|
|
Post by ozark on May 9, 2009 17:07:13 GMT -5
Historically civilians are killed during wars. When an enemy mingles among the population or hides behind them and don't wear a uniform how can it be avoided? Often the civilians supports the militants within their zones. Sometimes they may be prevented from leaving an area of combat purposely.
Should they be given a specific time to vacate a planned operation? If they are notified to leave and fail to act then should they be considered a part of the foe? In modern warfare we use bombers and weapons that will harm everyone within a zone, it is a part of the conflict.
During world war 2 hundred of thousands of civilians were killed during the firebombing of Japan, the atomic bomb, and the millions killed by the bombing raids of Germany, Brittian, and Russia.
My own opinion is: If Mama shelters her outlaw son or daughter then she must accept being in a dangerous position. I am not a inhumane person but war isn't exactly a humane activity. I would like to hear some opinions on how to prevent collateral damage or steps to fight a humane war. My message would be: We are coming in you have 5 days to vacate the danger zone. If you are near a Talaban you are in a danger zone and may well be killed. I will look for comments. Ozark
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on May 9, 2009 18:24:37 GMT -5
There isn't much fairness in winning a war.
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 9, 2009 19:00:53 GMT -5
Killing civilians who are harboring the enemy, and dropping a bomb on a basically civilian city are two different things I think. But, I guess anything could be justified if it shortened the war. The answer seems to be that there is no clear cut answer. I say if we had finished the job of defeating the Teliban and AlQuada years ago, they wouldn't have returned, stronger, to fight us now. So, now we have to finish it anyway. Peace, Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on May 9, 2009 22:46:47 GMT -5
This question assumes a war against a uniformed opponent and between waring nations. Today the main thing is wars involving terrorists where no nation is directly responsible. These terrorists publicly behead unarmed civilians and broadcast it over the internet. They kill their own people to get press coverage. They attack civilian markets when there are no military or military activity around. With no warning that a state of warfare even exists they crash aircraft into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians. They lob rockets into civilian neighborhoods without any guidance to direct it toward military targets. Their supporters dance in the streets celebrating such carnage in the name of religion.
Against such opponents there should be no consideration to anything but exterminating the vermin. No Geneva convention treatment is warranted as their "nation" is not a signatory. No criminal rights, they don't deserve such. No "fair" treatment, they don't give anything even remotely considered as fair treatment to those they capture. And most of all, no publicity! Collect them at night, eliminate them without fanfare and dispose of the remains. A garbage dump will suffice.
We go to great lengths to avoid collateral damage while they focus on creating collateral damage and use it to gain publicity that advances their cause. Because of our attempts to eliminate or minimize collateral damage they consider us weak and therefore encourages them to continue their campaign of terror. They are simply vermin to be eradicated by the best means possible. Their actions do not indicate them to be human as we know it so we should consider them to be the rabid dogs that they are.
In wars between nations the civilians are often part of the economic-industrial strength of a nation. Destroying the areas where the opponent gains support, finances, resupply, war production, and recruitment has always been a focus of opposing armys. War is not a pretty business and is never "fair". The best thing to do is to avoid one, but if forced into one the best tactic is to recognize that civilians are going to die, cities and going to be destroyed, crops are going to be ruined, and people are going to be driven from their homes. Then do everything to make sure that those things are happening to the enemy, not to your own. Anything else is just stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 10, 2009 8:00:59 GMT -5
That is how it is Chuck 41 and how it must be to win. But when collateral damage mounts and many civilians are dying we often back off. The UN (which should be abolished) doesn't recognize vermin that must be eliminated regardless of side effects puts a bridle of the powers dertermined to eliminate the real problems. North Korea is a negotated peace that should not exist as a nation now. Unconditional surrrender apperars to be the only result of conflicts which shows a lesson has been learned. But with groups like the Talaban which is just a religious sect I suppose that elimination is the only effective answer. For the civilians I guess it must be revolt or chance destruction.
As far as the US is involved, I think we must stay out of it or resolve to demand total victory and unconditional surrender/elimination. I believe in negotating differences up to the point of committing the military and then alterwards negotating only terms of surrender.
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 10, 2009 9:22:36 GMT -5
"No criminal rights, they don't deserve such. No "fair" treatment, they don't give anything even remotely considered as fair treatment to those they capture. And most of all, no publicity! Collect them at night, eliminate them without fanfare and dispose of the remains. A garbage dump will suffice. " Then we would be no different.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on May 10, 2009 10:47:24 GMT -5
"No criminal rights, they don't deserve such. No "fair" treatment, they don't give anything even remotely considered as fair treatment to those they capture. And most of all, no publicity! Collect them at night, eliminate them without fanfare and dispose of the remains. A garbage dump will suffice. " Then we would be no different. Petev, You are confusing warfare with sportsmanship. In warfare there is a name for someone who values sportsmanship first. It's called loser. We didn't start this mess, we don't relish it, but if we do anything other than the kind of things I listed we sure as heck will lose it. You want to live under Shira law? Do what you suggested and you will likely get your chance. You don't "fight fair" in a war. You use the biggest stick you can with overwhelming numbers if you can and you inflict the most casualties on the opposition you can to end it as quickly as you can. Anything else is not warfare, its idiocy. |
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on May 10, 2009 10:48:53 GMT -5
civilian casualties are a price of war and unavoidable. we live in a time where we can reduce these casualtied with the accuracy of our weapons. carpet bombing is almost a thing of the past.
as much as you would like that we do better than them in treatment and fair tactics in war( if there is such a thing), you must use some their own tactics agint them to win the war. now im not saying have human walking bombs or beheading their leaders on public tv or internet, if they are using the public people to cover behind they will become casualties of war and we cant be affraid of this happening. you have to eliminate what they view as a cover or safety in order for them to quit using it. i agree avoiding war is the best thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 10, 2009 10:57:04 GMT -5
Then we would be no different. Hmmm. If someone kidnaps a person and locks them away from their family for years. Finally that person is caught and sentenced to 20 years in JAIL. Is that the same, is society acting like the Kidnapper? I am surprised that you would equate killing terrorists with being a terrorist! In WWII there were at least 60 million deaths, and the military deaths were only a few million.... most that died were NOT military. Let me ask this another way, is an WWII Air Force pilot that dropped bombs from miles in the air a terrorist? Their LACK of accuracy was measured in thousands of yards from the actual targets. As a matter of fact to guarantee taking out a specific bridge often took dozens of missions! Civilians casualties were a virtual certainty. edge. |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 10, 2009 12:48:08 GMT -5
War in my view is not a sport where whe have time outs, quarter and halftimes. There are no objectives or goals except to win. Civilians and industry represent their means to wage war and like our parents, wives and sweethearts here in the states I would imaging that they are supporting their men. What is really sickening about all this is that it is a religious war. To them we are infidels and it is their sacred and divine duty to eliminate us. We can't change their minds so what choice is left? edge used a bridge as a possible target. What is the target here? It is a self defense situation where punishment doesn't work.Death is the only course of action that will succeed. It is very sad but our backs are against the wall we cannot withdraw and hope they will change. What was the old command? Da** the tarpedoes, full speed ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 10, 2009 14:49:48 GMT -5
Ozark, I agree, but if you go back in time and research the Crusades, the Christians did nearly the same to them!
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by 161 on May 10, 2009 15:24:47 GMT -5
If you give them 5 days warning all their going to do is dig in deeper. More of our men will die. If you don't want shot don't hang around people that need shoot'n. As most of you know Black Jack Pershing took a bunch of Muslim terrorists prisoner in the Philippines. He made them dig there own graves. He slaughtered some pigs and threw the pigs in the hole. Rolled the ammo in pigs blood a shot all but one of the terrorists. Threw them in the hole with the pigs an let the one go to tell his buddys the tale. As the story goes this made a significant impact on the COCKINESS of the terrorists. No Nation prospers from prolonging a war. I'm sure some of you think this is a radical thought but if it bring just one of our people home alive I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on May 10, 2009 15:49:23 GMT -5
If you give them 5 days warning all their going to do is dig in deeper. More of our men will die. If you don't want shot don't hang around people that need shoot'n. As most of you know Black Jack Pershing took a bunch of Muslim terrorists prisoner in the Philippines. He made them dig there own graves. He slaughtered some pigs and threw the pigs in the hole. Rolled the ammo in pigs blood a shot all but one of the terrorists. Threw them in the hole with the pigs an let the one go to tell his buddys the tale. As the story goes this made a significant impact on the COCKINESS of the terrorists. No Nation prospers from prolonging a war. I'm sure some of you think this is a radical thought but if it bring just one of our people home alive I'm all for it. Where is good old Blackjack when we need him. |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 10, 2009 17:19:07 GMT -5
The devils best Army marches behind a banner that says they are acting in the name of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 10, 2009 18:24:36 GMT -5
"I am surprised that you would equate killing terrorists with being a terrorist!" A misquote Edge, you can do better. |
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 11, 2009 7:39:13 GMT -5
"I am surprised that you would equate killing terrorists with being a terrorist!" A misquote Edge, you can do better. I see NO mis quote! WHERE IS THE MISQUOTE?? SHOW US! edge. |
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on May 11, 2009 11:03:49 GMT -5
Wonder if Rome or Persia or Sparta or Hannibal or Caesar ever worried about such things???
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 11, 2009 13:07:50 GMT -5
Edge, I have been one of the strongest supporters of capturing or killing The Al Quada on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by nitro1947 on May 11, 2009 15:56:26 GMT -5
Most of our military is killed in urban fighting...the US Goverment considers this as being politically correct..so they consider it a sport ..Let the military take care of this war and journalist need to be in the green area reporting what they need to know....and( Urban fighting needs to be considered.... level area.... then count the bodies)..War is just that ..WAR!!! why develop our weaponry to the level we have today ..if ..we don't plan on using it to its full potential..Men are being killed daily because we have to look good to a group whose religion is being used as an excuse to harm anyone in their way..!!  |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 11, 2009 18:37:18 GMT -5
We didn't win in Korea and now over fifty years later we have many troops and equipment there to enforce the truce. Viet Nam... I guess we can say we lost that one. With the help of our allies we won wwII which resusted from not actually winning ww1. It seems to me that there can be but one objective and that is to defeat the enemy with a W. We will never be respected until it is clear that we fight to win and will use whatever means it takes to win. I am for making a clear identification of our enemy and then go after them with whatever means is required to defeat them. I think the US should seperate itself from religious disputes or decide which particular group we are supporting. I simply don't understand why if we are a Christian nation why we support the Jewish who does not recognize Christ as Gods Son. I don't think we know which side of the various fences we are on. Ozark
|
|
|
|
Post by tcmech on May 11, 2009 19:01:56 GMT -5
I don't think that civilian casulties can be eliminated in any war.
If anyone thinks that we are the only ones causing civilian casulties they need to think back to September 11th, 2001 and remember how this all started.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 11, 2009 19:21:27 GMT -5
The Military Commander in Afganastan is being replaced now because the President of that country complained to Obama that our forces killes several civilians during air strikes. This would be funny except that we are losing military people. Somehow we are expected to win this war by non vonventional means like building schools, roads, bridges and such. I am disgusted with it and wonder how long the American public will surpport this war we are expected to win with words. Words got us a new president but I doubt if the insurgents listens to his articulate speaches. The new Commander is a Secial Forces Officer. I wonder how long he will agree to fight with handcuffs on. Ozark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on May 12, 2009 8:08:50 GMT -5
We need to stop 'declaring' war on "groups of folks" and start declaring war on countries.
Then we need to conquer those countries and set them up to be run correctly. Then we can either leave or stay, doesn't matter to me.
But the way we are doing it spells failure. Every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 12, 2009 8:17:37 GMT -5
Personally I believe that we have brought this on ourselves by not being willing to win wars!
I think that the UN ( OR SOME NEW ENTITY ) and others Countries need to be forced to do the more in keeping bad actors in check.
The US military should be the "weapon" of last resort. IMO, the military should not put boots on the ground, and the enemy needs to know it. Yes as with the Marshall Plan we will help to rebuild areas destroyed as long as the enemy have been truly beaten into submission.
If there are no boots on the ground then there is no fight until the last minute and surrendering. Bombs fall, buildings are destroyed and people die.
The enemy must know with certainty that they either surrender prior to the missiles being in the air or they are dead, no halfway measures!
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 12, 2009 11:02:45 GMT -5
Edge, that is the answer that would stop all these so called brush fires around the world. If folks wants to eliminate us then let them declare war. If they just want use some other country as a safe haven then that country must be responsible of kicking the bums out or suffer the same fate as the criminals. Right now we are taking the position of: Yes, we will sacrafrice a few thousand of our troops so your population will be a little safer. Harboring terrorists or fanatics should be a lifethreatening decision. From reading this thread I see that the solution is know among the American public. Wasthington must be killiing us.
|
|
|
|
Post by killahog on Jun 16, 2009 22:07:16 GMT -5
I am opposed to giving the general population time to vacate in the face of an impending attack. I think war should be a very last resort however, if war is necessary it should be as violent and as horrible as one can make it, as to deter it in the future. Would Saddam Hussein have balked at the UN Inspectors if the united states would have dropped 2 nukes on him in the first gulf war?. I don't think so. Semper Fi.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Jun 16, 2009 22:37:51 GMT -5
General LeMay was responsible for the firebombing of Jamanese cities that killed countless civlians. BTW remember he was a running mate when George Wallace ran for president. I figured someone would kill Wallace and LeMay would end up President. But back to the subject. I agree mostly with killahog. War is hell and if it is forced on a country then lets use what we have to obtain victory. Victory, not some negotiated cease fire for awhile. Our current President speaks peace and comprimize. I wonder if when the chips are down if he will have the guts to make the calls that would determine victory.  ? If I remember Bushs speach correctly he said that we were declaring war on terrorist and all countries that harbor them. What went wrong? And while I am on a soap box answer me this quesion: What do we need with the UN. Why does it exist when so many countries have veto power and it has no real authority to use force where it is needed. Why do we finance it and ask it to make resolutions which are about as effective as our New Year resolutions? I have took my bedtime pills and better hush before I say something that makes sense. Ozark |
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Jun 17, 2009 10:20:06 GMT -5
I can't relate to any war before VN But even there you didn't know how was the good guy or the bad guy. That's not even close to what is happening now there are no good guys no one likes us, let me change that no one respects us. What ever happened to do onto others as they would do onto you. I'll add a little (do it first). But on top of this we have a weak muslim in office that we knew very little about. He's already selling us down the river. How long has it been since we really had some one worth voting for? I'm sure I'm going to get slammed for that. I've seen first hand the later side affect of war because we supposiadle were trying to be humane. Lets get real the big people in our country make a lot of money from war (that we taxpayers pay for) and have little or nothing to do with fighting it. If your going to fight a war then go in do it right and get it over with. Lets get back a little respect. If that doesn't work then make them fear us. Nothing else will work. Now any one that wants can bash away.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 17, 2009 11:11:43 GMT -5
R-E-S-P-E-C-T  I prefer fear when it comes to war! I really would like the UN and their baby blue helmets to do the work of Nation building. I would like them to call on the US military when they need a show of force. We drop bombs from 30,000 feet and fly away. Then the UN goes back in and sweeps up the bodies and debris. I do not like boots on the ground especially in urban environments that we are not prepared to destroy! edge. |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Jun 17, 2009 11:55:19 GMT -5
IMO the United States should live by this code: We shall not interfere with the internal affairs of any country. We will adhere to our treaties with other nations provided they conduct themselves with our code of non interferences. If we must be engaged in war it shall be a declared war and our objective will be to obtain unconditional surrender. We shall use the weapons most likely to bring about a quick solution to each war. Notice to the world: We love peace and hate war but if you tread on us we will strike with our most potent venom with total disregard to collatgeral damage. We welcome your friendship and would relish your respect. However, you must fear the power that we have and will use when needed without hesitation. And a message to all UN members: If you don't want to pay your dues to keep this system operational then consider your membership nul and void. God Bless you all and in one hand we offer loyal friendship while in the other we hold a second choice. USA
|
|
? If I remember Bushs speach correctly he said that we were declaring war on terrorist and all countries that harbor them. What went wrong? And while I am on a soap box answer me this quesion: What do we need with the UN. Why does it exist when so many countries have veto power and it has no real authority to use force where it is needed. Why do we finance it and ask it to make resolutions which are about as effective as our New Year resolutions? I have took my bedtime pills and better hush before I say something that makes sense. Ozark
