Completely understandable when you consider they had the largest Colonial Empire ever established.

Pre WWI the Zulu Wars and the Boar War were significant influences.

It was during the Boar War that Britain formulated and implemented the Concentration Camp as a solution to isolating political dissidents and undesirables. A system adopted and taken to extremes later by Hitler.

Early 20th Century the British fought counter insurgency campaigns in Somali, in Iraq (Mesopotamia) and faced an extended insurgency in India.

More recently major insurgencies occurred in Malaya, Kenya and lets never forget Northern Ireland.

These are worth a read:

http://www.jepeterson.net/sitebuilde...s_and_Iraq.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA479660

I have resisted 'till now, but I can do so no longer. This is a unique time in history, where there is a deep dichotomy between two types of folks. There are, on the one side, those who believe that "Moral Fiber" is a real and useful thing, quite apart from any attempt to reason it away. On the same side would be those that consider "Valor", and "Bravery" to be "good". These folks might, as an example, give a grave sort of respect to the men of the U-boat service, for their "valor in the face of overwhelming odds", even though they might have killed their grandfather (as an aside, one of the very best of these men, Otto Kreshmer, became a high ranking Officer in the German Navy after the war, and as such an ally to the very men to whom he was such a grave danger during the war).

On the other, are those who don't hold to such things as "good" or "evil". For these folks, there is a great difficulty in defining anything along the "gray area" that is war, for these poor folks, there can be no way of grasping such matters of the heart as the other sort of men do, who subscribe to the idea of "aughtness". The idea that there are things that aught to be done, and things that aught not be done. Those who can't call to reference what C.S. Lewis called the "Tao", that which past generations have always simply accepted as "good" and "right", these poor fellows have no way of relating to us poor unenlightened wretches who don't understand the "party line" or whatever is the latest fad of political correctness.

I suppose that such dinosaurs as us who believe that there is such thing as "good" and "evil" and actually believe there might be some greater judge of the lesser or greater of the two, should "go quietly into the night". Alas, it is not our nature.

It is merely fact that the one should not fathom the other.

Just make sure to split your sources so you can come up with your own impartial conclusions ;)
A lot of the memoirs were written by people who fought and they are understandably tainted by their personal experiences...or to put it mildly, there's a lot of biased books on either side.

That war resulted in a series of opposing pendulum swings that still affect the country to an extent. The communist faction dragged the nation into yet another war right after WWII with their refusal to take part in the election and their reluctance to disarm, this resulted in the demonization of all communists regardless of their actions, leading many to exile based only on their political beliefs (even people who didn't fight against the government army), not to mention that the government was initially short on troops (most of the Greek army that managed to evacute after the occupation was still in the Middle East where they had fought against the Axis, we even had a couple Flower class corvettes in the D-Day fleet yet almost nothing back home, truth be told it was mostly the commies that manage to drive wermacht out from most of the rural areas, hence their initial approval ratings by the general populace) and re-instated into active service a minority of people that sided with the Axis occupation forces during the war as a stop-gap measure (the kind of axis-collaborating auxiliary troops found in many parts of occupied Europe), which then resulted in the general public showing resentment towards the ruling elite (the king at the time and the official governments), this led to another flare up of socialist ideologies and instability during the mid-late 60s, which was followed by a coup and a 7 year military junta to crack down on dissent, which ended after the war and partitioning of Cyprus and the student uprisings, giving us the democracy we have today, where politicians behave like they are untouchable because of the collective bad memmory of the junta ( the lesser of two evils mentality) and have made it a business to bestow their position upon their children like they were, well, kings practicing hereditary succesion, but they again have recently been largely devalued on the whole due to their failures and scandals in economy and protecting interests and rights that are ours by treaties and international laws, yet they bow down to foreign centers of power for personal gain. Confusing, eh? :confused:
Ok, deep breath :grin:

Lot's of dirty back-room deals and secret blows in that story, some coming from those that were expected to act in such a way, yet an alarmingly significant portion coming from allies as well. It should make a good read if you can get a clear idea of the timelines and persons involved.

Wikipedia is your safest bet to get the gist of things, start from 1936 and go from there ;)

Civil wars are always ugly, and take a long time to heal.

BadAim, you nailed my thoughts better than I could have. (Sorry to have been absent from a thread I have really enjoyed, but we are fighting for some 2A rights down here and I have been onto that topic elsewhere :) ).

Right and wrong have been obscured by moral relativism. People sitting nice and comfy in their homes watching TV have a hard time believing that there is evil in the world. They have an even harder time making sacrifices to fight evil "over there". I think we call that complacency? lol

Our collective mentality is not unlike what it was just prior to WWII. Then as now, it allows threats to grow. We usually let them grow until they appear on our doorstep...then we fight desperate battles.

All wars are ugly and when you try to fight them under the misguided conception that they can be "clean", well, you get Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Blackdog, thank you for the tutelage on Greece. Extrapolating some from what is common through history, your write up explains a lot of what is happening in Greece today. Once again, it shows that people who do not learn from history (even recent history) are doomed to repeat it. Those of us in the US, Britain, Australia, and other Western "Democracies" are very close to what the Greeks have gone through recently AND for very similar reasons.

The next few years will be....interesting. I can't help but think that a lot of people had similar thoughts in the 30's.

Splitter

It was during the Boar War that Britain formulated and implemented the Concentration Camp as a solution to isolating political dissidents and undesirables

This is true Galway, but it is not true that Britain was somehow the "originator" of this method (if that is what you are suggesting?). De facto "Concentration Camps" had existed well before, the US for example interning Native American tribes in the 1830's, as well as the Spanish doing employing this method in Cuba. Probably many more countries prior. The only seminal thing about the Boer camps is the British coining of the phrase itself, not their usage and employment.

A concentration camp is a concentration of individuals, where not necessarily political dissidents, but certainly "undesirables" are detained. Militarily in the short term it was very successful in quelling the effectiveness of the Boer Guerilla campaign, if undoubtedly morally dubious. Civilian Boers died whilst in detention, though it was not its purpose. "Concentration Camp" has now become a synonym for "Death Camp" with this express purpose, primarily because of the Nazi's.

There are "Concentration Camps" ongoing as I write, many just have lovely new sanitized names like "Refugee detention Centres" where adults and children fleeing persecution from terrible regimes are treated like criminals in often appalling conditions, (I believe you are an Aussie so you should be familiar with them?). Smart move by Howard on the 'Christmas Island' job, out of sight out of mind eh? They held one bloke for over 7 years.....his only "crime" being to want to live in Australia.

How are things going with that? I'd be interested to know as I have not been following developments recently. I hear that some have been closed down though, and that things are getting better. Conservatives eh? Smashing folk.

See you may be joining us in "coalition mania", anyway its all the rage! (groan....:))

Thanks for those two links mate, will give em a read. :)

This discussion has remained surprisingly civil, I hope it will remain so.

When you are in a fight, or a famine or in any other situation where your life is in danger, "right" or "wrong" comes down to very simple questions of what will help you, your family or your tribe survive. When you sit peacefully in your secure home, warm and full, you have the luxury probing the concept of moral a bit deeper. There is where "relativism" comes into play. When you have 500 rabid and heavily armed Viet Kong storming your camp, your moral compass is to survive the night, and killing the enemy is very much right. When you are at home, you can dabble in thoughts on whether your nation should be over there in the first place, and whether the farmers who have given up their ploughs to become VC soldiers actually deserve to die.

Morale and resolve are not the same thing. The American (actually most of the Western) public in the early 1970ies was starting to wonder whether a war in Vietnam had any real bearing on their life. The general consensus seems to be that it did not, hence most people came to the conclusion the war itself was immoral. While moral thoughts was applied perhaps more than before, resolve withered away. Seeing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, a communist takeover in Vietnam did not threaten Western security. Considering the insane horrors sparked by the Vietnam war in Cambodia and to some extent in Laos, the war was indeed not worth fighting, and thus immoral.

So, will leaving the Arab world to their own devices in our day and age threaten our existence in the Western world? Do our current involvement in e.g. Afghanistan help improve our security situation, or will it only make us more enemies? To my mind, "resolve" to bomb our way is not a good idea.

I do beg the differ. There are wars that are less dirty than others. When nations invade other nations the fronts are usually a bit more clear cut, and the moral less dubious. How was the US resolve to fight during the First Gulf War? How about the war in Kosovo? While not on the same level as WWII (non of the aggressors posed any real any threat to the US), bout were relatively clear-cut. The enemy wore uniforms and were under orders. They even had tanks and planes and the soldiers surrendered when facing overwhelming forces. I do not remember any great problems with resolve back then.

The really, really dirty wars occur when the wars are highly asymmetrical, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam. This is not just because the civil war/tribal war aspect, but also because the underdog (i.e. the insurgents) have everything to win by making the war as dirty as possible, and nothing to gain by fighting cleanly. A German soldier fighting in France in 1944 had nothing to gain from hiding in civilian clothing and attacking Allied soldiers in liberated France. Hence, the fighting was relatively "clean". To the Iraqi insurgents or the VC the same strategy was not only effective, it was often the only option available. Thus these wars became extraordinary dirty, "bad wars" as opposed to nation-against-nation "good wars".

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

Well said.

Very well said, actually, but short sighted.

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.

In no particular order;

Oil: The Green Peace brigade (environmentalists if you will) would love a world that needed no carbon based fuels. That is at least a couple decades away (more). Oil is the fuel of the world economy. The world's economy collapses without free flowing, cheap oil. While that would make many of the environmentalists happy (who cares about economic collapse when a tenth of a degree of temperature change is at stake?), the rest of us see the horror of such a collapse.

No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.

Israel: No matter what one may think about Israel, they are the only ally to the West in the middle east. They are hated by virtually all of their neighbors. But, they will not be abandoned by the West, nor should they be. The West will not allow Israel to be threatened and conquered. For the record, neither will Israel.

Nuclear Proliferation: When countries that actively work to eliminate other countries gain nuclear capability, the risks go sky high. When a country that espouses the destruction of Israel (the West's ally), the US (the lone remaining super power for the time being) and any allies to those countries gets nuclear capability, you have to consider the real possibility that they will use that new found power to bring about the destruction they have wanted.

Radicalism: People LOVE to point to the Crusades as a low point in civilization. Granted. That was 500 and more years ago. Similar motivations are present today, just not in the Christian world.

Moral Relativism: That's their culture, whatever they do is their business. Really? Is that still true when all the other circumstances described above come into play? "But Christians did it, this is no different!". Wrong, this is 500 years later. The world (or much of it) has evolved.

So when to fight? Do we wait until the enemy is on our doorstep? Do we believe and hope that they will never decide to come to our doorstep? Do we let the world economy collapse by giving over control of the world's most needed energy resource?

Leaving the Arab world to their own devices is a recipe for economic disaster, the destruction of Israel, and a guaranty that the "war" will be fought much closer to home in the years to come. Delaying the inevitable makes no sense when the other side can only get stronger and your side can only get weaker.

Is it the entire "people" of the middle east our enemy? Of course not, it is the radicals in charge of nations or in charge of militant organizations. Their numbers are not great but their power is. Do you think we can talk to them and come to an agreement? That is not possible because you (we) do not qualify as friends or even acceptable neighbors to the radicals. And some countries are controlled by radicals.

Ask yourself this: why would Iran want nuclear power (fuel recently supplied by Russia, BTW) when they are sitting on the world's second largest energy supply? It would have made much more economic sense to build refineries instead of reactors.

Answer: To be able to threaten their neighbors AND the larger powers in the world. It really is that simple. The leadership is radical.

Why should we keep nations out of the nuclear family? Is that fair? Why, yes when the new member of the nuclear family will seek to sell radioactive fuel, or nuclear devices, to organizations whose sole purpose for existence is the destruction of infidels. The new member of the nuclear family has continually expressed the desire to destroy other nations through violence.

One atom bomb is enough to ruin your whole day :). Fight them there, or fight them when they attack your allies, or fight them when they are attacking "here". It really is the only choice unless the other side backs down. True? Do you expect the other side to back down? Do you expect them to accept "us" as world neighbors? Or will they do exactly what they have said their objective is?

Fighting for one's home or in a time of famine is about survival. Choosing to fight that battle at an earlier time to avoid those circumstances is intestinal fortitude. That is where we in the West are lacking right now. We would rather trade a few more years of relative peace and comfort for having to fight now. We are putting off the hard choices until tomorrow.

This is exactly where the Untied States was prior to WWII. How the Brits ever forgave us for abandoning them for so long is beyond me. But we were recovering from a depression (familiar?) and pretty comfy here with two huge oceans between us and invasion. The US did not want to go to war in Europe or the Pacific, we wanted to put that off and hope (HAH! Never works) that the situation would work itself out. It wasn't our war until Pearl.

Since then, we learned that the situation does not usually work itself out. Morally and strategically we have been right....tactically, because we do not want to fight dirty and costly wars, our execution has often been abysmal.

That's about the US....where is the rest of the world? WTF are the other countries doing as the sky is falling? Talking? Negotiating? Coming up with sanctions? Really, look at history...how often do those tactics really work?

Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

Splitter

Very sorry to posts back to back, but I want to address this point more precisely as it goes back to the question of when and why to fight (which goes back to WWII and goes back to the dropping of the A-bomb).

When does a perceived threat become real?

There, sir, is the million dollar (million? it's TRILLION these days lol) question.

Is the "reason" to go to war good enough when your adversary has the motivation and declared intent to destroy your city? Or do you have to wait until they have the means also? Or do you need to wait until they actually make the attack?

What if they cut off your sustenance? (oil?)

Or is it ok to go to war when they threaten you ally? What about once they get the means to attack your ally? Or do you have to wait until they attack your ally? Or is obliterating your ally a good enough reason to retaliate?

Splitter

Well, you've shown us where you stand. With the aggressors. With the warmongers. With the people who use imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify invasions. Above all, with hypocrisy.

Israel, along those who assisted it (principally the US, but also other western countries), is largely responsible for the nuclear arms race in the middle east. Israel has systematically acquired territory from it's neighbours through conquest, and has carried out numerous acts that were they perpetrated by an 'arab' country (not that the Iranians are Arabs) would be classified by many as terrorism. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface propaganda of middle eastern politics, it isn't that unusual to find Israeli involvement in the murkiest places - there is some evidence that they provided Hamas with funds in it's early years, and they were certainly involved with supplying arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The Israelis certainly worked tirelessly in Lebanon for years stirring up inter-communal conflict. This sort of hogwash might work in US politics, but in much of the rest of the world, it is seen for what it is - a self-serving 'justification' for US aggression in the middle east, based on little more than crude stereotypes, and the profit to be derived from crude oil. The United States (or any outside power) has no more right to 'intervene' in the middle east than Venezuela has to 'intervene' in the US, or Iceland has to invade Sri Lanka. Inventing bogus 'threats' is an old tactic used to justify aggression. If there is a major war in the near future, US foreign policy is more likely than not to be at the root of it - as indeed it was in the case of Iran, where the US-backed Shah's oppressive measures opened the way for the current bunch of loons to seize power.

In any case, If one is going to make bogus comparisons with the 1930s, I'd be careful that others don't decide to do the same, but placing the jackboot under the banner of the Stars and Stripes. I think such comparisons are wrong, not least because the US population isn't as gullible as such comparisons suggest, and shows strong evidence for rejection of such simplistic 'us vs them' propaganda - they are becoming increasingly sceptical about involvement in foreign wars that seem to achieve little except lining the pockets of the arms industry and their associates.

So can I summarize by saying:

US = evil
Israel = evil.
Middle Eastern Radicals = no real threat (bogus I think you said).
Jackboots = Nazis

Thank you for being honest about your dislike for the USA. I mean that. It is tiresome when people hide behind vague references. I applaud you for being up front about it (though the Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?).

I thank you also for proving my points about moral relativism and complacency. You do not see significant threats in that area of the world. Understood. You would rather we (the present day "allies") not be involved there and let them sort things out. I'm guessing you do think we should talk with them, understand them better, and maybe negotiate solutions to whatever problems may exist.

There is a very good chance your vision will be what happens unless someone (Israel) decides that Iran is too dangerous to have nukes. The US certainly isn't going to do anything about it any time soon. Neither will the UN. Russia will play neutral or back Iran. China will back Iran for now. So chances are, nothing militarily will be done.

When the mushroom cloud from a bomb supplied by Iran, N. Korea, or China is rising over some city in the world, I will be here with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain (I am sure he has figured it out by now) to say "told ya so" lol.

Wait...if it's DC the fallout will probably get me in which case look me up when you get to the other side and we'll have a pint :).

Splitter

"The Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?" No. I thought it was irrelevant to an analysis of the current world political situation, which is why I suggested that you should think more before using it, with your 'appeasement' analogies. I haven't called anyone 'evil' either. And where exactly have I come out with 'moral relativism'? Do you actually know what the term means? I have no 'dislike for the USA' - what I dislike is people who take it upon themselves to tell the outside world what the US thinks, while at the same time telling the US population what it ought to think, and then claim to be defending 'freedom' or 'democracy'?

Are 'middle eastern radicals' a threat to world peace? Yes, quite possibly, but so are supporters of US quasi-imperialist tactics, and uncritical supporters of the State of Israel. And the latter have more weapons.

It would be nice to see religion and politics kept out of a forum thats dedicated to an online gaming community that promotes mutual respect, fun and fair play. :(

I would be nice to see a forum that promotes mutual respect, fun and fair play. Do you know of one?

Seriously, this whole debate arose from someone suggesting that IL-2 should model nuclear weapons. Do you think that neither religion nor politics are relevant to such a question?

You do understand that I have spent quite a few words criticizing my own country, right? A third of this country believes as you do. A third believes as I do. The other third is completely clueless. So I can't tell you what the USA currently thinks...because we are as divided as the world is.

PSSSST, that's why we are the world's last remaining super power....for about the next five minutes lol. If things continue as they are now, we are on the decline and will be looking up at China. So not to worry.

I'm not sure about the quasi imperialism stuff because I certainly haven't received my share of the ill gotten booty :). And these wars seem to be a big part in our slide toward bankruptcy. And my gas still isn't cheap, as a matter of fact it's more expensive. We are spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have the resources to respond to a threat anywhere else (did I mention that we are about $13 trillion beyond broke?). So I guess we are just not very good at this imperialism stuff :confused:.

I think it is telling that you believe that the US and Israel are as dangerous to the world as Iran, N. Korea, or China.

Let me ask you this, can we pretend for a second that we transplant every Israeli to the American west? Hell, we have huge tracts of desert we don't use. Let us also pretend that we pull out every foreign soldier from the Middle East. Lastly, let's pretend that renewable fuels were available just a bit cheaper than oil.

What would the world look like? Would there be peace in the Middle East finally? Would the radicals fall by the wayside? Would the rest of the world be safe from the leaders in Iran or Alqaeda? Could we all just get along?

If you can answer yes to those questions, you are a great optimist.

Splitter

EDIT: Drewpee (great screen name, BTW), this is relevant because however one views the situation, we are repeating history from some viewpoint.

Its a game

I see little point in discussing your last post, Splitter. It makes little sense alongside your previous ones. I'll just leave you with this to think about:
Do you actually think the middle east holds an infinite supply of oil? If not, what are you proposing we do when it runs out? And if we can do whatever is required when it runs out, wouldn't it be better to do it sooner, and thus avoid all the problems of relying on energy sources in politically unstable regions?

(P.S. Drewpee, history never repeats exactly, contrary to what Splitter suggests. Indeed, Marx suggested that history occurs first as tragedy and then as farce. For the sake of humanity, I hope he's right.)

I know, those are hard questions. If you can't answer yes to the questions I posed then it means there are real threats that run much deeper than foreign intervention, Israel, and oil.

I whole heartedly agree that alternative fuels are a must. I am not afraid of the oil running out, we are a long way from that (we have plenty here, btw, we are just not allowed to tap it). I am afraid of it being cut off.

Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war. It's part of the reason Germany invaded certain areas. If the oil were cut off tomorrow, countries that have been benignly bickering for decades would suddenly become allies again.

While this is a game, Drewpee, there is not a time when I get flamed or fail to land a wounded bird on the deck that I don't think about pilot's who did it for real. To me personally, playing at war without trying to understand how wars get started, fought, and ended is just irresponsible. I'm not knocking anyone who doesn't look beyond shooting down simulated enemy planes, it's a personal feeling. Call it a mental exercise in seeking understanding.

Splitter

No, it doesn't. It means that you think that 'these threats run much deeper'. Nothing I can or could not answer could possibly make a significant difference to the level of threats posed. The threats exist (or don't exist) regardless of what either of us think. If you want to convince me that a threat is real, you'll have to show that it isn't just hype generated by vested interests.

I'm interested that you write "Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war". Was Japan justified in going to war for 'essential resources'? Was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified in consequence?

That question has to go back one step further: Why did Japan need the resources that were being embargoed?

Well, because they were trying to expand their empire. Western powers protested their aggression by refusing to sell them the resources they needed to wage the wars they were fighting.

In turn, the Japanese decided to go south to capture the resources they needed.

So if one looks back only to the embargo, the answer would seem to be "yes", they had to go to war to get the resources needed. But going back just a few years ealier, it becomes apparent that the real cause for war was Japan's perceived "right" to unite Asia under their emperor.

Other countries were taking away their ability to wage war on their neighbors by denying them resources to do so.

Therefore they were not justified in attacking Pearl because their need for resources was mandated by their aggressive effort at expansion. They brought the embargo on themselves.

The situation also shows that embargoes and sanctions usually don't work against a determined foe. Such actions may even push them over the edge into violence.

A different question is whether or not the Japanese were "smart" in attacking Pearl. As it turned out, they "awakened a sleeping giant" and it cost them dearly.

However, if they had caught the carriers in port and followed up their attacks, it might have been years before the US could have put a large enough force at sea to challenge them. It might have been too late by then.

Besides, if they had hit the US hard enough, the US attention would have turned to defending it's own west coast. The US might not have even been motivated enough to do more than assist Australia and other nations in Japan's path.

Here they showed that to win, you actually have to beat the foe and not just wound. They wounded the US Pacific forces, but they did not beat them hard enough to make them quit.

BTW, when a foreign leader declares that destroying other nations is his goal, I tend to believe him. When he goes about acquiring the means to make that threat a reality, he totally convinces me that he is a threat. If he is just full of bluff and bluster then he is playing a dangerous game.

Splitter

Given your endless analysis of politics as war, or potential war, between nations over finite resources, I'm beginning to wonder whether my earlier rejection on your parallels with the 1930s was unjustified. Nothing in your analysis even contemplates that US foreign policy could have been wrong. The 'sleeping giant' (that incidentally had been awake enough to impose sanctions on Japan) once aroused can stomp around the Pacific putting the world to order, without any need to consider the consequences. This reminds me of nothing so much as a Godzilla movie, where abstract monsters engage in physically-implausible combat, and a victor emerges by throwing his enemies to a painful death, or by frying them with some unlikely death-ray. Sadly, this denial of the humanity of ones opponents, and assertion that oneself possesses superhuman powers, is all too familiar to students of 20th century history. Are you actually incapable of believing, even as an abstract proposition, that US foreign policy might be mistaken?

Ok, so you tell me, how did the big bad US start WWII?

It would be nice if everyone in the world was peaceful and reasonable and there were no wars. Since we have been keeping track, and it's been a few thousand years, it hasn't worked out that way.

As for foreign policy, I will say that I do not think our motives have been sinister in the last half of the previous century and the first part of this one. If opposing communism was wrong in your eyes, well then I don't know what to tell you. Were poor decisions ever made? Sure. Vietnam is a good example of a questionable war, fought for the right reasons without the will to win.

If taking out a dictator that gasses his own people (using WMD's btw, just sayin'), threatens his neighbors, and gives money to terrorists, then we're guilty. A poor decision to stick around and rebuild the country? Yep, in my opinion. An even poorer decision to get involved in a ground war in Afghanistan to try to deny terrorists a base of operations? I would say yes and a bunch of former citizens of the Soviet Union would probably agree.

Don't confuse poor decisions with sinister motives.

Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, right? lol

In WWII when we stomped (slogged is more like it), we didn't slog alone. We were but one part of a much larger effort.

Are you incapable, even in the abstract, of believing that the US is not the bad guy at every junction in recent history?

The real difference between our viewpoints is that you think war is avoidable while I think some wars are unavoidable and still others need to be fought to prevent worse evils. I also think that when a nation decides to go to war, it needs to do so with the intent and will to win. Anything short of that risks defeat, and worse, prolonging the conflict which causes even higher casualties.

So yes, war is a part of politics. Or at least it has been to this point in human history.

Splitter

It didn't. It was started by people who saw history exclisively as conflict between nations, and saw themselves as the sole arbiters of what was 'evil'. I'm arguing against the ideology, not the colours of the flag.

Incidentally, I'd be a little wary of making comments about 'giving money to terrorists' given the US involvement in the origins of the Taliban (when they were supposedly 'freedom fighters' opposing Soviet occupation).

So far, you've done nothing to answer my questions. All you've done is insinuate that anyone whe disagrees with you is either (a) morally weak, or (b) just plain evil. A familiar tactic...

A disappointing discussion.

If it's all about keeping the USA in cheap oil (already much cheaper than it is elsewhere), how much oil is it that Israel exports to the USA?

Nuclear power is available now, as is wind power. These can be as cheap as oil, just not delivered in quite such a piecemeal fashion.

Andy, I think I have tried to answer your questions. Probably in too much detail lol. But if I missed something let me know.

I will admit that I do find it troubling that nations do not learn from history. It gets a lot of people killed

Splitter

Actually, it is people that need to learn from history. And one of the lessons that need to be learned is that nationalism is one of the things that gets people killed.

Actually, i think i'm in the sad position to say that US and Israel policies pose a much bigger risk to my country than the Arab world and have been so for a few decades. In a recent visit by the Israeli PM to Athens, among the issues discussed was a possible attack against Iran. Our "genius" of a PM is supposedly sympathetic to the proposed plan. So, 6 months from now 100 IAF aircraft will stage through Greece and Bulgaria to Georgia, where from they will strike against Iran.

What does this accomplish for the debt-ridden state of Greece? It cuts us off from states like France who have been the most supportive towards our troubles (financial and territorial), severes any and all ties with Russia and China which have at times served valuably as a counter-balance against our allies screwing us over, leaves us to the mercy of the US since this will probably be an operation that's not officially sanctioned by them and most of all, it infuriates the entire of the Arab world into backing Turkey in its territorial claims against Greece.

Israel gets what it wants, which is nuclear monopoly in the middle east, the US gets someone else to look bad by doing the dirty work and we get royally shafted every which way imaginable. So, since we're deep in debt and can't support military expenses for defensive posturing to prevent a war, our government starts negotiating and cedes half of our mineral wealth in the Aegean sea to neighboring states, wealth that could have been used to gradually pull us out and away from the financial crisis. Not to mention the influx of mulsim immigrants from the middle east who get trapped in Greece while waiting for political asylum applications to get approved, living in squalor in the streets of the capital or in detention centers in various islands. That's a prime pool for an islamic militant group to recruit from and thank God, we have many in the Balkans thanks to the NATO interventions in Yugoslavia (more on this later).

Essentially, going into this leaves us with all the baggage of a war that's not our business to wage and none of the benefits. Excuse me for saying so, but it feels like i'm being dragged in to clean someone else's dirty poop :grin:

I think Iran wants nukes mostly for posturing and it's an iron-grip state. I'm more concerned with Pakistan's nukes, a supposedly US-friendly state where the local secret service actively plays taliban and US agencies against each other at their whim. It's easier for a Pakistani nuke to fall at the hands of a loon than it would be for an Iranian one. It's just that if Iran gets nukes, Isreal won't be able to unilateraly bomb whoever they want anymore, or violate already agreed-upon points of peace negotiations by sending settlers to occupy arab settlements, or blockade the civilians of Gaza until they have no food and water, etc etc. That's what all the fuss is about really, nuclear monopoly equals impunity.

Someone mentioned the Kosovo war a few pages back. Well, the Kosovo war was not a case of "A invades B, let's go help B", but a case of "breakaway province in a state we consider Russia's lapdog in the soft spot of Europe, let's help it break away and weaken Russia's friends, mess up the possibility of an EU-Russia fuel deal for a few years and show those weaklings in Europe how it's done and why they need us, by flying 2/3 of the sorties ourselves in a show of force".
The US parallel would be the hispanic population of Texas taking up arms and asking for independence, the US army stepping in to face the guerrillas and an outside force bombing the civilian infrastructure of the entire US to force them to retreat, because they can't find the US army to bomb. All of you know about the mass graves or the allegations about them, but what most of you don't know is that it wasn't as one sided as CNN and the rest of the media made it out to be.

Funnily enough, when Russia did a somewhat similar thing with their invasion of Georgia, all of our countries were up in arms. And the reason i say "somewhat similar" and not "same" is that while Russia did in fact attack a sovereign state friendly to the west to help two break-away provinces gain independence (just as NATO did in the Kosovo war to harm a state with Russian ties), Russia also afforded a few points of "moral legalization" in the entire affair that NATO's wars have lacked altogether: 1) There were indigenous Russian citizens dying in the provinces in question, while there were never any NATO-member citizens in the middle east or the balkans before NATO send troops there
2) There was a clear ultimatum in the sense of " you have 2 days to stop shelling residential areas" and none of the usual "our hands are tied by the other side/we will liberate this and this" rhetoric that goes hand in hand with the euphemism and shifting of blame so prevalent in our wars.
3) Russia is a country that has never been afraid to put troops in harm's way. This way their military casualties are bigger, but overall the gain is substantial. Instead of prortacted bombing campaigns and calling in air support or an overkill amount of firepower to swat a mosquito on the wall that result in high civilian casualties and susbequent resentment from the local population, they send their footsoldiers first. A soldier can be killed, but he can also discriminate much better between a car and an APC from a distance of 100-200m, select an appropriate weapon and minimize civilian death, than can a camera mounted on a jet that's travelling at mach 0.8 and the smallest thing it has available is a 250kg HE bomb. They went in, did what they wanted to do in a week, and got out, minimizing the chance of protracted conflict and civilian death. If we were to talk about guts and why we lack them in the west, it wouldn't be because of not going to war, we go to a lot of them...it would be because we're too chicken to fight in a way like this that gives the moral high ground, putting the troops in harms way to prevent loss of life to non-combatants.

In the end, Kosovo was the culmination of the interventions in former Yugoslavia. What did these interventions accomplish? They created homogenous tracts of land to be inhabited by muslim populations in the soft underbelly of Europe. And while American flags soared high on many an occasion in Pristina or Sarajevo due to the instrumental role of the US in forming these state/political entitities, the bombing attacks in London and Madrid that occured a few years back where traced by Interpol agents to Bosnia and Kosovo.

Essentially, under the leadership of the US, NATO created in Europe what NATO is fighting against in the middle east :-P

But instead of rooting out terrorism by making it worthwhile for the locals to support something else (or not have to turn to these groups for provision of basic amenities, which is what usually happens in the middle east), i wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now NATO bombed into oblivion the balkan states that it bombed into creation 10 years ago. Remember those awful, baby-eating, bad Serbs our media propaganda machine was featuring back then? They've been receiving NATO financial aid to rebuild core portions of their armed forces, as early as 2-4 years ago. What forces? Special, counter-terrorist ones. So, while the western allies press for the recognition of the independence of Kosovo, the silent admission of "we f*ed up" is there in the military cooperation with the "bad guys" whom they bombed in the first place? Why would they cooperate with them? But of course, because they need them to take out the trash if and when the poo-poo hits the fan.

Am i the only one who sees this as a total failure to institute rational policies or even a non-scandalous use of resources (from money to lives)?

"We need to be there and tell people how to run their own country, so let's back A against B under some vague pretext, forget about him, then 10 years from now we'll back B against A because somehow the Russians have come to like A, but B is still holding a grudge against us from way back, so we're trying to find a 4rd party, C, to balance things out, but these guys are cozy with China, so we don't know what to do now but we can always send more troops or use more firepower, even if we don't know the reason why"....and the knee-jerk reactions continue ad-infinitum. There's no sense of schedule or long term planning at all, just a series of isolated brute-force approach incidents, which the instigator easily forgets but the ones on the receiving end remember for decades.

It seems like a black-and-white seesaw where the only possible outcomes are good (this must always coincide with us or our allies) and evil (which applies to whoever disagrees), but it's becoming clear that failure to see gray and recognize motives to the opposition is much of the cause for the failures of western policy as of late.
If we outright denounce the opponent's human nature, we've just shut ourselves off from the whole discussion of "why does he do this? what motivates him? what forces his hand, in case it's not voluntary?", which leads in failure to profile the opposition, or decide on a reasonable course of action. The solution is not simply "more firepower" when millions are willing to die for a cause we don't understand, simply because we're too lazy to study it.

That's why i don't believe for a second that it's about morality, good and evil. There's been so much use of double-standards, back-room dealing and backstabbing, even among allies, that everyone can see what it's about. Certain circles of power operate in the west and mostly within the US. These are not the countries/nations per se nor the fault of said naitons exclusively, they are like parasitic organisms that lve in a host nation/state. What happens is that they back their host so that it can become the biggest bully on the block, then when the time comes to split the spoils of war among the population, the parasites gulp up the majority of it and the cycle starts afresh. That's why your people are dying in a war over imaginary WMDs and real oil, but the access to Iraqi oil fields couldn't prevent the collapse of the economy...there are people who march and mobilize entire nations to kill,maim and steal from each other and split the trophies among themselves while we stand here debating the morality of wars that we'll be forced to fight for them. ;)

Hybris!

As usual Blackdog, well reasoned. I don't agree with some of it, but I understand your logic.

I totally agree with your assessment of how Russia fights: hard and quick (well, except Afghanistan which we all understand is a boondoggle). It's not always pretty, but it is decisive and, over all, saves lives.

I can tell you how the public was talked into Kosovo: It was our liberal media. They started throwing around the word "genocide'.

Why did our liberal media want a war? Because the President they backed was in trouble at home. The war provided a distraction and a way for him to become a hero. Preventing genocide seems honorable, right?

The President was roundly criticized by the conservatives for the way he fought the war. He wouldn't send in ground troops. He preferred to fight the war at 30 thousand feet.

Basically, he was a coward and would not commit forces to get the job done quickly. He was afraid of authorizing actions that would cause American casualties. But hey, he made up for it by passing up opportunities to take out Osama before 9/11 :rolleyes:.

It's interesting to look at the which presidents "start wars". People want to call conservatives "Warmongers' but it is often our liberal Democrats who get frisky on the foreign front.

Blackdog, wouldn't it be fair to say that Greece's economic problems resulted from their government/economic system? It seems the government has used entitlements (pensions and other government funded programs) to buy votes and power. They kept handing out money until it ran out...then they handed out more lol.

The US is headed down that same path...the question will be who will bail us out? When we fall, the bail out funds needed will be calculated in trillions of US dollars and no one has that money.

BTW, I do feel sorry for the Palestinians. They are being used as pawns on the international scene. No peace is likely to be negotiated there because "peace" is not in the best interest of those "backing" the Palestinians. If they were suddenly taken out of the equation it would create a huge public relations gap. People would still find reasons to hate Israel, but it would be harder to justify.

Splitter

I can't really discriminate between the US political spectrum, as i lack the experience of living there. What it seems like is that each party's presidents fight wars with different justifications and different means. Also, the main difference during the past decade has been the choice of front, with Democrat administrations favoring pro-muslim involvement in the Balkans as a means to curb the pro-Russian nations and Republicans favoring involvement in the middle east.

As for the economic problems in Greece, there's a variety of causes. A big one is nepotism and corruption in the higher echelons. It might be hard to believe, but even with state-run education, health care and pension programms, our debts were non-existent until the early 80s and very manageable until the mid-90s. It was the entry into the Euro-zone that made it very easy to borrow money, coupled with the "usual suspects" who descended on government funds like locusts that brought the situation where it is today. The vast majority of the people being called upon to contribute in limiting the debt had no involvement whatsoever in its creation.

One of the main reasons however is that a nation of 10 million has to sustain a modern military of 100000 just to maintain a credible deterrent and that's still being out-numbered 7 to 10, having to rely on operational planning and geography to ensure parity in the event of a conflict. As a comparison, Germany is a nation of 70 million and they have 200000 military personell. This is done with extensive use of conscription as there are no funds for a 100% professional army and it incurres great debts on society as a whole, not only directly in money but also in affecting the working life of every male in the country, as well as human lives.

Economically speaking, a farmer who's a father of three boys can count on about 3 years of work-hours being lost from the family due to his sons' army obligations and that's with today's reduced terms of 9 and 12 months (dependant on service branch), as terms used to be 18 to 25 months a few years ago.
There's also the cost fuel, maintenance and ammunition for exercises and maneuvers, as well as the fact that our air force is involved in intercepting the air force of another NATO member daily over our islands, the same ones that tourists flock to during the summer. It's not unusual to be having a swim and hear jet engines overhead in the distance.

Since 1976 when these overflights started, the cost of jet fuel alone for these very much operational flights has reached tens or even hundreds of millions of Euros.
And finally, there's operational and training accidents, many times involving conscripts. Also, despite having one of the lowest accident rates even when having such a rigorous schedule, when accidents do happen they seem to happen all at once. In the past month we've lost an Apache helicopter and the crew on a training exercise and a couple of days ago a couple of F-16s operating out of Suda bay AB had a mid-air during a dogfight exercise, one pilot was killed instantly, one survived and the other succumbed yesterday in the hospital. This is all during peace time and only about the air force. Add to that the maintenance of the border lines that also guard against human trafficking and drug smuggling, a job pretty much exclusively undertaken by conscripts, naval operations and international commitments and it starts taking its toll. We don't have combat troops in Afghanistan and we didn't send any to Iraq (we could get out of that since the NATO charter states that an obligation to send troops arises when an attack against another member has originated from that state...Iraq never attacked a NATO state so we managed to skip that), but we still have engineers and medics in Afghanistan and a couple of frigates on the EU anti-piracy mission off Somalia, expensive missions during a time of intense economic crisis where simple people left and right see their hard-worked-for cash and benefits diminish. If these missions provided something of value for the state, the financial cost would be justified. However, the war in Afghanistan mostly serves to send flocks of immigrants bound for Europe and usually stuck in Greece due to legalities. The Somalia mission holds more favor due the abundance of Greek merchant shipping around the world and its more or less internationally sanctioned nature. This is usually a staple of Greek involvement abroad, the public wants to know what it's for, why it happens and under what legal and moral justification. For example, we had troops in international missions as early as the Korean war, but that was also a UN sanctioned campaign. Same with Kosovo, we didn't participate in the campaign but contributed to the peacekeeping force because it was covered under a UN resolution.

This is all to the knowledge of both the US and the EU, as they are our main weapon suppliers. However, as long as we're left to deal with being the "wave breaker" of Europe without a formal statement of support in the event of conflict or guarantee of sovereignity, we can't really cut down on military spending.

This discussion has moved fast. I would just like to apologise to Blackdog for suggesting the Kosovo war was "clarcut". It was not, but it was a lot less muddy that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly because parts of the Serbian opposition was the regular army rather than semi-civilian insurgents.

I would also like to comment on the "Why go to war" post by Splitter:

What you are describing is pre-emptive war. The main problem with fighting pre-emptive wars are that the invariably turn into “bad wars”. Just look at the points you cited above: How do you achieve secure oil supply, stop other nations from influencing oil prices, secure Israel’s existence and stop countries from wanting to have nuclear arms by attacking them? How do you prevent radicalisation of a country by attacking it?

The objectives you cite are civilian parameters, and do not naturally translate into military objectives. Any war fought in a far away country on these terms is bound to end up in an unfocused campaign with obscure military objectives. At home, the backing for this kind of warfare is going to drop fast. If you can’t achieve what you set out to do in 2-3 years, people are going to ask themselves whet the heck their nation is doing in this war in the first place. And as I am sure you can see, non of the above objectives can be reached in that timeframe.

The second factor is that pre-emptive wars are deemed morally wrong and are actually forbidden by international law. Your allies won’t like it. Yes, you do have to wait until your country is under direct threat! It may not be what a world superpower wants to hear, but is nevertheless the law. And there are good reasons for it being so. If the notion of pre-emptive wars being legal was true, the German attack on Sovjet in 1941 would be a perfectly just war: war between Nazi-Germany and the Sovjet Union was inevitable, Hitler just happened to attack first. The same goes for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Had Japan expanded their empire into the Pacific, a war with the US would have ensued, Japan just happened to strike first in a hope of taking out the US fleet and stop them from entering sooner rather than later. You could even translate it to the modern day and say that Al-Qaida happened to strike first in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. Laws go bout ways, if the US can legally meddle in other states affairs, then so can Al-Qaida. However, such actions are wrong, morally and juridically.

The only way one can justify talking about “moral fibre” and accuse the opposition for relativism in connection to pre-emptive wars is by carefully changing the definition of the words. Only by calling resolve “moral fibre”, and calling ethics and moral “moral relativism” and use it as a degrading term can one make pre-emptive wars seem just. This is called “newspeak”, and I am sure Andy is going to enlighten you on the concept if you are not familiar with it.

Greece: I had no idea so much European "fall out" was effecting them. It make sense, Greece has always been in a strategically significant position. Greece was just the first to fall, others are teetering and may follow shortly. As "larger" nations fall, baling them out is going to become more and more difficult and possibly lead to still larger nations falling.

Preemptive wars: Interesting take, Friendly. What you write is true until there is a "direct threat" to one's nation. What people will argue over is when a threat becomes a direct threat.

US foreign policy changed in the early 21st century. We no longer took an approach of "measured response" to attacks. In the 90's, under Clinton, if you blew up one of our ships, we might take out one of your training camps and call it even. That sort of policy emboldened adversaries and led to more attacks.

After 9/11, we decided that anyone who supported terrorism was a direct threat. People point to the absence of WMD's in Iraq as evidence that the war was not justified. While it is true that most intelligence sources agreed (foreign and domestic) that Iraq had WMD's, they were not the only only reason we went to get Saddam.

Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors, financially supporting terrorist organizations, and preaching for the destruction of the West. Did he have WMD's? The answer appears to be no, but he had used them in the past (and nothing says that he had them and shipped them elsewhere prior to the invasion). For those reasons, he was deemed to be a direct threat.

Do preemptive strikes work? People want to say "no", but if you will remember, Khadafi was a supporter of terrorism at one time. A series of strikes that almost got him, and killed some of his family, led him to get out of the terrorism business. His decision stopped any further action against him. So, yes, they can work.

The attacks against Libya were VERY controversial at the time on the foreign front. France would not even let our bombers fly over their territory (from England) on the way.

Convoluted American Politics.: Liberals (Democrats) in the US did not want to go to war in Iraq. They wanted to go to war in Afghanistan where the Taliban was supporting Al-Qaeda who had brought down the world trade center. They didn't see a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

Conservatives (Republicans) wanted to go to Iraq and Bush was a Republican. So we went to Iraq first and took out that threat.

Now the Democrats are making the mistake of reversing themselves in Afghanistan and wanting to withdraw our troops. Even when commanders on the ground said they needed "X" number of troops, the present President would only send a portion of the troops requested (same as Vietnam). Now, all that our opponents need to do is wait until we pull our troops out of Afghanistan and they can come in and take over. We certainly won't be "winning" that war in the time frame allotted, with the present rules of engagement, and with the resources that are there.

It appears that Iraq will be much more stable as we draw down troops levels, but that could (and probably will) change. Many of us think we were unwise to stay there and that we should have left and let the different factions battle it out among themselves. They hate each other almost as much as the US lol. And if they are fighting each other, they won't be exporting their war.

People bash me for seeing world politics in a "pessimistic" light. That some nation's leaders are "evil" and that there are powerful people in the world who want to destroy anyone who doesn't believe their way. Obviously, I say that such a view is only "realistic" given world history and WWII is a great example of that.

Put simply, if other nations will not respect yours, you better hope they have enough fear of your nation to make them leave you alone. If they lack either a basic respect or fear of retaliation, your nation will be attacked in some way. This plays out over and over again on the world stage.

So the answer, Friendly, to the question of how you prevent the "radicalization" of a country is to make the rewards for rejecting the radical beliefs too great to ignore. And, of course, the consequences for accepting the radical believes too severe. You want them to either respect you enough to reject those beliefs or fear you enough to reject those beliefs. If you fail on both counts, the radicals take over and come after you.

Example: Did Hitler fear France? Did he respect France's sovereignty? Answers are no and no. Hitler takes France.

Example: Did Japan fear the US? Did Japan respect US sovereignty enough to prevent them from attacking US territories? The answers are more vague. No they did not respect US sovereignty within their sphere of influence, but they did fear US might.....just not enough.

Example: Did Hitler fear Britain? Did he respect their sovereignty? While he did not respect their sovereignty, he did fear them enough (after being shown) to not throw his troops away on an invasion.

Lesson: As long as there are bad people in the world, stay strong. Bad people won't respect you but they may fear you enough to leave you alone.

Splitter

Most of the Islamic terrorism funding comes out of Dubai. Bin laden is a saudi, Iraq was simply finishing the job that daddy bush did in 1991. Sadam was a bad man but the whole WMD was a lie. They'd know if he had any because they'd have the invoices.

The Iraq war was big business.

If the west truely wanted to stop terrorism in the middle east they should probably stop selling them stuff. The west could ban all trade to these countries until they sort their internal problems out. But they won't because the US government among others, values money higher than human life, and because that also happens to be where all the oil is.

One point about similarities between the 1930's and now. There is a country currently that could be compared to Nazi germany in the late 30's. Massive armed forces, invading soveriegn states, taking away civil liberties in the name of patriotism, ignoring international consensus, right wing fundamentalism.. USA anyone? I'm not anti american by the way, my bookshelf is full of American writers, my CD collection is full of American artists and my movie collection too.. Since Bush went it's improved but 9/11 was the biggest oil family in the middle east vs one of the biggest oil families in the west convienientley wrapped up as Islam vs the world.

If these terrorist groups want us out of there then I say we go, and we cut all ties including financial. Leave them to it.

There was NO CONNECTION between Saddam and Al-Quada. And who exactly was Iraq threatening. The so called 'weapons of mass destruction' were LIES.

This isn't even 'newspeak'. It is utter garbage.

Given the above, I'd say anyone who wasn't an abject supporter of US policies would rightly conclude that the US were the 'bad people' - and 'stay strong'.

Splitter, your arguments are not only wrong, they are dangerous.

Back to Japan and Nukes, can you imagine the carnage that would of been been inflicted on the Japanese nation and the Allied soldiers if an invaision of Japan was the only option, the losses to human life would of been catastrophic, It would of been okinawa on a much larger scale, The Japanese propergander machine had already groomed the population to fight to the bitter end using whatever means necessary.
Although tragic the nuclear bomb brought a swift end to the conflict and left the Japanese no option but to lay down their arms thus saving many thousands of lives on both sides.
Whether we should see it in a flight sim is another storey, but we crave realism and it did happen after all.

P.S a very good post from Blackdog, kind of sums up where Im at with world politics.

Fair enough, Tree, but the point is there were already other alternatives, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the Japanese would have surrendered fairly soon, even without an invasion, and without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Prior to the Soviet war declaration, the Japanese were trying to negotiate peace via them, on substantially the same terms that the Allies ultimately accepted (an 'unconditional' surrender, except that the Emperor would remain in position). With the Soviet entry into the war, an already dire situation was about to get much worse, as they were well aware. They were rapidly losing the logistical ability to fight anyway, largely as a result of the US submarine blockade. Given the willingness of most of the population to accept the surrender (half-baked military coup attempts notwithstanding), there seems little to suggest there was much will remaining to continue the fight.

I agree with a lot of stuff said by FriendlyFlyer. Also, the bottom line tends to be this little gem here:

and it has a lot to do with how people have gotten used to living their lives and the sense of entitlement that goes with it, or in plain talk "what is considered normal to be available to me". Let's take a seemingly unrelated story, differences in car design between US, Europe and Japan.

If i'm used to driving cars with engines as huge as 6.0L instead of using 1.4L cars with a turbo engine for the same amount of horsepower, it's true that i'm going to be up in arms over lack of cheap gas. Simplified example, but it shows us how the forces of habit and social inertia affect more than what we see at first look.

In the above example, why didn't the US automotive industry move to smaller yet still efficient models? It's not only the economic cost of research and shifting lines of production to a new concept, or even making sure to build cars with high consumption so that the oil companies can turn a profit as well (in the sense of an "industrial complex cartel"), it's also things like a sense of tradition/pride in workmanship, character in the machine (eg, when flying German planes in IL2 i get the same feeling as when riding in a German made car, the ruggedness and sense of purpose, similar for aircraft and cars made by other nations, they tend to exhibit similar traits although they are different classes of machinery) and the nice sound your old Camaro makes when you touch the gas pedal.

It took a combination of the 1976 oil crisis and proven health issues concerning leaded fuels (without lead you can't have high compression engines due to the premature detonation effect, hence you have to move to smaller ones) to start designing and producing cars with smaller engines.

There's more to a lot of our lives than meets the eye and it all ties down under the concept that people fight mainly to preserve their way of life. What i usually object to is enforcing one's way of life upon others, or pursuing a lifestyle that is detrimental to more people that it is beneficial.

The million dollar question here is how much does the force of habit of the common man makes him co-responsible for his government's morally dubious pre-emptives against third parties.

For example, it's commonly argued in a simplistic manner that it's ok to disregard civilian casualties because "they support guy X who's our opponent anyway". This argument not only punishes beliefs and thoughts instead of actions, something dangerous enough in its own right, but it sets the stage for the dismantling of its own self. This happens simply because the argument's application to the one advocating it would be so detrimental, that the only way to make it a feasible one is to resort to double standards regarding it's application. Well, that is the tell-tale sign of a flawed argument.

For example, a guy trying to raise a family of 10 without access to basic amenities like water/electricity/health care in a situation like the Gaza blockade (just the most recent example, you could also put this hypothetical family man in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII just to be objective and not blame the Israelis all the time :grin: ) is considered co-responsible for the actions of militant groups, not because he actively supports their cause but because he takes a neutral stance towards it.

He doesn't want to get involved in active fighting since he's a family man, but he obviously won't take up arms against the only party fighting against the ones that deprive him of the aforementioned basic amenities. In the end this is used as a justification to make him a target, a form of "guilty until proven innocent" collective punishment, which is essentially what the fascist ideologies practiced during WWII with de facto dehumanizing based on racial background and mass reprisals against civilians following resistance operations. Simply put, it's like expecting him to take up arms on the side of what he considers a foreign occupation force. Well, it's obvious it won't happen easily, soon, or at all.

Contrasting this guy with someone more like us, how much of a responsibility do you think we bear in that guy's eyes for his misfortunes? We want to drive our cars no matter how small the distance to travel, so his counrty is invaded to secure our cheap oil. We want our cheap iPods, so workers in China have to work 12-18 hour shifts in electronics assembly plants where even exchaning a "good morning" with your colleague on the next bench in front of the conveyor belt is punishable by losing your job. It costs in productivity when workers talk among themselves, which will raise the price of iPod componets, the price of the iPod itself and then the manufacturers will turn to another component provider, hence no talking allowed (i'm not making this up btw). We are not directly responsible for the workers who jumped to their deaths in that factory plant a few months ago, but it's our force of habbit that creates the chain of events which set certain events in motion.

And while it is utopian to think that our realization of the fact alone will change it and maybe even useless to feel remorse about things outside under our direct control, it's not useless to exercise some critical thinking to expand our "horizons of empathy" outside our direct surroundings and act accordignly in a mitigating fashion. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to accuse a man as an accomplice just because he doesn't arrest the criminals himself while he has problems more immediate to his survival to contend with, like lack of access to running water, while at the same time i'm comfortably crusing around in my car and listening to my MP3s.
I'm not exactly starving to death or dying of thirst like, you know, he is, i'm just upset i'll have to walk an extra 10 miles this month and i'm going to run a shorter playlist on my MP3 player because the prices of SDRAM and gas have gone up and when i think of it, it makes me feel like a spoiled brat with an entitlement complex. Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective.

I took a brief look at the pdfs linked a few pages back about British COIN methods and there was a very important bit there, make the locals see and realize that you are operating within the law, not above it, if you want them to accept it as law.
That's why i'm all for maintaining a sense of morality in the current worldwide happenings and conflicts. If we advocate unconditional co-responsibility and collective punishment, we set ourselves up for receiving the same. The only thing that changes is the weapon delivery, but dead non-combatants of any national heritage and religion don't really care if they got hit by a suicide bomber in a cafe or a laser guided bomb dropped from 20000 feet, they would just prefer if it hadn't happened at all.

This is getting a bit too philosophical at this stage and it's also somewhat straining for me, as i'm typing much more than is needed to convey the point, just in order to make sure i don't leave any gray areas that could be misunderstood as bias towards either one.

I'll just say i enjoyed this good natured debate immensely and i'll rest my case while on a good note, before i accidentally slip up and get caught in a mud flinging contest, like so often happens to all of us when touchy subjects are discussed through the written medium alone. Cheers to everyone involved :grin:

Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again.

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

Nuclear and wind power costs next to nothing - after you spend $£€billions on building the plant... Oil isn't running out. There's enough to last for centuries in places like the Athabasca tar sands; it just costs about $100/barrel to refine it. What is running out is oil that costs $10/barrel :-P

Hitler didn't respect anyone's sovereignty - he was prepared to kill millions of eastern Europeans to ensure the 'survival of the German race'; I don't think international law was pressing strongly on his mind. Because he feared France, he attacked them before they could rearm (or receive American aid) and be stronger than Germany.

In his paranoid crazy mind, there was an International Jewish-Bolshevik-Liberal Conspiracy with Roosevelt at its head, operating in Washington, London and Paris, that would ensure that Germany would never become as prosperous as the United States. If Germany was to become powerful, it would become a threat to the British Empire and to the USA, and they would act to suppress Germany either economically or militarily. So, it was necessary for Germany to expand eastwards, driving out the 'racially inferior' indigenous people as had happened in the Americas and Australia, to create a greater Germany that could match up to the USA and to the British Empire - that was Hitler's thinking. He had to act to contain the threat he perceived from the USA, Britain, and France.

He deliberately started a world war in 1939, because that was the point when Germany had the greatest advantage over the Western allies in the rearmament race. He had to act before France received much American aid. Germany was expecting to fight World War 1.5 in France, and cut all the rearmament programmes in 1939 in order to use all their scarce resources to produce the vast amount of ammunition needed for trench warfare. The speed which France fell was a huge surprise to everyone, especially the German leaders. It wasn't anything to do with 'Blitzkreig', Stukas or Panzers - that was a propaganda lie that suited both sides to believe. The defeat of France was classic Napoleonic concentration-of-force. The Allied battle line formed, the Germans feinted an attack at the north end. The Allies dutifully moved the bulk of the centre of the line to the north, to reinforce, and a massed force of the German army moved through the 'impassable' Ardennes to overwhelm the Allied centre and encircle the bulk of the Allied forces at the north of their lines. It only worked because the Germans advanced only a short way to do this, 100km or so, and didn't overstretch their horse-drawn supply lines. But the result was that Hitler believed that the Werhmarcht were invincible and could easily defeat the Red Army in a short campaign. And that France would drain coal, oil and animal feed from the German economy in exchange for very little usable war material for the rest of the war :-D

Hitler was never able to invade Britain. In his mind, there was an inevitable air war with Britain and the USA which he had to prepare for. He thought he had to take out the USSR, before the USA could get its rearmament programme into gear, to get the oilfields of Romania and the grain of the Ukraine (incidentally, deliberately starving to death the 30 million civilians in Leningrad and Moscow who relied on Ukrainian grain), to sustain the German economy for war with the USA.

In short, WW2 began because Hitler was a racist ****head who thought he could build his own USA or British Empire between the Rhine and the Urals, wiping out the 'racially inferior' people who thought they had a right to live there. He thought that if he didn't, Germany would forever end up as a second-rate sweatshop on the periphery of the USA's economy and suffer 'race death', whatever that means. He perceived that the democracies would prevent him doing this, so he acted in 1939 because he thought that was his best or only chance of success. He did fear the democracies, which is exactly why he attacked them - to eliminate them - and attacked his neighbours - to take their resources, to defeat the democracies.

Incidentally, his plan to defeat Britain - such as it was - wasn't to invade. I think Operation Sealion was more for propaganda purposes than anything else, more pressure on Britain to seek peace. With 80 Royal Navy destroyers defending the British coast, the German surface navy all sunk by Norway, and the ineffectiveness of the Luftwaffe against RAF-defended ships, there was no way to bring an invasion force to Britain. The plan to defeat Britain was to conquer enough of Russia and Eastern Europe to have the resources to defeat the RAF and eventually the USAAF and make the defeat of Germany by the Allies impossible, therefore bringing peace.

edit - I don't know much at all about the Pacific side of things!

Blackdog just posted a very well thought and argued piece on what we defend. I would just like to ad my 2 pennies as it were:

People will fight (or seek radicalism, it fairly much boil down to the same thing) when they have more to gain by fighting than they stand to loose by fighting. This is why radicalism find fertile ground among the poor. They have very little to loose, and while the radical ideas may not offer them much, they offer more than they perceive themselves risking.

By threatening poor people with with "armed response" or some vague threats like "those who are not my friend is my enemy", you effectively signal that what little they have may not be secure. As unsecured property has less value than secure property, you effectively lower the value of their current life. In effect you lower their barrier to embrace any radical notion that promises to help them in their struggle to protect whet little they have.

Threatening peoples homes, livelihood and social structure really only works if people have something to loose. Thus, if you level the same threats at e.g my country (Norway), it will be much more effective. Threaten poor Afghanis, who own a goat and a robe and an AK-47, and they find they are better of fighting.

The other half of the equation, the carrots, do work exceptionally well with poor people. However, in the Neo-Con world, carrots are not commonly handed out. This is the reverse condition from the post-war period, where the US did not throw threats around to the same degree, but was rather round handed with their Marshal-help program. All through the 50ies and 60ies, the Western European population remained thankful allies of the US, much to the economic and political benefit of the Americans. The governments still remained US allies through the century.

With the "stick without carrot" politics of the Busc Jr. era, support for the US in the general population in Western Europe fell to the degree that governments had to follow suit. Many nations refused to back the Iraqi war, and in my native Norway (which used to be among the most pro-US states in WE) the relationship has now deteriorated to the point were the government actively promote things like ban on land mines and cluster ammunition and has initiated a de fact boycott of Israel. Now, Western nations have a lot to loose, and they still did not take kindly to the new American "all stick" foreign policy. What do you think that same policy do to 3rd world nations?

If you want to stop people from embracing radicalism and and shy away from attacking the US, you need to give them something to loose. Taknig away what little they have and then threaten to bomb their goats to Kingdom Come is not going to cut it.

The Allies suffered about 50K casualties on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers 100K. Civilians 100K.

Now extrapolate that to an invasion of the mainland.

Japan didn't have the means to fight on Okinawa either, but they did, sometimes with sticks. Of course, in that number of civilian casualties is the large number of suicides.

The last A-bomb fell on the 9th, they surrendered on the 15th....but they were ready to surrender :rolleyes:. The only thing that saved them was an Emperor who finally made a decision despite a cabinet that was still split after the second bomb.

Splitter

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

Incidentally, a significant proportion of the civilian 'suicides' on Okinawa were actually murders, carried out on military orders by the Japanese forces, on a population they considered 'inferior', and possibly untrustworthy. This would have been unlikely to occur on the mainland, even if they had been in a position to continue fighting. Not that they were...

This pretty much sums up everything that happened in this thread very well. It's always surprising to see people state questionable things as if they were facts. Like that guy a few posts above that seemingly knows perfectly what Hitler was or wanted. This is ridiculous because it's history and much of it is clouded, misty and no one really knows everything. On top of that history was twisted and tweaked on many occasions.
There have been war crimes on any side and even before 2nd World War ethnical cleansing was common. Especially the USA is a good example for that when it comes to literally eradicating native life completely.

But the point really is that no one really knows what would have happend if the bombs didn't fall. Not to mention that no one knows what would've happened if Hitler actually used them. Same for the V1 or the jet engine fighters etc. - so much technological advance came through the war, even blood infusions and stuff like rubber! We can only accept these little "facts" we know of. The second world war shouldn't be turned into fantasy.




So I really, strongly, wonder if these bombs could even bring anything of value to the game.
They are far to powerful and are actually rendering the game itself useless. Air combat isn't about mass destruction of civillian life, heck, no game should be about it. That is like making a game about rape of women - it's a crime and shouldn't be the selling point of any game out there.

To me, air combat always was the cleanest side of the war. But the very same thing Hitler was despised for, taking innocent lives over his cause, happened in these days of the first RAF bombing runs or the two atomic bombs etc.
If the bombs really do get added people will mod them. You can imagine the scenarios people will come up with for such a weapon, can't you? I'm unsure if the game should allow such mass destruction. There was and is absolutely NO reasonable target for the use of such bombs. And remembering 9/11 makes clear that it doesn't even take an atomic bomb to turn a whole country into hell - I don't think these weapons do belong into the realm of modern developed society as they are a weapon of inferiority and cruelty and not a weapon of reason and logic.

The war cabinet

It IS entirely true whether you choose to believe it or not. See Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. The Japanese fought to the last man in virtually every engagement, regardless of the odds, which was shocking and intimidating to the U.S. troops.

It was the fierce defense of Okinawa that convinced army planners that an invasion would be too costly.

There's no argument to be had.


As a matter of fact it is "recognized". The DSM-IV-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is published by* the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) describes this dissociative disorder as "states of disassociation" that occur in individuals that have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion and occurs largely in the setting of political reform....)


Iran attacked Iraqi machine gun nests armed with BOOKS in the Iran/Irag War. The will to fight on "means" everything. Brainwashed individuals/groups are the biggest threat to human society and must be stopped by any means necessary if they choose to advance.

For the record, I am of course against all nuclear war and do see your point. You're just not understanding history/facts/reality. I was bored and thought I'd help you.


Oh yeah, Im against the bomb in game too....

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

But I guess we are not giving enough. We are still evil and tantamount to Nazis in the eyes of many in the world. I mean, Bono says we're not giving enough so it must be true.

Let me also ask;
Do you think Iran is seeking nuclear power simply to supply their own energy needs?
Do you think Iran will use their nuclear capability to develop weapons?
Once they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they will use them to threaten their neighbors or the world's oil supply?
Do you think they would make good on their threats to bomb Tel-Aviv?
Does it appear sanction are working?

Or is Iran just misunderstood? Is their leadership just striving for world peace?

Iran is now a nuclear power. The short estimate is that it would take about three months to develop weapons. It is highly likely that Israel will "de-nuke" Iran some time before the end of this year.

The US will not back Israel, our present leader is no friend of Israel (that should make some of you rejoice). Russia and China will seek to condemn Israel, but the US will still block any serious repercussions with it's veto power in the Security Council.

Or does Israel need to wait to be bombed and retaliate? Maybe they should just wait until it is confirmed that Iran has nuclear weapons?

Maybe Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want....do you think that would solve the problem?

I wonder if the Israelis realize that they have been abandoned.....again. So much for "never again" lol.

Splitter

I don't have access to DSM-IV-TR, and nor do I have the training to use it to make diagnoses. I'd draw your attention to this (from Wikipedia, but apparently paraphrasing DSM-IV-TR):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...ntal_Disorders

"the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause". Or to put it another way, it isn't any use for ascribing the mental state of the Japanese population in the latter stages of WW2.

Can I ask, if you have access to DSM-IV-TR, to let us know if it actually uses the term 'brainwashing' at all?

Splitter, that is a truly repulsive analogy. If you can't distinguish between the Holocaust and opposition to Israeli belligerence, I pity you...

Um, no you haven't Nostradamus, but you have shown why it isn't applicable in your own mind:


To mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.

There is no comparison between the bombing of cities, and Hitler's genocide.

"The defeats of 1944 had cost the Germans 1.8 million men killed. In the first five months of 1945, whilst Speer was encouraging his Fuehrer to one last show of resistance, 1.4 million German soldiers met their deaths, 450,000 in January alone. Nor does this include the tens of thousands of civilians who fell victim to Allied bombing. To describe the destruction of Germany in 1945 in the language of the Holocaust is both obscene and inaccurate. This was a war, not a massacre of the innocents. It may have felt like a slaughter to those on the receiving end, but this was an effect of the means used, not the ends intended. The Western Allies broke no law of war that had not been breached by the Wehrmacht a hundred times over. The Red Army behaved barbarically in the territories it occupied, but the Soviets did not perpetrate a genocide. Nazi Germany had challenged three of the greatest industrial powers on earth. It had taken them five long years to bring their industrial might fully to bear. But now their war machines were fully assembled and in the first five months of 1945 they cut their way into the territory of Germany with truly horrendous effects. The Allies waged war with a volume of firepower unlike that ever used in any previous conflict. The results were nightmarish and would have been even worse but for the fact that the policy of 'Germany first' meant that the Nazi regime was destroyed before the atomic bomb was ready for use."

That is an extract from "The Wages of Destruction - the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze, who's an economic history lecturer at Cambridge (, England). The comments I made in my last post, about Hitler's motives, are also based on this book.

The late-war destruction of their cities came because the German government wouldn't surrender when it was hopeless, preferring to keep fighting almost to the last man, putting as high a human cost on the nations they'd attacked as possible in the hope of getting a better position at the negotiating table. The Allies needed to get Germany to surrender as soon as possible, because every day of war had a huge cost in Allied lives, and bombing the cities was a legitimate if tragic way to try to force a surrender. (This is true of Germany; I don't know about Japan, or their negotiations with the USSR.) There is no comparison with the German policy of enslaving the populations of the territories they conquered and then working and starving them to death or gassing them in concentration camps.

Sorry, I forgot the page number. Yes I do/Yes it does


P. 532:
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR.
By American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association

Probably because the only known treatment is the barrel of a gun. Its the perfect way to describe the Japanese population in the latter stages of WW2

Or to put it another way,

You have no clue what you're talking/spewing/ranting about....at all. You're literally just making random stuff up.

I can't access DSM-IV-TR without a journal subscription, apparently. If the term is in use in clinical diagnosis, it doesn't show up very quickly in a Google search. In looking, I did come across this:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a.../Brainwash.jpg
From Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control by Kathleen Turner. Oxford Universiy Press, 2004 (p.6).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H...washing&f=true

Hardly a clinical term in this context...

Did you seriously just quote Wikipedia to try and prove your point? Seriously, Wikipedia????

Do you hold any qualifications which enable you to make diagnoses of medical conditions?

As for who is 'spewing/ranting', I'd suggest that is a matter of opinion. And what exactly have I 'made up'? Can you provide any evidence of this, or is this you ranting?

By and large, this discussion has been conducted in civil terms, if not always with entirely cordial intent. Katdogfizzow's last comment seems well beyond this.

What I meant was that they are being abandoned to enemies that wish to eradicate them, which is exactly what is happening. Again.

Of course, I think most Israelis would liken a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv as an attempt at genocide so your analogy holds true too.

Unless of course there really is no threat to Israel and this is all just US propaganda.....

Splitter

As I've pointed out, I don't have access to the original document. Wikipedia purports to be paraphrasing the document. Obviously Wikipedia needs to be used with caution, but given the quality of the article, it seems better than nothing. I'm fairly sure the American Psychiatric Association doesn't approve of the use of diagnostic terms in the context of a historical debate about the mental state of an entire population.

If anyone does have access to DSM-IV-TR, can they provide the context in which the term 'brainwashing' is used - a page number tells us nothing.

Splitter, your last post makes no sense. I made no analogy. You did.

BTW, Would Iranians consider a mushroom cloud over Tehran 'an attempt at genocide'? By your logic, it would seem that nuclear weapons are weapons of genocidal intent by definition. In which case, I'd have to ask why the Israelis introduced them into the middle east.

My google-fu is strong today lol. Just to clear it up:

"Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified*
...
3. States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive)."

Quick note: A certain religion apparently argued to have the term "brainwashing" removed from the DSM IV because it was associated with the word "cult". That implies it had it's own category in the DSM III. Now it is referred to, but not mentioned specifically (which makes no sense).

Splitter

You literally made this up:

The word 'cult' is referred to, or the religion? Is this the religion that the underbelly of the Internet goes on anonymous mass protests about? Or is it the University of Chicago's economics department - I hear they could be regarded as a cult... :-P

right, I really should be in bed, judging by that last paragraph.;..

To the first part....you saw an analogy that was not being made so it now belongs to you :).

Israel has nukes because their neighbors hate them, have attacked them multiple times, and many routinely speak of wiping them off the face of the earth. They have been attacked many times, but have never used nuclear weapons which they possess. I would say that speaks to their restraint and a mushroom cloud over Tehran is not going to happen unless it is a retaliatory strike.

C'mon, you know this. If Israel was going to use nukes offensively they would have done so by now. It doesn't fit your arguments, but you know it to be true (at least I hope you do).

Splitter

I think you've quoted the wrong posting from me, Splitter (in post #160). Thanks for finding the 'brainwashing' reference in the DSM though, it clears that up anyway. Katdogfizzow's claim that brainwashing is "recognised" by the American Psychiatric Association doesn't bear up. It is an undefined phrase used once in passing, not a diagnostic term at all.

Katdogfizzow, you suggest I made this up:
Prove it. I've shown that the term isn't 'recognised' in the context you alleged it was - just used once, undefined, in passing. I've given a reference to it's cold-war origins. What other evidence do you need?

A life is a life. A German, Japanese or whatever isn't worth less than an American or French. For that matter a Jew obviously isn't worth less either. Being German myself I have a ton of friends in France, America and other countries. I see them as equal and they see me as equal as well. People who don't are dangerous and of the very same mindset Hitler himself had (amongst a TON of other people, historical as well as recent).

The book you quoted is, to say it nicely, worthless. First of all Adam Tooze, being a brit, certainly is highly motivated to stay neutral, right?
Further there is no excuse to counter something cruel with something even more cruel. That'd be like if the native americans now literally blow up the whole US to get their revenge. You will probably agree that this is not how intelligent humans should act. Also it just creates more pain and thus gives birth to terror (something the brits also adopted and developed during the 2nd world war, read up on it if you like).

This also reminds me of the killing of tons of stingrays by fans of "crocodile hunter" Steve Irvin. Even if something tragic happens this isn't your free ticket to cause even more tragedy to "seemingly" solve the problem.
No one really knows what's best. Not for the world, not for humankind, not for himself even. I am VERY sure of that.
We don't know if it would've been better for the Germans to never exist, for the now Americans to never travel to their continent and killing every native they could find, we don't know if it was a good idea to re-establish Isreal in the middle of an islam part of the world etc. We don't even know if it's good for humans to exist in the first place, given what they've done to the earth.

Also, why you make it your policy to judge Germany over what happened to the jews in an airplane simulator to me is a mystery and I can only assume you have reasons that are beyond logic.
Would you make the same statements if Hitler would've embraced the jews and integrated them into the army? Most of them would've fought for him as well. There have been many jews in the military, even in leading positions! What if it would have been "just a plain war"?
Killing innocents is always a crime and it is NOT excusable at all. That's implied by the term "innocent" alone. Babies, children, women, elderly people, people that are in resistance groups or just "bearing with it" while not believing into some goals... you really must have an easy life if you can judge everyone that easily and only see the numbers. Yes, killing the jews was a bad thing and quelling political opposition as well. But if you look at modern scenarios or even the cold war and all that angst the americans had... it's scary, yes, humans are scary, but I see parallels and we all have fear within us sometimes. This is not an excuse for cruelties against civilians and innocents though. You can't kill countless innocent people just to bring down a single person you may dislike, even if s/he's a criminal!

And speaking of numbers, as an economist (oh yeah, we know that these guys really do know their stuff right? :rolleyes:) you only see the numbers. But numbers aren't everything. Nature never thought of numbers but if you'd be strict and apply numerical logic it'd mean we are WAY too many humans anyways. Imagine 7 billion people living the modern lives we live, it's just not possible. But what solution is there? Dangerous mindset right there...
So let's not just see the numbers - instead let's only see this as a simulation game and be responsible of what can be done with it and what shouldn't be done with it.

Personally I see no benefit in missions that have the aim to slaughter many thousands of civillians and cripple them for genererations, eventually even for eternity unless their families genes get repaired by science in the future somehow.



This said I'm sure this whole topic is useless. People shouldn't argue about the freaking war anymore (unless you're like 90 years old). It's history.

Atomic weaponry is stupid and unnecessary. It polutes the world, kills everything but the target (unless your target are civillians which makes you not better than Hitler) and could in fact destroy the world. The same goes for biological weapons and chemical weapons. How anyone sane can find excuses for using these is a mystery to me and in fact reminds me of someone who's name started with H who also found a number of excuses for a witchhunt on a "race" he disliked.

To me there are no races, only animals. We are not better than a whale or a snail or a jew, colored people, white people or whatever. The war sure was different but that is no excuse for brainwashing the new generations and justifying something as atomic, biological and chemical weapons.



In the end it's all up to the devs anyways. I'm just saying that embedding a weapon like an atomic bomb should be a decision the developers should really think about VERY carefully.
Not only will it cause a huge media uprise, no, it'll turn the game into something despicable. What's next to the use of atomic weapons? Gas? chemical bombs? Biological warfare? I don't like it.
And if you're really willing to kill off a whole civilian city just to win a war I suggest you visit a doctor as soon as possible. If all the global leaders of today had that mindset, given our modern weapon technology we, the whole earths population, would be gone in less than a month.

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

There is a lot of revisionists and apologists around concerning the motives of the allied bombing campaign. It makes it more comfortable when we look back at WWII if we can pretend it was a tactical military bombing campaign that just happened to go on for 5 years.

The allied leaders at the time had no illusions as to what its purpose was, first and foremost destroy the moral of the German people. They felt it was justified at the time, but changed their mind later in the war. This is Winston on the topic:

If you're a criminal of the same level as the attacker you crush his/her skull. If you're a sane person you just get them arrested.
If you kill the attacker his family might crush your skull which then provokes your family to crush one of theirs etcetera. I think this is a silly act as best and sometimes people need to control their actions if they don't want to lower themselves.

Ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative? Interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

What you're proposing leads to the extinction of mankind and probably the annihilation of earth.

Double tap or Mozambique depending on their physical constitution :)

True answer is you render them incapable of attacking you again.

....which is why the Allies did not accept the conditions for surrender proposed by Japan. They were going to be occupied and they were going to give up the land they had taken. Nothing less and rightly so.

Splitter

Very true, Galway. And I am sure you would agree that the Axis powers did the same. I think Germany actually went after civilians first in the BoB to demoralize the Brits.

Splitter

You must not be from the south side of town. Dont worry about it and go have some ice cream. Hugs and kisses, I think your new name should be cuddlefish. Just kidding dont get all upset.

Not cool. There is no sportsmanship in dropping a nuclear bomb.:evil:

Not so much in BoB as Hitler was convinced England would not want another 5 years of war so soon after WWI and would make peace.

Definitely the Germans in the SCW, Poland, Belgium Holland and France before the BoB had shown no qualms about bombing and strafing civilians though mainly for short or medium term tactical advantage.

Ironically the German's never really planned for strategic 'terror' bombing and had no real aircraft suitable for it early in the war. Nazi terror campaigns seemed to feature a lot more hangings and concentration camps than bombings.

Whilst this failure to plan is often cited as a reason for failure of the "blitz" history has shown time and again that "shock and awe" style campaigns, whilst giving the side attacking a warm fuzzy glow, tend to stiffen rather then weaken resistance. Even with 4 engined bombers and longer range fighters it seems unlikely the "blitz" would have forced Britain to capitulate.


Note Churchill however was a proponent of long range bombing of Germany right from the start of hostilities.

Considering that the only known "manual" in "brainwashing" (Brain-Washing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics) was written by L.R. Hubbard (who tried to pass it off as a summary of something written by Beria, the the then head of KGB), I'd say the word refers to Hubbard's little group.

About the book and some interesting thoughs on "brainwashing":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

One of the aggressors, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was Egypt. I guess we are still paying for that peace.

Also, Israel DOES do much of our dirty work. They took out Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980 I believe. They sat and took SCUD missile attacks in the early 90's and did not retaliate at our request.

When the time comes to take out Iran's nuclear power attempt, it will not be US planes. It should be, but it won't because we do not have the backbone for it. We will publicly give a lukewarm condemnation, but behind the scenes we will be happy that it was done.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

BTW, it appear that the next thing the Iranians want from Russia is anti-aircraft missiles.

Galway, it is my understanding that the Germans shifted their bombing focus in the BoB from military to civilian targets in the hope that doing so would weaken the will of the Brits. When that didn't work, for the reasons you spelled out and the backbone of the British people, they then set about developing the V2 and V1. These were to be "terror" weapons.

Splitter

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

Are you kidding me, I would hate to have you in a fox hole next me crying this is not fair or stop i need a time out. War has nothing to do with sports. LMAO :-)

I would suspect that a terrorist type attack is more likely than a missile attack. Get one into the country secretly and set it off.

Or, also likely, a dirty bomb of some sort. Such destructive power would be very dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands, like Hamas. Since the Iranian regime supports anyone who opposes Israel, it is quite possible that they would try to employ such weapons through a third party.

If there is another theory I would like to hear it :).

EDIT: I guess the hope would be that any effective attack would set the Middle East aflame and lead other countries to join in wiping out Israel. That probably would not happen, rhetoric aside.

Splitter

It's something in between.

I don't have time now, I need cigs and groceries, but I'll see what I can dig up tonight, documents and stuff.

;)

I am glad we got that squared away, then. The reason I brought this up is that in common English, giving military support to a well off nation is not considered "foreign aid", rather "military alliance". Claiming the US is a major foreign aid contributer is only possibly by redefining military alliances to go under the heading of aid. Also, if you consider the size of the American economy, the US is actually a minor contributor (13 million against a GDP of 14,256 billion, while e.g. Norway contribute 1,8 billion against a GDP of 383 billion). The myth of the US as a major contributor is just that, a myth. The US is a sovereign nation and can spend their money as they see fit, but I do object to the obvious newspeak to cower the fact that their politics is mostly stick and very little carrot.

The next myth I'd like to point out is the notion of Israel as some kind of underdog under threat from their neighbours. Even a cursory glance at the development of the Israeli map shows otherwise. Note that the US only became a close alley after the 1967 war, so all previous expansion Israel managed perfectly well on their own. The idea of all other Middle Eastern nations being ready to attack Israel is also false. In reality the only outspoken enemies of Israel are Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestineans. As noted, the remaining are mostly rhetoric, particularly considering all other Middle Eastern states are to some degree allies of the US. Just to top it off, Israel have nuclear arms, making any nation-against-nation war unthinkable. In reality, Israel is top dog in the area, free to attack and bomb neighbouring states with impunity.

I a not surprised. The few Jews I have met (Israeli and non-Israeli) are not to pleased with the "speciel US/Israeli friendship". In their estimate, the dynamic of the alliance stops bout Israel from dealing with certain serious internal political issues and stops bout states from having a meaningful relationship with Israels imediate neigbours.

Yes Petter, its strange how the majority of US citizens are taken in by the media perpetuated fantasy that they are somehow the 'kindest people on Earth' *TM*, nowhere near in fact. as you point out proportionally the Scandinavian countries are by far the biggest givers. I'm pleased to say the UK is not too far behind. The US relative to their massive wealth are in fact extremely tight fisted. Over to you, President Jimmy Carter;

"when I travel in a foreign country, particularly Africa, my wife and I have been in 110 different countries, our nation is not looked upon as a champion of peace and as the most generous country on earth. In fact, we are the stingiest country on earth. Every time a Norwegian gives a dollar in foreign assistance for needy people, we give three cents."

Never mind, way OT, carry on. :grin:

I was waiting for someone to bring "Smiley" into the discussion lol. Carter was a disaster as president and nearly as detrimental in his post presidential life. I WILL give him the fact that he has an organization that does a wonderful job building affordable housing (I've even volunteered for that and I think the man is an embarrassment).

We have a group here in American that we call the "Blame America First" brigade. Some of you would love them :). Carter is pretty close to the top of that list. He did more to harm the US in his four years both economically and mentally than any president in history.

There is a reason the Iranians held onto the hostages for 444 days but then magically decided to release them as soon as Carter was out and Ronald "the bombing will begin in 15 minutes" Reagan took over.

Even the Democrats cringe when they talk about him. Don't expect to be seeing him on any currency any time soon ;).

BTW, I too wish we would do away with our foreign aid programs. Even the recipients have no loyalty and, as you all have pointed out, it will never be enough to change the impression of the US in some parts of the world. We are beyond broke anyway.

I am sorry, guys, but you have the wrong impression of the American media. We have three major television networks, all are left of center and part of the blame American first brigade. Of the cable networks, two are extreme left wing. The two you probably see are CNN and FOX...CNN is about as far left as FOX is right. Of the remaining newspapers, probably 9 of 10 are leftist. The left in this country is not "pro USA" and the leftist media outlets far outnumber the right.

If any indoctrination is going on with our youth, it is through our schools and media....all dominated by the left and for the most part agreeing with you.

And this goes back to pre-WWII mentalities. "It's not our war" as a mantra.

Splitter

'Leftist' in comparison to what? How exactly was this astonishing revelation arrived at? Or is it just the opinion of someone on the right...:roll:

I notice you criticise Carter (an easy target), but don't actually answer the point raised about US foreign aid. Then again, you seem to do this with any objection to your comments.

LOL ... reminds of my time on a Student Union back in the 70's when two factions were fighting over control of the national body and got to the point of fire bombing each others cars and houses :(

The two factions fighting it out ? ... the Maoists and the Leninists :D
I was regarded as fairly centre/right being an anarchist at the time.

With a few exceptions like the KKK and the odd crackpot Christian blowing up abortion clinics, American politics tends to cluster around the middle.

Time out. I think I have answered just about everything. My post was about the fact that we should cut out foreign aid and anything that comes out of Carter's mouth should be taken with a grain of salt. Given his history as an abject failure, it's probably a good idea to no take anything he says seriously.

You make me repeat myself: we should cut off foreign aid because it gains us nothing....and we are too broke to afford such charity. After all, it's either a political tool (failure) or charity (which is unappreciated).

Now answer my questions from post 147 :). They were mainly directed at you and you didn't answer. Of course, as you will probably tell me, you are under no obligation to answer....

Splitter

Well if the left is totalitarian and the right is anarchy with democracy smack in the middle, our country was founded right of center (republic). However, the movement currently is toward socialism which is obviously about that same distance left of center.

It's true that we have few communists/Nazis and fewer still anarchists. Our politics generally go from socialist on the left to "constitutionalist" on the right.

We swung about as far left as we have ever been thanks to Bush's second term and are pretty far down the road to socialism. Now the rubberband is snapping back and our legislative body will probably be right of center after November. Obama's approval ratings are in the Bush second term range so chances are he is a one term president....just like Carter.

BTW....people need to stop calling Nazi's "right wing". They hang out on the extreme left with the communists. The extreme right is reserved for anarchists with no government involvement.

(So how were you slightly right of center as an anarchist? lol. Cool anecdote)

Splitter

I don't. Still, I'll let that pass for now, and deal with your post 147. I assume these are the questions you refer too - everything else in that post looks like an assertion dressed up as a question:

Let's deal with them one at a time:
No. I think they are doing it mostly as an act of defiance.

Possibly. Though if the objective is deterrence, they don't need to develop such weapons, merely arouse reasonable doubt that they might have.

This is a leading question. Let's rephrase it: "If they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they would..."
Which neighbours? What sort of threat? In any case, 'the world's oil supply' isn't confined to the middle east, and one assumes that such threats would be reciprocated.

Another leading question. I've seen no evidence that any such threat was ever made.

Not particularly. Given all the uncertainties above, and the abject failure of the US to address the fundamental problems that lead to the situation in the first place, I don't see any alternative. Do you?

If your solution is 'bomb Iran' (or get your Israeli puppet state to do it for you), then the Iranian's supposed objective of acquiring a nuclear deterrent seems entirely logical under the circumstances.

An outright lie. Worthy of Joseph Goebbels himself. Learn a little history...

At the time I was inclined to Libertarian Socialism not Anarcho-Capitalism. The first is definitively left wing and the second clearly right wing.

As for the NSDAP, they claimed to draw on both the right and left but are in reality clearly right wing rejecting liberalism and Marxism with strong support at the time by the traditional supporters of the far right (the military, big business, the established church).

The fact that both the right and left at that point in time tended towards totalitarian states does not mean they share the same political ideology. That would be like saying fanatical Christians and Muslims are identical because they both tend towards fundamentalism.

Wow!!! you are beyond hope if you believe that. You are a product of the sixties, to many drugs and not enough hugs?:eek:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene"

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

He calls their new long range bomber "The ambassador of death".

On the holocaust: "If this event happened, where did it happen? The 'where' is the main question, and it was not in Palestine."

“We will witness dismantling of the corrupt regime in a very near future."

"If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation…With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."

How many more examples are needed?

Oh and...even though you probably won't read it, this answers the "liar" allegation better than I could:
http://rationalliberty.com/index.php...ical-spectrum/

Splitter

Ok ... I am totally failing to see how the NSDAP can possibly be seen as left wing. Even modern Neo-nazis are regarded as extreme right.

Unless you redefine "left wing" to mean "everything conservative America disagrees with regardless of actual ideology".

Yes, well, ultimately it comes down to 'truth' being whatever Splitter and Hunden say it is, rather than being based on any objective reality. The rest of the world only exists to confirm their prejudices. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, did I just hear a clock strike thirteen?

While I do not agree with your assertion, let me say this:

I am impressed with your ability to argue your points with your logic. While I may not agree, I find the level of sophistication in your thinking refreshing. Yes, for the most part, Americans need to go outside of their own country for such discourse. Sadly. At one time, we put much thought into "government" but now it is mostly rhetoric that sways opinion.

So then let me say this: You are making the political spectrum too complicated for anyone anywhere except those of us who are "geeks" about this sort of thing.

In basic terms, the further left you go, the more government involvement you seek (social or economic). The further right that one goes, the less government involvement.

"Most" of us agree that the extremes are not desirable. The arguments rest in the middle.

There is also a huge problem with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as those terms have been corrupted over time. As an example, John Kennedy (most around the world know of him I assume) would be a modern day "conservative" even though he is a martyr for the liberals in our country (Democrats).

If we go back in history, those two terms meant far different things than they mean today.

Splitter

This is incorrect.

For example, Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Well said Igo kyu. Given that according to Marx, communism would ultimately result through 'the withering away of the state', Splitter's definition would align him with the US Republican party.

This sort of pseudo-political analysis engaged in to satisfy whatever current need arises might work in the context of an isolated system (North Korea? - and of course Orwell's Airstrip One), but in the wider political discourse it is just untenable.

I would not like to see nuclear bombs in a Sim. The argument for having them is based on 'deterrent'. Yes, they were used in the final stages of WW2 against Japan and the arguments for using them are well established. Japan was guilty of some horrendous war crimes against the civilian population of China in the lead up to WW2 and any moral arguments are thus negated IMO but the use of nuclear weapons does result in catastrophic consequences for civilian populations.

I am Pro Palestinian, I am English Christian not a Muslim extremist. What I want is a poltical settlement that sees Palestine as a free state co-existing with its neighbour Israel. Unfortunately, untill another regional state has a similar detterent I doubt that it will ever happen. The idea that a nuclear empowered Iran poses a threat to the region is a weak one.

Chernobyl is a prime example of a how nuclear fallout affects entire regions - in this case Europe. A nuclear attck on the State of Israel would impact the whole region and I doubt any faction would be party to such an outcome. Nuclear weapons have a purpose - a means to negotiate political settlements rather than to be used. Keeep them in a bunker............not in a PC Sim!

That is an archaic use of the terms. Sorry, I know where you are coming from, but where just not there anymore.

Go back far enough and I am a flaming liberal lol

Today, real conservatism means belief in:

Small government
Low taxes
Strong national defense
Personal rights and responsibilities

(Andy, uh, Marx would have a problem with some of those beliefs lol)

Splitter