The World's Best Special Forces

[Drowsy Emperor]

Bombing is garbage against military forces. Everyone knows this. The Serbian army left Kosovo with 95% of its armor and manpower intact. The brunt of the casualties were civillians, and infrastructure used primarily by them. Thats because armies can adapt to bombardment even in the long run and civillians can't.

 

The real goal of the bombing is the psychological submission of the civilian population and its leadership, by attrition.

 

You can rationalise and justify all day long, but we can see it happening now as we speak. Since the armed forces (the supposed targets) won't be destroyed by the means used that means the war is waged against the people and not their armed forces. Therefore, its not a war but an organized campaign of terror.

 

I agree with you on war crimes: since when are personal residences and family members of leaders viable targets? That's a war crime, no?

Three children died in that airstrike, the oldest was, what, 4?

 

1. The use of air power is not garbage. I'd give examples but I think it would be more dignified if you conceded this on reflection.

 

2. I would agree that the use of air power as a weapon of terror, indeed all weapons of terror, are garbage. Because they function like a drug. You need ever increasing doses to achieve the same 'hit'.

 

3. A guiding principle of civilised warfare is that it use of force should be proportionate. If a single strike can decapitate a regime and end a policy of atrocity, you prefer a campaign of military bombing which may or may not end that same violence at a cost of thousands of lives?

 

Achieving this without killing a 'great leader's children is only going to be achievable if the great leader does not hide amongst them. But we will no doubt agree to disagree on who bears the chief responsibility there. Ditto reporst that Ghaddafi has been concealing himself in hospitals, which are of course protected under the Geneva conventions.

 

The use of air power as seen in Serbia, Libya was garbage. Or rather it was effective at its real goals, and that was the submission of the civillian populace and their leaders, the latter especially.

It was completely ineffective against the military.

 

3. You presume that there is an atrocity and that it is not, in fact, concocted to cover mundane realpolitik goals. You presume that assasination and bombing campaigns are adequate means for solving the internal issues of other countries. You also presume that those who can do those things somehow also have the right to do them.

 

Everyone knows that the movement against Gaddafi was small and without popular support. That much was obvious from day one.

 

There were no atrocities, there was no real popular movement or freedom fighters, in the case of Serbia (but a CIA listed terrorist/drug group), it was all bull-**** to justify the NATO expansion to the east, a formerly Russian sphere of influence.

 

There is what you know and what you believe. You believe in the entire premise for each intervention we've ever discussed, and therefore are ready to justify everything, like you just justified, indirectly, the slaughter of minors.

 

Also Gaddafi could hardly be stupid enough to hide amongst his children in his residence, in a time of war waiting for a bomb to drop on his head. So please.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Pilots don't exactly have a say in what they bomb. If you want to hold someone accountable, it is the person who orders the bombing.

 

And I haven't heard of many stories about snipers picking off children, so I'm not sure why they get the death sentence. They are typically given a specific target or group to focus on.

 

I merely said that they should be given no quarter and expect none, if caught in battle. The command staff and politicians tend to stay away from the front lines.

[Malcador]

Hm, disagree about executing captured personnel just because of the task they carry out, but just my opinion.

[Monte Carlo]

Hm, disagree about executing captured personnel just because of the task they carry out, but just my opinion.

 

::shrugs:: Boo is Serbia, we bombed his country, he's pissed off about it which is fair enough.

 

Serbia's government at that time was complicit in genocide, this is a matter of fact. The Serbian regime brought the bombs on Belgrade.

[Guard Dog]

Ok, I know the Royal Gurkha Rifles is not an elite unit by definition, but how is this for badass:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/soldi...self/?hpt=hp_t2

[Drowsy Emperor]

Hm, disagree about executing captured personnel just because of the task they carry out, but just my opinion.

 

::shrugs:: Boo is Serbia, we bombed his country, he's pissed off about it which is fair enough.

 

Serbia's government at that time was complicit in genocide, this is a matter of fact. The Serbian regime brought the bombs on Belgrade.

 

No "facts" out of the Balkan wars propagated in the west have ever shown to be anything more than bull made "true" by incessant repetition.

 

Its a concocted justification, and its painfully obvious that as we go from conflict to conflict in the last 20 years, the first cry heard everywhere is: genocide! genocide!.

 

The only genocide in the second half of the twentieth century is Rwanda.

 

Everything else is western realpolitik and smear campaigns against what few truly independent countries there are left.

[Gorgon]

I don't know if killing 8000 people in one go is considered genocide or not, we could call it something less dramatic like 'ethnic cleansing', but does it really matter. it's equally rotten.

[Nepenthe]

[Orogun01]

If it's reasonable for a peasant to not want to die, then it's also reasonable for a noble to want the same.

 

Actually, reminds me of this recent business(es) where it's 'legal' to bomb some country because of what their leader is doing, but 'illegal' to bomb the leader. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose, ne c'est pas?

Oui?

[Zoraptor]

..in hospitals, which are of course protected under the Geneva conventions.

As are ambulances, and we know from the friendly fire incidents that NATO had no problem blowing them up.

 

Though I tend to agree otherwise- I've always thought the "[blah] don't fight fair" blather from technologically advanced nations is assinine. Hamas/ Taleban/ Libyans/ Serbs or whoever going out into a nice flat field to fight Israel/ NATO/ NATO/ NATO (golly, NATO fights an awful lot of defensive wars, doesn't it? Reminds me of Rome, who never fought an aggressive war in her history, at least according to her historians) in a 'fair fight' would end with them getting whacked instantly by Apaches, AC130s, cruise missiles etc. Which isn't brave or honourable, it's stupid.

[Gorth]

Ok, I know the Royal Gurkha Rifles is not an elite unit by definition, but how is this for badass:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/soldi...self/?hpt=hp_t2

Sounds like a bad Hollywood movie, but badass indeed

 

From BBC: "Pun could never know how many enemies were attempting to overcome his position, but he sought them out from all angles despite the danger, consistently moving towards them to reach the best position of attack".

 

They made the mistake of attacking a Gurkha and he went on a rampage, firing 400 rounds, 17 grenades and manually detonated a claymore at them, just to proceed to start beating them to death with his tripod when running out of ammo. Lucky for them he didn't get angry and drew his Kukri

[Hurlshort]

Gah, Drowsy Emperor is Boo, how did I not pick up on that?

 

I like the new name Boo.

[Malcador]

Ok, I know the Royal Gurkha Rifles is not an elite unit by definition, but how is this for badass:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/soldi...self/?hpt=hp_t2

Sounds like a bad Hollywood movie, but badass indeed

 

From BBC: "Pun could never know how many enemies were attempting to overcome his position, but he sought them out from all angles despite the danger, consistently moving towards them to reach the best position of attack".

 

They made the mistake of attacking a Gurkha and he went on a rampage, firing 400 rounds, 17 grenades and manually detonated a claymore at them, just to proceed to start beating them to death with his tripod when running out of ammo. Lucky for them he didn't get angry and drew his Kukri

 

Codex : Gurkhas

[Calax]

>.>

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov%27s_House

[Humodour]

I don't know if killing 8000 people in one go is considered genocide or not, we could call it something less dramatic like 'ethnic cleansing', but does it really matter. it's equally rotten.

 

Indeed.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Ok, I know the Royal Gurkha Rifles is not an elite unit by definition, but how is this for badass:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/soldi...self/?hpt=hp_t2

 

The best thing about the ghurkas is that they aren't classed as special forces, but they are clearly an elite. They just don't do the kind of keeni meeni stuff one expects these days.

 

Just listen to the way he describes what he did as if it was an innings of cricket.

 

~

 

Boo, I normally like you, man. But you have some seriously conspiracist notions about warfare. I really think you need to take a step back from your personal experiences (which I'm guessing have been pretty severe) and look at the science of what you're saying.

[Nepenthe]

Boo, I normally like you, man. But you have some seriously conspiracist notions about warfare. I really think you need to take a step back from your personal experiences (which I'm guessing have been pretty severe) and look at the science of what you're saying.

It's a bit ironic, really, since the main issue with the whole Yugoslav wars was that the West didn't give a ****, which is why the whole thing went on for way too long, and leading to a lot of unpleasant **** on all sides. While the Slovenians started building fridges.

[Nepenthe]

Codex : Gurkhas

 

Followed inevitably after the original's success by Codex: Chaos Gurkhas.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Gah, Drowsy Emperor is Boo, how did I not pick up on that?

 

I like the new name Boo.

 

Thanks.

 

Boo, I normally like you, man. But you have some seriously conspiracist notions about warfare. I really think you need to take a step back from your personal experiences (which I'm guessing have been pretty severe) and look at the science of what you're saying.

 

I study international relations and diplomacy, so I'm not pulling crackpot conspiracies out of my bum.

 

I just can't go step by step and refute everything because it would involve a truckload of text, names, events and people that you're unfamiliar with and neither would you read all of it nor would I expect you to, or anyone without a personal interest in the issue.

 

Looking at world politics through the surface reasons of this or that side is not enough for in depth analysis. I'm surprised you take anything that any media says for granted without looking at the not so transparent interests behind the issue.

 

Here's one fact: the largest US base in SE europe is Bondsteel, in Kosovo. Would you seriously suggest that the decision to make such a large military base in such a strategic location was made after the conflict?

Or was it part of the plan well in advance?

If it was made in advance how would that impact the US policy in terms of which side it would back in Kosovo, would it:

a) back the Albanian majority whose consent is critical to the smooth running of this base,

b) the Serb minority, who along with the government (of the day) in Belgrade wouldn't support a US base on their soil?

 

I'm not asking for big leaps in logic here or definite conclusions, just give it a thought.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Nepenthe]

I actually meant to write this earlier, but I think that connecting the 98-99 Kosovo war and what happened during the 91-95 wars is fallacious, and IMO is often used in attempts to whitewash what happened in Bosnia.

[Monte Carlo]

I like Boo. I didn't enjoy pointing out the history, and hopefully we can all agree on enough points to move on. I am bitterly sorry that civilians were bombed in his country.

 

The difference between the total war of the old days and the limited wars we fight now is that there is no agreed narrative of what happened. The Balkans, with a bitter history of its own notwithstanding any western involvement, is a case in point.

 

The real villain of the piece is the USSR. It collapsed and **** happened. And still is.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Gorth
*Sigh*

[Calax]

I like Boo. I didn't enjoy pointing out the history, and hopefully we can all agree on enough points to move on. I am bitterly sorry that civilians were bombed in his country.

 

The difference between the total war of the old days and the limited wars we fight now is that there is no agreed narrative of what happened. The Balkans, with a bitter history of its own notwithstanding any western involvement, is a case in point.

 

The real villain of the piece is the USSR. It collapsed and **** happened. And still is.

Give it a generation and there'll be a cohesive narrative of what happened. That's how history works, and why I'd prefer to study older stuff

Edited June 3, 2011 by Gorth
Consistency

[Walsingham]

Gah, Drowsy Emperor is Boo, how did I not pick up on that?

 

I like the new name Boo.

 

Thanks.

 

Boo, I normally like you, man. But you have some seriously conspiracist notions about warfare. I really think you need to take a step back from your personal experiences (which I'm guessing have been pretty severe) and look at the science of what you're saying.

 

I study international relations and diplomacy, so I'm not pulling crackpot conspiracies out of my bum.

 

 

Then, with genuine affection, if not respect I would point out your two glaring errors, and why I'm calling you a conspiracy victim.

 

1. The fallacy that benefiting from an event is enough to tie you to an event.

2. An erroneous assessment of capability.

 

People see the Western powers benefiting from almost everything, and combine that with a belief that we have almost limitless espionage and military power. The former is true because we're fantastic capitalists and do indeed find a way to get a benefit from most things. The latter is just not true. And even if it were, it presumes that Western governments have a cohesive narrative and goals which the secret powers actuate. But the most cursory study of history should have shown you that we don't work that way. Even during high tide points like the end of WW2 our policies and power was a total muddle.