Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by Splitter

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter

I don't equate them - except that all have some command responsibility.

I think the point I'm getting at is that it is always tragic. It doesn't matter how or why it happens - except insofar as knowing how or why allows us to prevent it from happening again.

I'd go so far as to say all civilians and all military of all nations bear some responsibility for preventing civilian deaths and war crimes. Of course, the country committing the war crime and the individuals involved bear much more responsibility.

But, if we really want to deal with an event like the Holocaust, we have to realise that it is ot just the Einsatzgruppen, nor Hitler, nor the German people, nor the international Eugenics movement, nor the generations of anti-Semite propagandist, nor patriotist "my country right or wrong" attitudes alone which bear responsibility to face what was done (and prevent it from happening again).

If humans can behave this way to other humans, then it means all of humanity - even those not yet born - must take some of the shame and have courage to be eternally vigilant.

I don't blame the pilot, I think it is tragic that he was ever in such a position or that those people were killed. I'd extend this to a lot of other people.

[WTE_Galway]

There are no just wars and no good guys and bad guys in war. Just poor suckers killing each other because some politician decided they should.

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

The British did it right in WWII. Chamberlain was essential attempt at pacifism (which maybe went on a touch to long) and Churchill represented the flip side of ruthless pragmatic killing at all costs once the pacifism had failed.

In recent history George W Bush got it wrong on two counts.

First he was jumping willy nilly if not gleefully into wars for political personal and ideological reasons and far far to early with little reason or cause. No attempt to explore other options, he was too gun happy and gave the impression he was off on a deer hunt.

But even worse once he committed he was half-hearted about it, pretty much assuming the other side would somehow be awed by his impressive military strutting about and just roll over and play dead while the populace would welcome him and the troops would be home by Xmas

It's like the old street fighter adage "Do not threaten with a knife. You never pull a knife until you have no choice because once knives appear someone is going to get messed up".

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

If the French and British would have stood up to Hitler and lost a few hundred lives, millions of people would have been saved from WW2. Especially after knowing the consequences of a war against the same side 20 years earlier! Who was being rational?

You do remember the First Gulf War and how it was left unfinished? We all knew at the time back in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. The reason we went in the way we did in '03 was by the stab in the back by Turkey and the reduction of the size of our Army under Clinton.

War is hell and every side has its atrocities. The only way to win is to use all available force to break the will of the enemy. There is a huge difference between fire bombing an enemy city, shooting captured soldiers, selling iron ore to the Nazi regime, raping 12 year old girls, doing nothing while watching an ally being invaded, hiding behind neutrality to avoid a just cause, or loading people into boxcars to their deaths.

[Splitter]

Avivmimus, I agree. Nothing more to say except that the sins of the father cannot be visited upon the son. All of us that were "there" when something happened bare some responsibility, good or ill. Those not yet born...no, I can't say that.

Just an example: The German people of the time bare some responsiblity for Hitler. They let him come to power out of desperation. The rest of the world has some culpability for not stopping him before he he became too powerful. Do either of us (you or I) have any responsibility for his actions? Should a present day German feel any shame for his actions or the actions of their forefathers? I say no.

Galway, there are just wars and justified killings. I don't buy that there are no good guys and no bad guys. If your premise is correct, Churchill = Hitler. Roosevelt = Stalin. I don't buy that.

If you go to war to protect people from oppression who cannot protect themselves, is that not justified? I would say that is maybe the best reason to go to war morally. If I knowingly let my neighbor be tortured and killed by some bad guy and never go to their aid, am I not "guilty" in some respect?

If you go to war to protect your country, is that not justified? If you kill someone who seeks to do you harm, is that not justified?

Was Bush right? I seriously don't know. I would not have done what he did....I would have gotten rid of Saddam and let the Iraqis sort if out for themselves. My solution would have probably ended up in a lot of bloodshed amongst the Iraqis. But, are the Iraqis better off today than they were under Saddam? I think most of them say yes. So was the war justified? You decide.

Heck, I don't like the guy, but he might just have been a better person...had a better vision...than me. He believed in the Iraqi people, I didn't. Neither do you. Maybe in the end you and I will be proven right, but so far we are wrong. They actually do seem to be capable of voting for their leaders and defending their fledgling democracy....we'll see though. Old hatreds die hard and the factions DO hate each other.

Perhaps they are just in an artificially induced lull in their hostilities toward one another. If that is the case, when they decide to start killing one another, should we all just stand back and see who wins? Are we then culpable, through our inaction, for all of the killing? If we intervene are we then just postponing the inevitable? These are probably questions the world is going to have to eventually answer.

Since the West probably knew about the concentration camps and the mass murders, were they somehow derelict in their moral duties by not attacking Germany? Is pacifism the only moral way? Or is it sometimes more "right" to go kill people to end their evil?

You are right in that you never bring a knife to a gunfight . You either go into a fight full bore or don't go at all. Of course, if you go full bore there will be plenty of people there to criticize you for "over reacting".

So did this recon pilot somehow overreact in straffing retreating German troops? Did the pilot who landed his plane only to get out and shoot a downed German pilot because his family had been raped and killed by Germans overreact? Where the line is drawn is what is up for discussion....But I really don't think one should not be equated with the other.

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Because there are neither good nor evil guys - all lies in the eye of the beholder.
The good guys are always on your side - the bad boys the other; based on education and religious belief.

See, I don't blame the fundamentalists for fighting for their Kalifate, but I don't bother kicking their ass either.

Conflicts are a part of human history and they always pushed our evolution, pressure makes us achieve certain goals way faster.

Just make sure your side wins.

You do remember the First Gulf War and how it was left unfinished? We all knew at the time back in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. The reason we went in the way we did in '03 was by the stab in the back by Turkey and the reduction of the size of our Army under Clinton.

Sorry, I'll have to wave the bullshit flag.
First, your first Gulf War is the 2nd, the first being Iran(and the US) vs. Iraq.

2nd: There was nothing to clean up. Now, If G.W. said he wants to invade Iraq because he doesn't like Saddams face I could have been fine with that(well, almost).

What the US leave behind is not free country but a weak wannabe-democracy. We'll have to wait another 20 years too see what happens, it could turn out well - but there's another option.
While SH was bitch to his people, at least he had them under control , this control is now lost.
Worst case scenario is: Iran and Iraq could unite.
So, in ~20 years, we could face a fundamentalist super state with nuclear weapon capability which also controls roughly 30% all oil resources on the planet.

Have fun dealing with them.

Galway, there are just wars and justified killings. I don't buy that there are no good guys and no bad guys. If your premise is correct, Churchill = Hitler. Roosevelt = Stalin. I don't buy that.

I do.
They just did what they believed in.

[Splitter]

Hey Swiss,

We are totally off topic now lol. So saying:

In the first Gulf War of which you speak...total brilliance from a strategic point of view at the time. They were fighting each other and NOT anyone else . From a Machiavellian point of view, Ron did great there.

On the second part of your post, yeah, we had clean up to do because we stopped short the first time around. We didn't want to offend the pacifists of the world which, of course, lead to another war.

But your prediction for the future is all too possible. There is a simple answer to the looming threat, but not one anyone wants to actually undertake.

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

but not one anyone wants to actually undertake.

Splitter

Can you imagine they beauty of the setting sun being reflected in a desert made of glas?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Can you imagine they beauty of the setting sun being reflected in a desert made of glas?

Now THAT, my friend, would be an over reaction lol.

I'm sure we could get away with just one JDAM lol.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

Well if you were going to TRY and claim a "just war" exists this century it would have to be the resistance by individuals in Iraq against incredible odds to repel foreign invasion that was illegal and ideologically/religious in motivation.

But personally I do not believe there is any such thing as a "just war". The idea of a "just war" is simply a fiction created by politicians of all sides to con the gullible public.

There are simply wars and your side does all it can to win as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Well if you were going to TRY and claim a "just war" exists this century it would have to be the resistance by individuals in Iraq against incredible odds to repel foreign invasion that was illegal and ideologically/religious in motivation.

But personally I do not believe there is any such thing as a "just war". The idea of a "just war" is simply a fiction created by politicians of all sides to con the gullible public.

There are simply wars and your side does all it can to win as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The only people I see in opposition are funded and supplied by terrorist organizations whose hatred is based on religion. I'm not really seeing any patriotic Iraqi independence movement.

And if our motivation was religious...why are we not trying to convert them Tokemata style?

Is it ideological to think that people prefer democracy over dictatorship?

Hey, I'm not saying we went to war to free the Iraqi people. That was only putting a nice face on the fact that we went in to get Saddam. But in the end, the Iraqi people are now in charge of their own future for the first time in a long time. What they do with it is up to them.

To say there is never a just war is to say that a country should never go to war. That's a hard sell to a country that is being invaded or attacked. So if no wars are just, they must all be unjust, yes? Was the US going to war with Japan unjust? Was Russia going to war with Germany unjust? Was Britain's air defense in the BoB unjust?

I think it is perfectly valid to ask whether an action in a "just" war is "unjust" or not (Dresden for example), but the verdict on the action would not invalidate the "justness" of the war itself.

If countries are never justified in going to war, then an individual is never justified in defending themselves. So is a homeowner who shoots a home-invader guilty of an unjustified homicide?

Splitter