Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 11/21/2013 7:55:59 AM EST
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people.
I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world.
Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved.
The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not.
I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 7:58:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 7:59:37 AM EST by Katana16j]
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic.

Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.

Total war requires the destruction of every assett available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians.

Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:01:49 AM EST
Well, War is Hell. And includes all the trappings of such.

Ain't no picnic.

GD
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:03:13 AM EST
It's a lot of fun?
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:07:31 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic.

Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.

Total war requires the destruction of every assett available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians.

Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations.
View Quote
I hope I am never involved in a total war. Waging large scale war involves using every asset and there are no more civilians. Just people who are supplying the current enemy or who will become the army/build war materials once they are strong enough to be put to work/carry a gun.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:08:51 AM EST
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:10:51 AM EST
Because they can?
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:13:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.
View Quote


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:14:40 AM EST
Blood lust. Plain and simple.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:14:43 AM EST
Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.
View Quote


Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted.
The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:15:18 AM EST
It's over as soon the civilians loose the stomach for the war.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:16:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By thehellbringer:
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people.
I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world.
Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved.
The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not.
I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become.
View Quote




The oil. The sweet, sweet oil.

Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:16:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:17:21 AM EST by Snips]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By highrailjon:


Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted.
The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By highrailjon:
Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.


Yep. Taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany was absolutely warranted.
The civilians that worked there were as culpable as the soldiers in the field.


But we targeted the means of production, not the civilians. We didn't start bombing all the residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of killing the civilians. If they didn't show up for work at the factory, we bombed the factory anyway. We didn't then go seeking out the people who avoided death.

Edit: Civilians were killed because technology at the time did not allow for precise destruction of specific buildings. Had that technology existed, far fewer civilians would have been killed.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:18:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:19:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:19:41 AM EST by Thrasymachus]
I wrote my dissertation on a related subject to this. Valentino and Slim in their respective books argue that strategic interest drive the motivation to attack civilians. Slim argues that anti-civilian ideologies, genocide, power domination, revenge, forced compliance, utility, and asymmetric necessity are all motivations for why groups attack civilians. Valentino makes a similar argument, but focuses on the leadership of groups and how they use mass killings for very defined purposes.

Such violence is not endemic to one region and happens in a variety of different cultures and countries. There are many pre-conditions needed for such violence to be used, and culture is one very small part.

My theory is that certain types of violence enacted against civilians comes from strategic interests and is done to gain compliance through fear. In essence violence is an efficient force multiplier in very defined circumstances. There is a lot that can be said on this subject, and its quite depressing reading.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:19:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:20:29 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:21:49 AM EST
dislike it as much as you want, but the first post nailed it

the US getting away from those tactics is why we no longer can flat out win a war
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:22:46 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.



Actually not very odd at all. It is true that all wars do not have to involve the killing of civilians on a large scale. But throughout history civilians have been targeted if it contributed to winning the war.

The Greeks, Macedonians and Romans to name a few would be very familiar with the concept of modern warfare involving targeting civilians if necessary. The key word is "if necessary" to accomplish the overall goal of winning.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:23:01 AM EST
OP, have you ever even been to Japan?

That "helpful" society does not extend to the Gaijin.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:23:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.



so the bombs dropped on Japan and the carpet bombing of Germany somehow avoided civilians?
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:23:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:24:54 AM EST by waterglass]
I'd try my hand at assasinating the leadership before I would start killing civilians. That is one of the things that has bugged me about modern war, millions of people die, then the leader dies.

It should always be the other way around.. Kill the head and see if the snake grows a new one. Even if it does it is apt to be weaker and the moral of the forces will be crushed.

A couple of guys and some custom weaponry could take out any 2nd or 3rd world leader at anytime.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:23:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
I hope I am never involved in a total war. Waging large scale war involves using every asset and there are no more civilians. Just people who are supplying the current enemy or who will become the army/build war materials once they are strong enough to be put to work/carry a gun.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic.

Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.

Total war requires the destruction of every assett available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians.

Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations.
I hope I am never involved in a total war. Waging large scale war involves using every asset and there are no more civilians. Just people who are supplying the current enemy or who will become the army/build war materials once they are strong enough to be put to work/carry a gun.


You and me both, I hope that mankind will never again fight such a war.

However, it is foolish not to prepare for one.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:24:46 AM EST
In
Bloodoil and Benjamins
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:24:49 AM EST
It's easy to pick out the ones who wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:25:06 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.



You forget the a-bombings for one. Dresden sound familiar too. The allies in World War two knew very well that their bombing was killing civilians. They really did not give a damn. They could take the high ground by saying "well, we really aren't targeting civilians only their factories" but in reality they knew exactly what was happening and did not care.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:25:11 AM EST
Don't tolerate leaders that will get bombs dropped on you. It's pretty easy. If you someone that starts wars stay in power don't be surprised when you get a JDAM on your head.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:27:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:27:58 AM EST by Sealy]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
In
Bloodoil and Benjamins
View Quote
People like you made gas super cheap for me. Thank you, sir.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:27:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By thehellbringer:
After watching Rare Historical Photos #3 on Liveleaks, my question is this, what makes soldiers want to punish and kill innocent civilians? I understand the civilians may be helping the soldiers, insurgency, or whatever you wish to call the natives. Can you blame them. It could happen here and many of you or your neighbors would be these people.
I have always held The United States of America to a higher standard than the rest of the nations of the world.
Go to Japan now and look at the way being polite has fostered a society of people who go out of their way to be helpful. The Japanese were brutal fighters in the war, showing no mercy to surrendering opponents. Look at what they have evolved into as a collective. Not bad, just more reserved.
The Slavic and African peoples have become very adjusted to many of the horrors that the world can put upon a people. As a result they have become very insensitive, much like the Chinese. It seems as though there should be a balance. Parts of the world have it and others do not.
I'm no expert on war retaliation, and am left wondering if we all become bad whilst dealing with great tragedy and suffering. I would hope to rise above it to find meaning and right. Where are we headed and what will we become.
View Quote



I'm not sure how you made the leap into thinking Japanese culture somehow evolved politeness out of the horrors of WWII. Is that a published theory, if did you invent it?

I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that most of Japan's politeness predates WWII by a few centuries. They evolved a brutal warlike military culture parallel to, and in spite of their Civilian culture.

Same as Germany.

And Britain.

And US. Never underestimate the evil inherent in each of us. Banality of evil. Duality of Man.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:28:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By johnnypantz:
dislike it as much as you want, but the first post nailed it

the US getting away from those tactics is why we no longer can flat out win a war
View Quote




We're quite adept at winning wars. We won in Iraq pretty damn handily. It's the occupation and counter-insurgency bit that we have difficulty with because the American are not, nor have ever been, savages. Go look at how the American public responded to the actions taken to put down the insurgency in the Philippines.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:28:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:29:44 AM EST by waterglass]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Don't tolerate leaders that will get bombs dropped on you. It's pretty easy. If you someone that starts wars stay in power don't be surprised when you get a JDAM on your head.
View Quote


Thats the thing the leaders are always warned in advance these days via the president on the TV saying we are gonna bomb the shit out of you, go hide somewhere.

Reagan Was the last potus who actually tried to take out a head of state at the drop of a hat. And it worked.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:29:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:32:49 AM EST by Katana16j]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Don't tolerate leaders that will get bombs dropped on you. It's pretty easy. If you someone that starts wars stay in power don't be surprised when you get a JDAM on your head.
View Quote


That is the core moral point here.

WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN THE WORLD

Enemy civilians are the responsibility of thier government

Thier government tasks thier protection to thier military

Our forces are not responsible for anyone thier military fails to protect

If thier government can not protect thier people they have an ethical responsibility to surrender

It is of no moral consequence to destroy enemy civilians during a war, their deaths are of moral consequence to thier leaders and soldiers
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:29:55 AM EST
Total war is the ONLY way to ensure total PEACE.

War must be so uttery brutal and horrible that those who are subjected to it want no part of it
and will surrender unconditionally in order to make it stop.

You must bomb, smash, burn, and kill everything until the enemy completely rolls over and screams
his desire to surrender unconditionally.


ONLY when we have fought wars this way, and they ended in unconditional surrender, have the wars
truly ENDED at that time.

Fighting this "kinder, gentler" kind of war has resulted in NO clear victory and NO clear end to conflict
and NO clear win of ANY kind.

The last unqualified success we had in war was WWII. It was also the last time we fought with the gloves
off, giving no quarter, and killing EVERYTHING in our path. Including civilians. Every civilian is a potential
source of resistance.

The doctrine of trying to avoid civilian casualties, coupled with "smart bombing" tactics aimed at reducing
civilian casualties, is the very doctrine that has caused the failure of us to achieve total victory.

That bullshit has to stop.

Carpet bomb the everloving fuck out of the enemy until he rolls over, shows his belly, hauls up the white flag,
and screams "I surrender! Unconditionally!" and you will truly WIN a war. Nothing else actually works.


CJ

Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:30:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
The concept of civilians is antiquated and overly simplistic.

Every citizen of a country contributes to it in some capacity.

Total war requires the destruction of every assett available to an enemy to mimnimize thier ability to operate gainst you, this includes civilians.

Wars of the future between peers will be won by the side with least concern for civilian casualties in the course of effective military operations.
View Quote

This, the concept of total war made war something other than a contest conducted by professional soldiers and officers, leaving civilians as spectators. A lot has been written on it.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:34:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:38:02 AM EST by Snips]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JMD:



You forget the a-bombings for one. Dresden sound familiar too. The allies in World War two knew very well that their bombing was killing civilians. They really did not give a damn. They could take the high ground by saying "well, we really aren't targeting civilians only their factories" but in reality they knew exactly what was happening and did not care.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JMD:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.



You forget the a-bombings for one. Dresden sound familiar too. The allies in World War two knew very well that their bombing was killing civilians. They really did not give a damn. They could take the high ground by saying "well, we really aren't targeting civilians only their factories" but in reality they knew exactly what was happening and did not care.


There's a difference between targeting civilians, which is what this total war idea advocates, and targeting infrastructure while ignoring possible civilian causalities.

Dresden was a legitimate target. It was packed with factories and military infrastructure. The technology at the time lamentably led to high casualties. They would have been significantly higher had we also bombed the suburbs of Dresden. If our goal was to slaughter civilians under the total war idea, we would have. The atomic bombings were, again, destruction of military targets. Had the Japanese evacuated the cities, we wouldn't have targeted the area they had fled to in order to slaughter them....

You're advocating the deliberate slaughter of civilians. In WWII, we targeted infrastructure. Civilians dying was an unavoidable consequence. You must be bale to see the difference here....

Edit: Trying to point our specific examples isn't going to do you much good. Even if there were a couple of instances where the allies tried to slaughter civilians deliberately, the rest of the entire war was not prosecuted in such a manner, and yet we still won a decisive victory. Something which is being claimed as impossible without slaughter.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:34:45 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.

...

Dresden, Hiroshim, Nagasaki

Civilians were not the primary target, but its takes a special kind of blindness to claim civilians weren't targeted.


Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:35:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By NeoSaffiru:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.


Name one.

Extra points: Explain why it could *not* have been won quicker, and with less losses to the winning side, if they had employed total war.


World War Two, for starters. Total war was not employed. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. You're going to need to prove that the war would have ended sooner That's your claim, you back it up.


Uh, Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:36:31 AM EST
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:41:34 AM EST
I'm not going to feed the troll anymore. someone in this thread probably also believes that if your life is threatened that you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:42:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.



When and where? I study history, and it ALWAYS involves the subjugation of "Citizens".
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:44:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:45:37 AM EST by Dino]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.
View Quote

I don't think anyone is saying its awesome. As you've pointed out you don't have to specifically target them. Just use firebombs or nukes or FAEs to target a valid enemy structure and by collateral damage kill the civilians around them. Or target the farmlands and let the people starve. Or target the water lines and let them die of disease and thirst.

We waged a lot cleaner war in Iraq and look at the civilian casualties.

eta: I can't think of a major war since the rise of air power that didn't involve lots of dead civilians.




Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:47:30 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:



When and where? I study history, and it ALWAYS involves the subjugation of "Citizens".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
Citizens are responsible for their government. They either support the government explicitly, or are implicitly responsible by not resisting enough. It is the duty of every human being to resist tyranny. Those who do not actively fight it are inactively supporting it.

In my opinion, the General Sherman method of total warfare is the only possible successful one. Anything less is a waste of time, money and lives.


Very odd attitude, considering that many wars have been successfully won without that method.



When and where? I study history, and it ALWAYS involves the subjugation of "Citizens".



Yes, he is not a student of history it seems.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:47:59 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Total war is the ONLY way to ensure total PEACE.

War must be so uttery brutal and horrible that those who are subjected to it want no part of it
and will surrender unconditionally in order to make it stop.

You must bomb, smash, burn, and kill everything until the enemy completely rolls over and screams
his desire to surrender unconditionally.


ONLY when we have fought wars this way, and they ended in unconditional surrender, have the wars
truly ENDED at that time.

Fighting this "kinder, gentler" kind of war has resulted in NO clear victory and NO clear end to conflict
and NO clear win of ANY kind.

The last unqualified success we had in war was WWII. It was also the last time we fought with the gloves
off, giving no quarter, and killing EVERYTHING in our path. Including civilians. Every civilian is a potential
source of resistance.

The doctrine of trying to avoid civilian casualties, coupled with "smart bombing" tactics aimed at reducing
civilian casualties, is the very doctrine that has caused the failure of us to achieve total victory.

That bullshit has to stop.

Carpet bomb the everloving fuck out of the enemy until he rolls over, shows his belly, hauls up the white flag,
and screams "I surrender! Unconditionally!" and you will truly WIN a war. Nothing else actually works.


CJ

View Quote


Then ship them off for reeducation, raze the place to the ground, and start building condos.

Where's my 2000 acres of lebensraum along the Euphrates river valley? Screw all this talk of nation building. If the American people must parade around abroad protecting our interests we should all get something tangible to show for it!
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:50:26 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.
View Quote




Just on a historical note the germans did not start bombing the English cities until after Britain deliberately bombed some german cities. The germans wanted revenge for this tactic.

Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:51:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 8:53:21 AM EST by Katana16j]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.


They never posed an existential threat. No English cities were whiped of the face of the earth by the Germans and they certainly couldn't do so quickly enough to pose an existential threat to English society at large.

If you want examples of this read up on the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo as well as the Nuclear strikes.

Nazi Leadership figured that they would have to surrender if 6 more cities shared the same fate. Ultimately MILLIONS of lives could have been saved if we devoted resources to eliminating population centers in 1942-3.

As far as your quandary:

I defer to the Late Chief Air Marshall Arthur Harris:

Quote

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.



That line in the middle is the key one, Harris was responsible for the lives of the English. His actions against the GErmans were of no moral consequence. Hitler is responsible for those deaths and it is to him the blame must be assigned.

Harris had the sane moral judgement that he was responsible for English lives and he performed his moral duty admirably.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:55:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By waterglass:


Thats the thing the leaders are always warned in advance these days via the president on the TV saying we are gonna bomb the shit out of you, go hide somewhere.

Reagan Was the last potus who actually tried to take out a head of state at the drop of a hat. And it worked.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By waterglass:
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Don't tolerate leaders that will get bombs dropped on you. It's pretty easy. If you someone that starts wars stay in power don't be surprised when you get a JDAM on your head.


Thats the thing the leaders are always warned in advance these days via the president on the TV saying we are gonna bomb the shit out of you, go hide somewhere.

Reagan Was the last potus who actually tried to take out a head of state at the drop of a hat. And it worked.
Or you end up like Mussolini and the citizens take care of the problem because they are tired of being bombed.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:57:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 9:00:44 AM EST by Snips]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dino:

I don't think anyone is saying its awesome. As you've pointed out you don't have to specifically target them. Just use firebombs or nukes or FAEs to target a valid enemy structure and by collateral damage kill the civilians around them. Or target the farmlands and let the people starve. Or target the water lines and let them die of disease and thirst.

We waged a lot cleaner war in Iraq and look at the civilian casualties.

eta: I can't think of a major war since the rise of air power that didn't involve lots of dead civilians.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dino:
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.

I don't think anyone is saying its awesome. As you've pointed out you don't have to specifically target them. Just use firebombs or nukes or FAEs to target a valid enemy structure and by collateral damage kill the civilians around them. Or target the farmlands and let the people starve. Or target the water lines and let them die of disease and thirst.

We waged a lot cleaner war in Iraq and look at the civilian casualties.

eta: I can't think of a major war since the rise of air power that didn't involve lots of dead civilians.


Targeting the means of production is one thing. When you start targeting water lines so that all the civilians die, you're pursuing a completely different strategy. Might as well just kill the civilians directly at that point. Except that, again, is something we don't do, yet we've managed to win wars all the same. Total war is not required to successfully wage war.

Edit: Civilian causalities in Iraq came from the collapse of the government after the war phase itself ended. We destroyed their military capability. When we decided to occupy and transform their government, that's when civies started dying en masse.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:58:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By johnnypantz:
I'm not going to feed the troll anymore. someone in this thread probably also believes that if your life is threatened that you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary
View Quote


Link Posted: 11/21/2013 8:59:34 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:


They never posed an existential threat. No English cities were whiped of the face of the earth by the Germans and they certainly couldn't do so quickly enough to pose an existential threat to English society at large.

If you want examples of this read up on the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo as well as the Nuclear strikes.

Nazi Leadership figured that they would have to surrender if 6 more cities shared the same fate. Ultimately MILLIONS of lives could have been saved if we devoted resources to eliminating population centers in 1942-3.

As far as your quandary:

I defer to the Late Chief Air Marshall Arthur Harris:



That line in the middle is the key one, Harris was responsible for the lives of the English. His actions against the GErmans were of no moral consequence. Hitler is responsible for those deaths and it is to him the blame must be assigned.

Harris had the sane moral judgement that he was responsible for English lives and he performed his moral duty admirably.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Snips:
The folks advocating that slaughtering a civilization's population is awesome and results in victory might want to recall that the Germans tried this against the Brits. It didn't weaken their resolve at all.


They never posed an existential threat. No English cities were whiped of the face of the earth by the Germans and they certainly couldn't do so quickly enough to pose an existential threat to English society at large.

If you want examples of this read up on the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo as well as the Nuclear strikes.

Nazi Leadership figured that they would have to surrender if 6 more cities shared the same fate. Ultimately MILLIONS of lives could have been saved if we devoted resources to eliminating population centers in 1942-3.

As far as your quandary:

I defer to the Late Chief Air Marshall Arthur Harris:

Quote

I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.

The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.



That line in the middle is the key one, Harris was responsible for the lives of the English. His actions against the GErmans were of no moral consequence. Hitler is responsible for those deaths and it is to him the blame must be assigned.

Harris had the sane moral judgement that he was responsible for English lives and he performed his moral duty admirably.


Destruction of war infrastructure. Not deliberate slaughter of civilians. Thank you for proving my point.
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 9:00:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/21/2013 9:00:54 AM EST by RogueSpear2023]
Because in current wars the people you are fighting hide in the population. The population refuses to oust those who we are fighting and are therefore complicit in fighting the war. Therefore they must be wiped out to win. No one is innocent in this
Link Posted: 11/21/2013 9:02:27 AM EST
John Rambo - "there are no friendly civilians"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top