Manuel Noriega
In June, 1986, the New York Times published articles detailing years of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega's collaboration with Colombian drug traffickers. Reporter Seymour Hersh wrote that Noriega "is extensively involved in illicit money laundering and drug activities," and that an unnamed White House official "said the most significant drug running in Panama was being directed by General Noriega." In August, Noriega, a long-standing U.S. intelligence asset, sent an emissary to Washington to seek assistance from the Reagan administration in rehabilitating his drug-stained reputation.
 Oliver North, who met with Noriega's representative, described the meeting in an August 23, 1986 e-mail message to Reagan national security advisor John Poindexter. "You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship," North writes before explaining Noriega's proposal. If U.S. officials can "help clean up his image" and lift the ban on arms sales to the Panamanian Defense Force, Noriega will "'take care of' the Sandinista leadership for us."

North tells Poindexter that Noriega can assist with sabotage against the Sandinistas, and suggests paying Noriega a million dollars -- from "Project Democracy" funds raised from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran -- for the Panamanian leader's help in destroying Nicaraguan economic installations.

Iran 1953, democratically elected Dr Mossadeq is overthrown in a coup by pro-Shah officers with British and American assistance.Followed by years of the Shah's Death Squad.

...tell me who is responsible perpetuating terrorism around the world?

wake up...

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Torque ]

[Wotan]

Its 9:30 pm here I'm just off work so I'm not reread everything that I've previously posted. However I think you should. Maybe even actually read the words terms and phrases I've written.

That way when you reply please do so in regards to those words used by me and not replace them with phrases and misconception you have built up in your own mind.

My posts have nothing to do with judgements on us foreign policy.

They had to do with self-rightious folks who use phrases as "kill umm all" and "nuke umm" and "kill the ragheads". Then on the otherhand dress their bloodlust up as patriotism and use terms such as:

 

We got toys in the arsenal nobodys even seen yet. Time to use 'em, in my opinion.

 

Time to sweep the oligarchies and tyrants from the stage. The wars to end fanatical religous sectarinisim have begun. Will you fight for your beliefs? Or die for the enemys?

There are numerous others on this board who have posted this not to single this individual out. I have other things I need to get to but search the boards you will see others of this tone. They then attempt to put some moral spin on what they want to do with disregard to history that brought us to this point.

I've have stated that morality becomes subordinate to US interest and the primary interest of the US policy in the middle east revolves around oil which intern affects the world economy. I have made no judgement outside of my opinion on consumerism toward US policy. I have said that imho none of this while necessary is "moral.

You either mis-read or misinterpret what I've posted and are looking to push the discusion into some area other then what my original point was.

I will address your other points only because you atleast imho have called me a liar at worst or misinformed at best. We are all impressed with your ability to do a googgle search and some may be impressed by your ability to redefine the words of others to suit your misconceptions.

I could go through and cut 'n' paste and clarify and explain each instance but I have no will or time to spend another 1000 words to set it straight.

Either later tonight or sometime tomorrow I will address those other points in which you claim you are of supreme authority.

[Hangtime]

..you will see others of this tone. They then attempt to put some moral spin on what they want to do with disregard to history that brought us to this point.
 

Ahh... that would be me. I oafishly and with extreme malice and forethought irresponsibly pepper the boards with such immoral posts.

 

We got toys in the arsenal nobodys even seen yet. Time to use 'em, in my opinion

I stand by that.. and I'm a contract worker for DESA, NRL and NASA/Langly. So; what morality should I heed? The USA's Weapons Development Programs are supposed to DEVELOP WEAPONS. We make toejam dissapear exeedingly well.

If using these toys shortens the conflict and helps achieve the objective while minimizing loss of life on both sides we oughta use it. Thats MORAL in my book.. and historys.

 

 Time to sweep the oligarchies and tyrants from the stage. The wars to end fanatical religous sectarinisim have begun. Will you fight for your beliefs? Or die for the enemys?

Ahh yess.. another of my nefarious calls to arms. The religious fanatics have declared war on us, have struck; and struck hard, they continue to do so; using a 'weapon of mass destruction'. It matters not a whit to you that they intend to succeed?

Do you intend to excuse their attacks and permit their course of action as 'just, reasonable and appropriate response' for any action committed by the citizens of the west?  

Here's another quote for you:

 

Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.

Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.

There is no excuse for mass murder, just as there is no excuse for genocide. Those who practice terrorism -- murdering or victimizing innocent civilians -- lose any right to have their cause understood by decent people and lawful nations.

On this issue -- terrorism -- the United Nations must draw a line. The era of moral relativism between those who practice or condone terrorism, and those nations who stand up against it, must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion and debate.

Rudy Giuliani addresses UN General Assembly special session, 1 Oct 01

Do we cut the religous raghead fanatics slack, and say "...well; toejam; hold on now; they screwed up.. they coulda killed a few hundred thousand of us with these anthrax attacks if they had a better distribution method.. lets say we go easy on 'em till they get their act together.."

Thats MORAL??

Horseshit. It's war, they asked for it; we oughta slap 'em down fast and hard both to stop their further development of this kinda crap ANYWHERE, and send the message "This is unacceptable behavior. Anybody else tries this crap again gets whut they got."

That's MORAL, JUSTIFIED and REQUIRED unless we wanna lose. The other side ain't gonna quibble on the method; why in hell should we?

[Maverick]

Long post, it jest growed.

Couple of things here. I see several posts by people wanting to take the "high moral ground" as well as the "arm chair general" position.

First the "high moral ground". War by it's very existance is a terrible thing. If it were not so it would be even more prevalent than it is now. To call it immoral is not a "pat answer". There are in fact moral reasons to go to war. You can pick out several if you wish.

On the other hand, the CAUSING of a war to be innitiated IS immoral. In other words innitiating a war without resorting to other means first is immoral. Whether you are an adherant of Clausewitz (war is an extention of political power) or not, war as a first or primary method of settling differances is IMO immoral.

Once the war has been forced on you, the most humane (ironic turn there isn't it?) thing to do is to end it as quickly and expediciously as possible. This will insure the least loss of life on both sides. Extending the conflict by not applying the overwhelming amount of force to cause the other side to capitulate as soon as possible is wasting your own forces lives. Another immoral act.

Now the strategic angle or "arm chair general" positions I have seen here.

If you try to fight the war as a matter of degrees you fall into the same trap that ensnared johnson in Viet Nam. he thought the war was a method for imposing his will by causing the enemy to capitualte by pulling his punches. His thought was to demonstrate our might by NOT using it. In this manner he proposed to show the enemy we were superior and not to be trifled with. By causing a halt to strikes he hoped to show how "merciful" we were. In the end all he did was to embolden the enemy and allow them to fight a war of atrition (time wise) that would wear down our will to continue to fight. In short it was a loss on the batlefield but a victory on the political front that decided the war.

By making the strikes as powerful and overwhelming as possible you destroy the enemies ability as well as will to fight. Just destroying troops in a fixed manner is not the key. It is the ability to destroy those troops in a manner that they have no posability to weild an active or effective resistance to that force. It is demoralizing to be out in the field and know you are nothing more than a target with no means to defend. Iraq was a classic example of this. The force was applied in sufficient amounts to render the troops effectively defenseless. Once they have been subjected to this situation for a period of time psychological pressure (psyops) was applied to further their feelings of abandonement and sacrifice for nothing. The end result was a wholesale surrender of units of Iraqis and a very short ground operation.

You can claim all you want that we should have gone on to bagdad and taken out hussein but the simple fact of the matter was, there was a coalition effort that would have disolved had that happened. We would have found ourselves now facing former allies and a unified front of them all around our forces. Sometimes you have to settle for a partial achievement to avoid a severe loss. National interests in both our availability of oil and the viability of the GLOBES economy were at stake. The world is no longer a place of self sufficient political enetities. They are ALL interlinked and a collapse of one major portion will have dire results for all. This is the reason we cannot go back to an isolationalist stand like we had at the start of WWI.

Tactics of any conflict need to be driven by several factors. Three of the critical ones are the goal, forces available and the terrain you will be fighting on. You cannot fight a conventional war against a guerilla foe. We learned that one in Viet Nam and the Soviets learned it in Afghanistan. A guerilla campaign is not a matter of taking and holding positions. It is a matter of denial of resources and troops as well as patience. When there is a significant gathering of enemy forces detected THEN you move to destroy it with a larger force concentrated for the strike. Just taking land won't do it. You surrender mobility and flexibility and provide the enemy a fixed target for THEM to concentrate on.  A decisive battle may never come up in a guerilla action. If that is the case then you must wield another force outside of military action to achieve your aims. This means a military force action plus political actions to achieve the goals where either could not do so by themselves.

In Iraq, Bush Sr. did the right thing. He understood the need for political action as well as military action. He handed the military action to those equiped to handle it properly and he concentrated on the political side to achieve a faster and more one sided resolution to the conflict.

Lets let the folks with the military skills fight the battles and support them. Just because they do not use the tactics you would like is certainly no reason to withdraw support of them and what they are doing. If you do so you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In short, pulling a jane fonda.

Mav

[Wotan]

quick reply hang

I agree with the current actions takin by our government. I view it as necessary to find and prosecute to the extreme those resposible for what has taken place over these past months (anthrax included).

However to kill at will and with malice any one that would stand in our way either on purpose or by happen stance is not something I would consider moral.

My comments weren't limited to specifically you. Again we may have to excersize our might in such a way as to hold responsible those who would act against us but in the grand scheme of things what we want doesn't translate to right. Inescapable law of nature the Strong will survive.

I need no rationalivation of rightiousness to see what needs to be done. War in general may be through its acts "immoral" but serve the greater good.  But to retain some moral center we must limit those "immoral" acts.

IMHO nuking them or unleashing a bio chem weapon is of equal immorality as what has taken place during these past months..

Thus my statement


 

 I fail to see how "kill the ragheads"
is any better then "kill the infidels"

Mav yes I agree with Clausewitz

Excellent post by the way.