IF AMERICA GOES TO WAR.....THEN GO ALL THE WAY !

In reality true war is the economic destruction of the enemy so that the enemy is no longer capable of opposing you. Destroy the will to fight by starvation and deprivation and victory is assured. Killing is just one aspect of it but it is so brutal that mankind seems to be fixated on it. Future wars may take on a different appearance. Killing amass seems to be innate among humans and I hope it is not our downfall.

I gotta go with you random on this one.

The US Armed forces are not butchers or Nazis.

We are not the bullies previous presidents have used at their whim to deploy and destroy.

E

I am also with randomreturn on this one and I am retired army and combat veteran.

I am a deterrent to be used in defence of my country and our way of life. I am to be used wisely, I am not a pawed in some political agenda. I must be given the support needed to complete my mission but not put in harms way, again because of someones political agenda. Nor ever lose sight that there will be civilian casualties and it is my responsibility to insure that it remains at a minimum. I am expected to comport myself to the highest standards of proper military bearing and respectful of the Geneva convention regardless of the fact that my enemy may not. I am not your pawn. I serve proud and willingly in the defence of my country and our way of life. I am the military.

Sorry, but I'm not a barbarian, and I'm not going to go out and massacre random civilians. We are soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines; we are not butchers, we are not Nazis, we are not murderers.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove differently.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conducted in accordance with the norms of the era. Gripe about it if you like, but the alternative was to either starve the nation to death or invade it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty small potatoes in terms of casualty count compared to a lot of the horrors of WWII, it's just that fission has been mythologized in the intervening decades.

Those bombs dropped saved lives. Estimates for US Casualties for the invasion of the Japanese homeland was upwards of 1-2 million. Japanese casualties were between 8 and 12 million....

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conducted in accordance with the norms of the era. Gripe about it if you like, but the alternative was to either starve the nation to death or invade it.

I am not griping about anything. I just posted a comment that negates your comment that we don't massacre random civilians. Because we actually do if it suits our purposes. Thousands of civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan called collateral damage. And why do people like you always brush something off as that was then this is now?

1. Because I have a hard time feeling guilty about something that happened nearly a quarter century before I was born

2. Our rules and outcomes are different when it comes to civilian casualties these days. Is there still collateral damage? Yes. Is it remotely comparable to wars of the past? No.

3. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings quite frankly did not inflict casualties on the scope of, say, the rape of nanking or the dresden and tokyo bombings. Given that the CEP of a WWII-era bomber was six miles, the standard at the time was that a city simply had to have a military role in order to be considered a valid target (since it's not as though we had precision bombs then).

People need to get over the idea that there is some type of civilized war. It has never existed and never will. War represents a collapse of civilization. Maybe if we grasp this concept, we will be more careful about going to war in the first place. There is nothing romantic or chivalrous about it. It is Hell.

I just posted a comment that negates your comment that we don't massacre random civilians.

The atomic bombs were dropped to force a surrender from the Japanese Empire. It was not done to kill civilians; the cities were military targets. Civilians would have died from their use but using conventional bombs would have killed many more over a longer period of time.

Of course the US massacres civilians. It has done so very often in war as it is a trademark of evil regimes and evil nations. But the atomic bombs were not very good examples.

Polka, You were doing so well...

Of course the US massacres civilians. It has done so very often in war as it is a trademark of evil regimes and evil nations.

Silly statement and you have no idea the lengths the military goes to in order to avoid collateral casualties....no idea.

The military doesn't give enough effort towards that goal. Too many civilians have died unnecessarily in unjust American wars of aggression.

Polka...as one who has actually planned air attacks I can tell you we go to extraordinary lengths to ensure we do not kill civilians...now, maybe you can state your experience in this arena.

I was serious when I stated you were doing well till you got to that statement....

NATO including the US killed civilians when they bombed Libya. I can not state that the US military does not attempt to not bomb civilians but civilians die in bombings very often in modern times even with more advanced technology. It was worse in World War II; the allies were even the first to start bombing civilian areas.

the allies were even the first to start bombing civilian areas

lie

It was not a lie. The UK bombed German civilian areas and this provoked the Germans to begin bombing civilian targets and before that occurred they were only bombing military targets.

Not so

Didn't the Brits only lift their policy of not bombing civilian areas after the Germans bombed Rotterdam?

Didn't the Brits only lift their policy of not bombing civilian areas after the Germans bombed Rotterdam?

Wrong decade, the first mass air bombing of cities was during WW1 with the blimp attacks on England. I'm not sure (a rarity since I love studying warfare) if it is the exact first, but it is the historian acknowledge as the first heavy city raids.

NATO including the US killed civilians when they bombed Libya

If you look at the targets hit, and the areas where civilians where killed, the vast majority were killed within military targets. Less then 10% of the civilians killed were not in military designated areas. And most of the 10% were within 300 yards of a fire position, military building, or military vehicles, and that means they are within fragmentation zones created by even the smallest air delivered weapons used by Nato/US forces. You may want to actually study a bit before making wild claims.

bomb civilians but civilians die in bombings very often in modern times even with more advanced technology.

According to the rules of warfare, both sides are required to remove civilians out of potential conflict zones. But due to the speed and reach of modern warfare, it is practically impossible to implement this. And as a bonus, due to the sensitivity of world opinion, it is a propaganda boon to have civilian casualties to use to demonize the opposing force.

the cities were military targets.

Some would disagree with you, a military forum I moderate for has had a thread going back over 3 years and has reached over 100,000 posts and host some of the most vicious personal attacks.

Of course the US massacres civilians.

Considering that it is counter-productive to have a massacre as it makes the military's job harder, I would like you to prove that the US policy is to approve the killing of civilians. Considering that there were over 1 million personnel deployments in Iraq alone, and less then 200 accused of or convicted of deliberate attacks on civilians.

People need to get over the idea that there is some type of civilized war.

True, it has been a fiction since the days of civalry. But we have implemented rules to keep a bad situation for being worse.

War represents a collapse of civilization.

Not true. If is phase we go through.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conducted in accordance with the norms of the era.

It is amazing how people impose modern views on older situations.

Thanks for the info, G; well written. In the case of the Rotterdam issue, I was discussing British policy regarding use of the RAF during WWII, and how they changed their policy to be more aggressive after the Rotterdam Blitz.

Cheers,

Dresden was bombed as revenge for the bombing of Coventry. Churchill knew that Coventry would be bombed but kept the secret to protect the fact that the allies had the "Enigma Machine" and could read German Codes.

Hitler started WWII with the Blitzkrieg. He cared less if civilians died. In fact in Poland, the more that died the better.

If memory serves, weren't there more civilian causalities in Dresden from the fires than in Japan from the nukes?

This I do not know. The same with the firestorms in Hamburg. The London Blitz was not such a wonderful experience either. If less people died, this cannot be blamed on Hitler.

The A bomb was one decision Truman never regretted. It was believed that it would take at least a quarter million US lives to take the mainland of Japan. The second bomb was delayed to allow Japan to surrender.

I will go back to my premise that there has NEVER been nor will there ever be a "nice" war. Anyone think of one?

I was wrong. Dresden lost around 25,000 dead and Nagasaki lost about 73,000.

Dave, there were many more losses from firebombing of Japanese cities than the nuke attacks...more because the construction was predominantly wood and paper.

I will go back to my premise that there has NEVER been nor will there ever be a "nice" war.

I believe there was one with England involved that just ended after a couple of centuries. They declared war during the War of the Roses or the Hundred Year War, never fought each other, and only recently ended the war. Since I'm going off of memory since I'm at work, I could be wrong on when the war was declared, but I believe that it was during one of those two wars since many countries were declaring war on each other to support their treaties, and a couple countries ended up declaring wars on their own allies due to how many countries were involved and the multiple treaties. I can't remember who the other country was off the top of my head.

Both of those wars were bloody. You might enjoy Tuchman's A Distant Mirror. That is not a criticism, just a suggestion because it is a good read.

Wouldn't that be great?

I think it takes a true patriot to not go to war. We don't need the deaths of Americans on our conscience. When they come back from combat, we have no idea what they went through. I don't think any soldier that has seen combat thinks war is simply the best thing on earth.

E

It;s not

When they come back from combat, we have no idea what they went through.

Actually we do. We have enough war history to know that. And the actual combatants may not think war is fun but those that have no clue think its a sporting event. When we attacked Iraq the country cheered and celebrated.

Unless you have had your boots on the ground you can't know.

Movies, books, stories, none of that can or will it ever explain what one carries around deep within themselves for the rest of their lives. As to the public in general they cheer because they have no idea.

If you have had boots on the ground you will know what I mean.

When we attacked Iraq the country cheered and celebrated.

A whole lot of us neither cheered nor celebrated. We knew this was a monumentally stupid move but the Bush Administration was determined to do it no matter what the consequences would turn out to be.

Nick and Nighthawk...

You are right... I haven't been in combat boots and have no clue what they go through. I can only offer my grattitude and support.

I was one of those that NEVER cheered when our troops invaded. I have never been an advocate for war or combat.

E

I haven't been in combat boots and have no clue what they go through.

I've been in combat boots, but never carried out what I trained to do for 9 years. My knees (I hate getting old...) went out and I was medically discharged 7 months before 9/11 and was refused re-enlistment based on that. But I disagree with #3. Unfortunately, there too many people and leaders in the world who view that as a sign of weakness. And the lack of total commitment in engaging them, either diplomatically as a first resort and military action as a last, is viewed as a go ahead to continue going ahead of what they are doing and planning.

I think it takes a true patriot to not go to war.

A true patriot would use any action, including war, to defend his country and people.

G from Godley: I must diagree with your last line. A true patriot will do what is necessary to defend his country and people even if it means taking a stand against what the individual believes to be an unjust war waged for incorrect reasons. He must also be prepared to take the consequences of that action. This is one of the principles of the Nuremberg Trials. It is not enough to say, "I was following orders." This personal objection becomes very important when wars are not declared but fought by extra-legal means. Patriotism doesn't mean checking your brain and personal morality. To object can be the patriotic choice to defend the country from wrong actions taken perhaps for temporary political advantage. There is a big difference between patriotism and chauvinism.

This is one of the principles of the Nuremberg Trials

Maybe if you're referring to ignoring the "rules" of warfare, genocide, and crimes against humanity (in reference to to medical experiments and use of slave labor.) The only real war charges that stood were the ones in reference to the invasion of Poland, which would of been legal if they had declared war instead of using a staged incident. The vast majority of the charges upheld were not war related, but on actions taken outside combat.

Patriotism doesn't mean checking your brain and personal morality.

The problem is if you use your personal views to cloud your judgement, and defer to personal belief then to actual need. And many of the groups that popped up at the beginning of GW2 were going off of belief. The ones who actually took a few days to think before voicing their opinion have my respect, since I don't agree with the premises to going to war there under what was offered. But war there has been possible since the end of GW1, and Iraq remained a threat to surrounding countries and it's population as shown by actions taken between GW1 and 2. But people tend to forget that.

There is a big difference between patriotism and chauvinism.

Not to be offending, I tend to be blunt, so please don't be offended at my following answer since you were polite in your response. So please take it as it means and not how it comes out.

As there are a difference between patriotism and protesting just because they want to. Those who actually profess their differences with the decision with actual thought, I can respect. Those who flip-flop just because it is convenient, or protest because their politics demand it get no respect from me.

So to me, the Iraq war was just due to the threat the leadership continued to be. The reasons for going to war were unjust as they couldn't be proven. If Bush had put it as a threat to the region, as Saddam continued to push against the sanctions put in place and sanctioned assassination attempts against the elder Bush and officials in the gulf region, supported Hamas and Hezbollah monetarily, and was a ever present threat to a economic necessity to the world economy,

In all wars, those who object are subject to name calling, like "peacenicks" or "cowards" while those in favor of the war are called "war mongers" or " imperialists". This is the nature of the heated atmosphere surrounding a war. It is always difficult to see the opposing view in times of crisis.

People change depending on the crisis involved. My father fought in Divisional Intelligence during WWII from Guadalcanal on. He was very opposed in Viet Nam. The best known critic of that war, Bernard B. Fall (Vietnam Witness, The Two Vietnam) was a recipient of the French Legion of Honor for his service in North Africa during WWII. It should not be assumed that those who protest any war are just following a political fade or that those who support the war are John Wayne wannabes.

This is the nature of the heated atmosphere surrounding a war. It is always difficult to see the opposing view in times of crisis.

Agreed

People change depending on the crisis involved.

If is based on facts, then I agree. But if it isn't, then I couldn't. Right now, things lean more towards rhetoric then to actual thought. My Granddad was already enlisted and stationed in Hawaii at the start to WW2, fought for a year in Korea before being shipped home wounded. He agreed with WW2, Grenada, Panama (since we supported the problem, it was our responsibility to fix it,) and GW 1. He disagreed with Korea, didn't support Vietnam based on it was more of a political war with those in charge using public opinion and politics to fight instead of actual need,) and GW2 based on the reasons and not that it actually was needed. I pretty much am of the same opinion on most except for Korea. As you can infer, we debate it as often as we have time to. As to my dad, he opposes any military action, so I get a view from both sides.

It should not be assumed that those who protest any war are just following a political fade or that those who support the war are John Wayne wannabes.

No, but many of those that are lionized as being "figureheads" of either side use feelings and political beliefs to support their view, and being figureheads, they are the ones who most influence the ones who are undecided or cannot formulate their own opinion. Then we have the chaos in views with many who cannot support their decision screaming the loudest that those of dissenting opinion are *add description.*

I was one of those that NEVER cheered when our troops invaded. I have never been an advocate for war or combat.

Most of the country cheered. Revenge for the WTC and other incidents.

Actually he has a point. The problem is that we are now involved in a "War on Terrorism". What country do we annihilate to address that? We have terrorist in our own country. Does that mean we drop a nuke on Detroit?

That might not have been a good example. There are probably a lot of reasons to nuke Detroit that don't even involve terrorism, but the point is still valid.

The problem is that we are now involved in a "War on Terrorism".

LOL...when has the US not been combating terrorism?

What country do we annihilate to address that?

None - that's why it's ridiculous to call it a war in the first place. It's nothing more then faux-patriotic bull@!$%# propaganda to elicit a response in the public of being proactive.

Santino42

Congratulations!!! I have been saying that for years now. This is as silly as the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs"

Actually he has a point.

Unless the U.S. Congress has declared war on a specific country (not on terrorism), in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, there is no point. The intentional killing of non-combatant civilians by American military forces is murder, and it is a war crime. Period.

we don't intentionally kill non-combatant civilians*. we do intentionally kill combatants who are not members of any state-created military organization (Al Qaeda, for example; also, Taliban). This is done in accordance with congressional language authorizing use of force, and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.

*Collateral damage, proportionality, and policy questions are another discussion.

Random

we don't intentionally kill non-combatant civilians*.

I agree. No agrue from me. But this isn't what Stan Pontus is advocating:

Why would a civilian want the war to end if there is no chance of them or a loved one being hurt or killed.When they don`t wear a uniform. Then anyone there is an enemy. AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH...... !

Anyone would also include unarmed women and children.

Either quit the saber rattling or re-establish the draft with no deferments so every body gets an oppurtunity to witness the reality of war up close and personal, ...

Well said, Luther.