American politicians attempt to intervene in internal politics of peaceful middle-eastern country.

[Trenitay]

It would if they were still alive.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It would if they were still alive.

But they are not, they are dead. So sad.

[Humodour]

The reason for war matters not for the dead. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this, Krezy.

 

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of logic.

 

Your stance is that all war is the same. I just explained pretty clearly how that is wrong, and awsomeness just added a pretty succinct but poignant addendum to that.

 

To clarify: All war is not the same, because some types have genocide and the butchering of civilians as their objectives.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Krezack

[Killian Kalthorne]

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

 

Don't be naive. Given our advances in technology and logistics, do you really think the killing of civilians are truly "accidents" and are really viewed as "collateral" damage by NATO forces? They know full well that there are civilians in the mix when they send the drones in on bombing runs. They know full well that there are noncombatants in those houses and strongholds they raid. They do not care. They use buzzwords to justify their actions and make it all nice and clean for the public to consume.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Humodour]

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

 

Don't be naive. Given our advances in technology and logistics, do you really think the killing of civilians are truly "accidents" and are really viewed as "collateral" damage by NATO forces?

 

Yes, I do. Have you paid any attention to what is actually happening over in Afghanistan, Visceris? You talk about our advanced logistics, yet our main logistical supply line (75% of supplies) is one of the most dangerous roads in the entire world, freshly mined with IEDs and roadside bombs every day. Our predator drones? They require accurate intelligence to do their job. If our intelligence is wrong (and it will never be right 100% of the time), civilians are going to die.

 

Because I know you don't know, go read up on the Khyber pass:

http://theredhunter.com/2009/02/supply_lin...afghanistan.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-s...99s01-duts.html

 

And I want to know just why you're so deluded as to think that NATO would deliberately bomb the people we're working to protect? Our aim isn't to own the country, it is to remove the Taliban. To do that we need civilian support. For each civilian we kill, that's just more support for the Taliban and less support to the Allies. What possible reason could NATO have for wanting civilian casualties, Visceris?

 

The Taliban have no qualms about using civilians as human shields, and expand a great deal of their efforts trying to blur the line between civilian and militant. NATO has to then expend a great deal of effort trying to distinguish them, and they are not always right.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I really do like to take the devil's advocate with you because you are so passionate about your stance and you make arguing fun. You and Walsh are definitely two of my favorites.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Gfted1]

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

 

 

You are correct but Id like to point out that that is a fairly recent development. Less than 70 years ago we willfully fire bombed the crapola out of Germany and Japan without blinking. Everyone pisses and moans about the nukes when far far more civilians died to bombs specifically designed to set everything on fire and delivered on cities.

[213374U]

(well, if you're of the opinion that it wasn't meant as "back off, Georgian Joe, OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS" but a legitimately necessary part of war)

It's actually even better as Joe KNEW about the nukes before they were dropped.

 

Dislodging the Soviets from the Japanese Islands, however, would have proven tricky.

 

 

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

It also seems to be wholly ineffective as far as breaking the enemy's ability or will to keep fighting goes.

[Orogun01]

It also seems to be wholly ineffective as far as breaking the enemy's ability or will to keep fighting goes.

Just to clarify, are you referring specifically to middle eastern insurgents? Because of their whole concept of holy war they are know to be relentless, so there really isn't another choice other than respond.

[Mamoulian War]

For each civilian we kill, that's just more support for the Taliban and less support to the Allies. What possible reason could NATO have for wanting civilian casualties, Visceris?

 

To fuel the war even more... endless conflict = endless flow of money into the pockets of weapon industry

[Walsingham]

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

 

Don't be naive. Given our advances in technology and logistics, do you really think the killing of civilians are truly "accidents" and are really viewed as "collateral" damage by NATO forces?

 

Yes, I do. Have you paid any attention to what is actually happening over in Afghanistan, Visceris? You talk about our advanced logistics, yet our main logistical supply line (75% of supplies) is one of the most dangerous roads in the entire world, freshly mined with IEDs and roadside bombs every day. Our predator drones? They require accurate intelligence to do their job. If our intelligence is wrong (and it will never be right 100% of the time), civilians are going to die.

 

 

I can't find the original quote, so I'll quote Krez.

 

If you know of a piece of kit, or an intelligence procedure which can infallibly distinguish between an afghan who wants to do us harm and an afghan who doesn't when both are armed, and living cheek by jowl, then for the love of God please tell us what it is. Because I know at least one ex-soldier going through extensive counselling for having unintentionally hit civilians who would be very interested, and would move mountains to get that kit into service. Or, of course, you could be talking total s***, and know nothing about intelligence, airstrikes, Afghanistan, or common sense.

[Humodour]

For each civilian we kill, that's just more support for the Taliban and less support to the Allies. What possible reason could NATO have for wanting civilian casualties, Visceris?

 

To fuel the war even more... endless conflict = endless flow of money into the pockets of weapon industry

 

No.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It makes sense. The military industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and in order for them to make money there needs to be war and conflict.

[Walsingham]

It makes sense. The military industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and in order for them to make money there needs to be war and conflict.

 

Not really. Certainly a big world war might drive expenditure, but the big firms do very well out of the simple arms race. Plus an arms race has the advantage of not forcing governments to consider genuine alternatives to the big lads. Or blowing up the arms firms staff and infrastructure.

[Humodour]

It makes sense. The military industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and in order for them to make money there needs to be war and conflict.

 

It doesn't make sense because there is no 'military', there are individual militaries from various different countries. Afghanistan isn't America's war - it's a NATO/UN war, and it even includes countries like Australia.

 

There's no secret conspiracy in NATO to prolong the war for the benefit of a few arms companies.

[Mamoulian War]

It makes sense. The military industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and in order for them to make money there needs to be war and conflict.

 

It doesn't make sense because there is no 'military', there are individual militaries from various different countries. Afghanistan isn't America's war - it's a NATO/UN war, and it even includes countries like Australia.

 

There's no secret conspiracy in NATO to prolong the war for the benefit of a few arms companies.

 

And how many weapon manufacturing companies are in the world, which supply western world armies? Not many... Russia's and China's manufacturers makes ****load of money from Asian and African and Latin American countries, EU and US manufacturers get ****loads of money from European, North American countries and ofc, Japan, South Korea and Australia...

 

No conflict = less money spent by governtment on self defense... you can say whatever you want, the best thing what could have ever happened to weapon industry is war against terrorism... the war which can never be won so you have to supply your "products" until the end of time... This war already made few people stinky rich... And it will make few more

 

War is the best bussiness in the world... Just get a contract with some government and enjoy constant flow of billions of taxpayers dollars/euros/rupiahs/whatever directly into your pocket... I wish i was shareholder of US weapon industry, i would never had to work...

Edited March 2, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Walsingham]

I heard from a Norwegian friend that Norway has been the single biggest beneficiary of the post9/11 military activity. They make a lot of subcomponents for other systems. I personally have no probelm with this, but it's interesting, don't you think?

[Mamoulian War]

Yes it is, and it just proves, that in the time of warfare, the industry in connection with the warfare prospers

Edited March 2, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Orogun01]

This is nothing new, the arm race started before the arms race. America biggest exports are their culture and guns.

Now, I am dreading the day when all of this "war on terrorism" comes to bite the world on the ass (which I'm sure it will happen)

[Humodour]

Yes it is, and it just proves, that in the time of warfare, the industry in connection with the warfare prospers

 

It does not, however, prove a conspiracy on behalf of weapon manufacturers to induce or prolong the war on terror in the first place.

[Killian Kalthorne]

At best they are being opportunistic.

[Junai]

havent u guys seen Lord of War with Nicolas Cage?

[Walsingham]

havent u guys seen Lord of War with Nicolas Cage?

 

Best opening sequence since the Blues Brothers.