War: How Far Is Too Far?

[Ares]

As of late, it's become aparant once again to the world just how nasty war can become. From the Islamic Extremists beheading all prisoners, to incidents such as Abu Graihab, to the secret CIA prisons, to friendly fire incidents, to suicide and car bombings, we're in the midst of something really nasty.

Throughout history, mankind has made doccuments and treaties such as the Geneva Convetion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention), SALT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks), and START (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I) in an attempt to limit the damage that can be caused by warfare. Now, with the advent of the War on Terror, the rules, both written and unwritten that govern how we wage war seem to be either broken (such as done by the extremists) or "reinterpreted" (by people such as Dubyah).

The point of discussion here is if treaties, doccuments, and international agreements that limit the scope and devistation of warfare still have a place in the types of war that we are beggining to see in the 21st century. Do they still limit war to something more tolerable, or do they hinder the troops that are required to abide by them?

My opinion is that we always need to have a set of ground rules to put on warfare. Even if the other side does not follow them. If we want to see ourselves as "The Good Guys", in any fight, we must hold our standards much higher than anybody else. This means no trialless executions, prisoner abuse, civilian abuse, or leaving wounded to die and dead to rot.

If we start ignoring our own rules of warfare, it gives the enemy every excuse to breach as many as they possibly can, and shows that you're no better than the "evil" enemies you are meant to be fighting.


Thats just my 2 cents on the topic though, tell me yours! :P

[-58]

Intense over-simplification of my opinion:

War is bad.

Unfortunately, due to human nature and aberrations no matter how perfect things get, it is and always be a part of life. Here is a less simplified description of my opinion relating to war:

Wars should be fought for very specific reasons. Defense--if someone invades your country or somesuch, you are perfectly within your rights to wage the war, as long as you don't take it too far (as an example, invading the country of the invader after kicking him out). Defense of another--the Holocaust and World War II is a perfect example. Europe was virtually subdued by the Germans, with America next on the list. Not only were we saving our own hides by joining, but a fair portion of Europe, as well, including a population I hold very dear to my heart (being one), the Jews. Other than those two reasons--unless there is something I'm forgetting--I see no reason to join a conflict; the both of those compensate for the belligerent nature of others without displaying your own.

[Flarty]

everyone breaks the rules in war, wars are bull**** simple as that

[natedgreat3]

don't try and bypass the censor filter. Next time you'll get an infraction.

[Garcian Smith]

In my opinion, the closest we have been to a 'just' war was the Second World War, and while I felt that conflict was not only inevitable but necessary post 9/11, it is very difficult to understand why Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden are still at large 5 years down the road. That is why I am against the Iraq War - not because 'War is Wrong', but because of the complete fabrication the Americans and British made. Afghanistan should have been our primary focus, not Iraq.

[P-Thunder.]

The war in irag realy anoyed me! Mainly becuase when a solider died (US or UK) there was a huge uproar. What did people expect? That they would shoot paintballs at each other. But so manny more iragies died and we hardly hear anything about it.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

[-58]

Mm, Stalin.

[Ares]

The war in irag realy anoyed me! Mainly becuase when a solider died (US or UK) there was a huge uproar. What did people expect? That they would shoot paintballs at each other. But so manny more iragies died and we hardly hear anything about it.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

You also gotta consider that now alot of people are very soft in terms of war. They've been told thousands of times that our army(ies) are unbeatable, that we have these amazing superweapons such as airstrikes that can land bombs within a few feet of the target after falling from 30,000 feet up, and that all of our soldiers go into battle with layers of kevlar and ceramic surrounding them. With these advances, people are distracted from the fact that casualties are inevitable.

Also, more media coverage means more hype over smaller amounts of death and destruction.

[Panther]

What you do in war should be totally dicated by the results from that action. Much of the ****e that's been removed from war has been done so because it's ineffective. You have to remember war is a moral conflict as well, not just physical. If hanging a man by the webbing of his toes and sticking a meathook through his arsehole and tieing him to boiler extracts usable and effective intelligence, then by all means do it. But the point is that works 0.1% of the time. The results are bad for the torturer and the tortured. The fact is the torturer is brutalised and the tortured simply spits out any garbage to stop the pain.

Lastly, 58. Please state your sources when you argue "America was next". Mein Kampf says nothing of Lebensraum in Yankeeland.

[Delphic]

In fact Hilter didn't want to invade Britian either (or least not until after he'd got Russia) just we (I'm British) declared war on him, so he didn't have much of a chocie.

Quoting 58: "you are perfectly within your rights to wage the war, as long as you don't take it too far (as an example, invading the country of the invader after kicking him out)."

But what's to stop them coming back and trying again unless you retaliate in kind?

[-58]

You fortify and defend, Delphic, or you write a peace treaty with them. The phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right" is applicable; if every country that invaded another and got kicked out was invaded, we would be in a rather difficult situation.

Hitler would have taken America. His goal was world domination, no matter what he said in his book; he wanted to institute the 3000 Year Reich, remember? You don't do that with just half the world.

Technically speaking, America's army is the most powerful in the world. It's big, it's well equipped, and it's well-trained, not to mention that we have a fair portion of the rest of the world as allies. Unfortunately, the majority of that technology (the more recent stuff can differ) is geared toward fighting a different kind of war; our guns are made to incapacitate, not kill (.223 is too small a bullet to penetrate most armour, and is very unstable at close ranges, often resulting in the bullet collapsing rather than penetrating anything), our army is trained to fight other armies of similar size--our enemy is not an army, which is our problem. Recent changes in technology and training are certainly helping; teaching soldiers how to better combat our current foe rather than last century's enemy, creating specific devices to help in current situations . . . .

[Flarty]

well ive been told by many British soldiers that the american army is one of the worst trained in the world, and i can see where they are coming from with all the friendly fire incidents you have caused,

and as for Hitler going to war with Britain after trying to invade russia, ill think you will find that Britain and Nazi Germany was already at war, and we informed Stalin of Hitlers plans to attack, but Stalin refused to believe them as he thought it was riduclous to fight a war on 2 fronts like Hitler was intending, So without Stalins armys in posisiton Germany broke through all the way to Stalingrad, but was soon forced out of Russia like little pussy holes when the following winter set in, Russia = Hard Basterds :P

[jackattack502]

War is bad.

Evil Triumphs when good men do nothing

Sometimes, war is necessary to peace, buit its is always better for the top men to sacrifice words and pride before good men.

Then, theres the media

[-58]

War, in any form, is bad. It causes death and maiming and sadness.

I did make provisions in my post for when war is, if not good, at the very best acceptable, one of which would be that nifty quote you shot at me.

[Ares]

our guns are made to incapacitate, not kill (.223 is too small a bullet to penetrate most armour, and is very unstable at close ranges, often resulting in the bullet collapsing rather than penetrating anything) .

The 5.56 NATO (and hopefully Panther will back me up on this if he hops back in the thread), despite the fact that many people have bashed it, is definately deadly enough. Sure, there have been incidents where people have taken 4+ shots to the chest with them, been hunted down, taken to the ER and survived. But, for how many of those instances do you think a guy's taken 4 shots to the chest and fallen to the ground with a red pool expanding beneath him?

well ive been told by many British soldiers that the american army is one of the worst trained in the world, and i can see where they are coming from with all the friendly fire incidents you have caused,


If anything, there are now LESS friendly fire incidents. You hear about them alot more often now because the press loves broadcasting every one of the Army's screw ups. They make for dramatic press, and there's nothing the press loves more than drama and controversy to glue viewers to the TV set.

[Flarty]

If anything, there are now LESS friendly fire incidents. You hear about them alot more often now because the press loves broadcasting every one of the Army's screw ups. They make for dramatic press, and there's nothing the press loves more than drama and controversy to glue viewers to the TV set.


And it allways seems to be the American army's fault, no offence, but its very rarely you hear of another army succumbing to friendly fire

[Ares]

True, but I've also found that America's Media more agressively persues matters such as this. Also, America is much more involved in the conflict than any other country, and we've got more chances for something like friendly fire to happen.

[jackattack502]

Plus, the media wants veiwers to hate the war, Bush, and other matters. Since most of the world also hates bush (i dont really like him or hate him), they want to criticize the war in every way possible in order to shove it in Bush's face that it was a bad desicion. I frown on the American media, seperating the people from its goverment, especially during a time of war, for ratings on their channel. This reminds me of Citizen Kane, and how our (Libral media) is trying to turn the people against their (Conservative) President.

Thus, the media, and the world, are trying to convince people that Bush is an idiot for doing what he has done, and that Amerca is an imperialistic power bent on world dominace, and needs to be shamed in every way possible. (even in such shameful ways as insulting our troops)

It is a fact, that the US marine Corps have never once surrendered due to being outnumbered, overpowered, or slaughtered. In their most historic battle, 250 marines stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima, to battle a larger force of japanese, heavily entrenced, and dedicated to fight till the last man is dead. Only 27 marines were left after the day was done.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/winter/images/iwo-jima.jpg

I salute you.

[Ares]

You're looking at it way too simply Jack. The liberal media, assuming the President is Democrat in '08, will turn into the Conservative media quite quickly. The media's foremost interest, despite what many Neo-cons will tell you, is not to discredit every Republican interest within America, their foremost interest is to make money.

Now, it's been proven that you can make one hell of a lot more money when you're in the media to stirr up controversy rather than sympathy. Try it sometime, raise the topic "Counter-Strike: Source sucks" in the valve forums, then raise the topic "Counter-Strike: Source is a fine game". See which gets more activity.

The fact that the media also enjoys raising controversy is another reason why you hear about friendly fire so much.

Final point here Jack: If you get a populous that falls completely behind its government like good little "citizens", all believing that in a time of war, personal sacrifices must be made to insure safety, you're well on the road to starting an excellent Facist government.

[jackattack502]

post deleted- jackattack502

[Flarty]

yes true, america is more involved than any other country out in iraq, but is that an excuse? it shouldnt happen. I mean you killed a british journalist ffs, and im pretty sure he wasnt wearing a turban or waving a gun.

And as for the media reporting the down points of whats happening in the world, well im sorry if the world aint as perfect as you would like it to be.

And yes bush should be ashamed for sending the U.S army in harms way when it was totally uncalled for, these soldiers have pledged to protect your freedom, and in return all they ask is that you dont needlessly send them to their deaths,

p.s tony blair should also be ashamed

[-58]

Flarty, I have to say that the message in your signature is absolutely contrary to both Jesus' and Ghandi's views. Jesus was all for the forgiveness and such, and Ghandi was the anti-anything-not-nice sort . . . I assume that you wrote the message, and as such I'm gonna stop taking seriously any sort of political views you give relating to the war.

[MickyD]

A war is one thing, but what Iraq is or rather what it’s been made into as bush so wonderfully puts it is "defense of our freedom". Now correct me if I’m wrong but since when was our freedom ever attacked? Was it in danger? The attacks during 9/11 were done by a terrorist group not a government. We hunted down these terrorists and although for some reason were unable to capture or kill the leader we ultimately succeeded in our goal of "retaliation". The war on Iraq is simply a push to clean up a mess we made along time ago.

As for the media, people the media are in it for one thing money, not to tell the truth, not to make people look bad. But for money, hell if deporting their mothers would make them a good wad of cash I can almost guarantee you they would do it.

As for Americas army, people this is the problem with Americas (yes I am one) we think too highly of ourselves. We are not the best, yes we do have better technology but that’s because we are also the richest. There are far better trained troops out there then anything America has. Now I'm not saying you shouldn’t support your country or your troops but don’t blind yourselves with pride either.

[Flarty]

respect to mickey D

-58 you fail to grasp irony, you fail at life

[Ares]

As for Americas army, people this is the problem with Americas (yes I am one) we think too highly of ourselves. We are not the best, yes we do have better technology but that’s because we are also the richest. There are far better trained troops out there then anything America has. Now I'm not saying you shouldn’t support your country or your troops but don’t blind yourselves with pride either.

Care to go down to Atlanta Georga to Fort Benning and say things like that? You would be very hard pressed to find a non-elite unit with better training, discipline, and morale than the US military. And our Special Forces, the Deltas, Berrets, and SEALs, are better than any other force in the world, save perhaps the SAS and GSG-9.

Only two other countries I can think of can be compaired to the US in terms of well-trained and equipped militaries, the UK and Germany.



As for Friendly Fire, it always has, and always will happen Flarty, you can't avoid it. It's always easy to condemn an action in hindsight. Say some US soldiers see a figure sneaking around on a roof at dusk or dawn. The first reaction is going to be shoot it! You don't know if that figure is a reporter trying to shoot some photos or a Taliban fighter with an RPG waiting to wipe out half the squad.

[Flarty]

Yeah, or maybe the u.s military is trained to be killers and trigger happy, and not soldiers, would explain alot

[geekofalltrades]

Mmmmm no I think not.

[Flarty]

why not the way my brother was telling me, in the british army your trained to be a meat head to follow orders,
Its more than reasonable to assume that phycohlogists dictate the training the army gives to produce the type of soldier wanted.

[Natoksane]

why not the way my brother was telling it in the british army your trained to be a meat head to follow orders,
Its more than reasonable to assume that phycohlogists dictate the training the army gives to produce the type of soldier wanted.

I don't think any of us are well educated enough [about the military] to be making such remarks about them. We only see what the news puts on the TV, which is pretty much all the bad. You gotta keep the ratings up, and by putting up all the happy stuff you won't be able to achieve that.

Being a meathead and following orders is one thing, being trigger happy is quite the opposite. To say the US military are trained to be killers is only stating a fact (though by the tone you said it I think you meant for it to be a derogative statement)... I sure hope we aren't training them to go into some country and say 'Stop or we'll get really angry'

[Flarty]

By all means, my brother is training to be a medic in the army, and is now attempting to terminate his contract on grounds of depression, even though he aint really depressed, so i have second hand experience (in the purest form) and several other peoples story to drive me to this conclusion, One of whom is now a 31 year old chap who spent most of his adult life in the army and has aslo accused the army of brain washing.

[Natoksane]

I've gathered my own conclusions too -my father is an ex marine- but I still wouldn't say I'm educated enough to pass judgement on the US military. Not unless I were to join them, though I don't plan on doing that.

[nathster]

War..

War and Peace don't mix well..

To gain peace, you must war each other..
I find no point in War, It ain't what it used to be..

Two Countries having a full blown war with each other..
Now its simply milita groups and extremeist terrorists.

Not that I'm saying I would like it like that. But War has pretty much stopped from Govermented countries VS other Govermented countries, Closest War that has a chance of erupting, is the dude in North Korea.
To think that the Cold War is still going on, Communist VS Captialist. Dictatorship VS Democracy.
Problem with our world, People have extreme opinons, and will harm anyone to express it.
Just hope that the war is just contained as little milita groups that just have AK's and no Nukes..

[MickyD]

Care to go down to Atlanta Georga to Fort Benning and say things like that? You would be very hard pressed to find a non-elite unit with better training, discipline, and morale than the US military. And our Special Forces, the Deltas, Berrets, and SEALs, are better than any other force in the world, save perhaps the SAS and GSG-9.

Only two other countries I can think of can be compaired to the US in terms of well-trained and equipped militaries, the UK and Germany.


that really doesn’t make any sense, its about the same as saying "go into a black neighborhood and start shouting racial remarks and see what happens" I am in no way stating that America does not have well trained troops, but we put far to much pride in that fact which ultimately blinds us. And I can think of several countries who have far better trained troops. UK, Germany, Swiss, hell even Russia has very well trained units. Point is we spend far too much time talking about how great we are, and thinking about how we cant possibly lose (no I'm not saying everyone thinks this way but a very large majority do).

As far as what soldiers are trained for, one thing only they are trained to kill. To say anything otherwise is secondary, the world will always have a need for warriors and war will never fully cease to be. The only true way to have a civilized war so to speak is to conduct war according to set rules as some have tried. Unfortunately leaders generally take the easy road to victory and chose dirty tactics and down right inhuman practices, which ultimately lead to retaliation to such crimes and allow the idea that such tactics are ok.

[Flarty]

I've gathered my own conclusions too -my father is an ex marine- but I still wouldn't say I'm educated enough to pass judgement on the US military. Not unless I were to join them, though I don't plan on doing that.

i think its goes without saying though, the army would train you mentally aswell as physically,

Whats the point of training someone to shoot if he is a hippy?

[Panther]

Hitler would have taken America. His goal was world domination, no matter what he said in his book; he wanted to institute the 3000 Year Reich, remember? You don't do that with just half the world.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculously moronic.

For one, it was the 1000 year Reich. Secondly, every single policy Hitler pursued was based towards this 1,000 Reich. Id est the domination of the Eastern European "sub-human" through their slavery for the Aryan super-race. All of these assertion are attested by Hitler's own words and works.

Next time exercise some parsimonious Rankean analysis of history, and do your goddamn research!

The reason the US went to war with Germany, apart from Germany declaring war on the US after Japan did in a show of Axis solidarity was a sense of altruism and the fact that the Nazi regime was a dictatorship. There's a reason why Yanks remember this particular generation as the "Golden Generation".

Lastly, the best trained US troops are Marines and Navy. The Army and USAF were (they are now overhauling to some extent) on Cold War spectrum of war rather than the entire spectrum. The Army had a piss poor Basic course that didn't teach the fundamentals of marksmanship and went straight to some gamey pop-up targets. The only decent troops (outside SFs) the Army had is the Rangers, and they get the training just above the difficulty of Marines.

All services though are stuck with tech solutions to every problem. That's why you have money sinking into trash like the V22 and F22 when more importantly they need to put money into intel and better training.

[bluseychris]

You fortify and defend, Delphic, or you write a peace treaty with them. The phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right" is applicable; if every country that invaded another and got kicked out was invaded, we would be in a rather difficult situation.

We did that in 91. Saddam then went and massacred his own people (we have his air force attack helicopters doing it on film).

Hitler would have taken America. His goal was world domination, no matter what he said in his book; he wanted to institute the 3000 Year Reich, remember? You don't do that with just half the world.

No, he wanted a new german empire that was "pure". He wouldn't of gone for the U.S. and he didn't declare untill he was in a position where the US was getting involved anyway. He also didn't like communism and waned rid of that. His main aim was to grab back the lands lost in the Versailles treaty and return to the times of the Kaiser.

Technically speaking, America's army is the most powerful in the world. It's big, it's well equipped, and it's well-trained, not to mention that we have a fair portion of the rest of the world as allies. Unfortunately, the majority of that technology (the more recent stuff can differ) is geared toward fighting a different kind of war; our guns are made to incapacitate, not kill (.223 is too small a bullet to penetrate most armour, and is very unstable at close ranges, often resulting in the bullet collapsing rather than penetrating anything), our army is trained to fight other armies of similar size--our enemy is not an army, which is our problem. Recent changes in technology and training are certainly helping; teaching soldiers how to better combat our current foe rather than last century's enemy, creating specific devices to help in current situations . . . .

I think a few allies may have a thing or two to say about US friendly fire. Lets face it, your infamous for it.

[Flarty]

AHHHHHHH friendly fire, as american as apple pie :P

Loving the sig chris mate

[jackattack502]

And our Special Forces, the Deltas, Berrets, and SEALs,

You forget Force Recon- the few and the proud, of the few and the proud.

The Best of the best

http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/msc/ForceRecon/Company_Logo.jpg

[Flarty]

Of course, considering the S.A.S train the majority of the worlds elite special forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service
all i can say is scroll down to the section of other special units based on the S.A.S

and watch our boys in action :P
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/iranian_embassy_siege/intro.stm

HARDCORE :D


P.S the S.A.S symbol is better aswell :P

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Sas_badge.gif

[Natoksane]

i think its goes without saying though, the army would train you mentally aswell as physically,

Whats the point of training someone to shoot if he is a hippy?

I'm in no way saying they don't train you in such ways, but you aren't going to find a hippy going into the military in the first place. It's more of a set group of people that go in there, and generally they're already somewhat prepared for what's gong to happen to them, or at least they have a certain idea.

The only mental training they give you is to push you further than you think. In SEALs training they put you in cold water with your clothes on for a set amount of time, after that, they have you strip down and get back in. Most people will think they're colder when really it's the same thing they were feeling before. The mental training is only to get you into the right mindset that if you are under fire you won't freak out and be unable to work under the distractions going on around you. They try to break you down mentally so that only the people with the right mindsets will be left.

[Flarty]

yeah, i think theres a bit more to it, ever noticed how squaddies tend to think they are better than everyone? Thats so they wont freak out, make them think they are the best, then make them think they are the best because they are in the army so they will do as their told etc etc.

Im told thats how its works basically, and hey im not dissing it, if your gonna be a soldier youve signed up for the treatment, and if its makes the army what it is, then hey go for it,
Just dont expect me to sign up,

I'd fight for the people of my country, but i would not fight for my goverment.

[Natoksane]

I'd fight for the people of my country, but i would not fight for my goverment.

That's very well said. I completely agree with that.

I wouldn't say that's the military training them to think that, my father stated a few times him and his friends were all ready to go shoot something, but it wasn't because of their mental training, more like this 'I'm trained to do this very one thing [ shoot at stuff], now let me go do it'

Though, since I've never served in the armed forces before, I can't directly agree or disagree with you. I'm just going by what I've heard.

[Flarty]

true im only going off what several people have told me, but they've all talked from first hand experience,