Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Not really, Europe's great military mindset was always based on wars fought over stuff. Land, titles, power. Not morals, and certainly not defense of people or justice.

This is just idealistic bullshit. There has hardly ever been a war fought over "morals", in the defense of a people (except the nations own), and certainly not justice.
It's always been about power.

That depends on one's definition of good. To bring myself up again, I'm a horrible, violent person. Certainly not "good," that doesn't mean that I can't do good things with my life. In a just war, one side is justified, making them the "good" guys.

Justifications does not make something as evil and horrible as war good. No matter the reasons to fight, even under the honourable intentions, war is always evil to combat evil. Hence why there is no good side in a war. If you want to be on the good side, you put down your gun and go join the nonviolence movement. A war being just does not make it good in itself. Being the lesser of two evils does not make you good, being the lighter of two grays does not make you white.

This is just obvious nonsense. Even if it was true, which it is not, it should be equally clear that every war was preceded by a "let's be warful!! movement".

Furthermore, you do realise that the only reason western Europe has not broken down into another war is that these last 70 years has been framed by such a movement of peace, co-operation and mutual benefit? I'm not saying that's going to last forever - nothing does - but that is pretty much the record for the region. Had not France, Germany and Britain and all the minor players been willing to put aside centuries worth of hate, aggression and conflict and work together, no such lasting peace could ever have been built.

Peaceful? Really? Why did France, Germany, and Britain all work together after WWII? I'd, without a doubt, argue that it's because they were smart enough to see that repeating the mistakes of Versailles would be a very bad thing (see Marshal Plan instead), but most importantly a really big red star. Europe was reforged on the basis of worrying about Communism and the USSR. If that's peaceful, then I'll start referring to my brigade as "3rd Advise and Assist Brigade" instead of "Heavy Brigade Combat Team Grey Wolf"
[/quote]
The European Union and it's predecessors are not military movements. They were founded to avoid further wars in Europe by creating economical incent not to be hostile towards each other, and promote association, unison and good will between countries and beyond nationalities. And yes, it all comes down to money. As frightening as the Red Scare might have been, it was economical gain that fused our many warring little tribes together.

[/quote]
I'd also contend that "Let's be warful" is usually more of "Shit. War's abrewing and we've disarmed ourselves in the meantime (as it's a near-universal truth, whenever you win a war, slash the army down, then hurriedly build it up on the old plans once the next one is apparent)"
[/quote]
You missed the point. You're original comment was nonsensical. Wars are not always preceded by peaceful sentiments. If you look at European history, you'll see that warring or preparing yourself for war has been the top priorities through all times. If you were not at war with once country, you were with another. Were there ever peace, those years were a race of arms and re-equipping your country for the next war. If a country ever stopped this frenzied pattern of behavior, it was only because the constant and pro-longed battling had driven their economy to it's limit, or beyond them. If there was a fragile peace achieved, you had to get back on your feet faster than your enemy so you could strike him down again, because you "knew" he would do the same to you.

Peace were never an option in Europe. That is, obviously, the reason there were so many wars.

And that's great for Scandinavia. But where's the use of force to control something? There's nothing wrong with a nation-state not being a wartime power (heck if I don't love Sweden and Lichtenstein), but only as far as someone else is there to protect them (or that they are able to protect themselves) from outside aggressors. However, if everyone was neutral like that, who'd correct abuses in the darker corners of the world? Make no mistake, evil happens, and damn little usually happens before it becomes a full war.

Yes, that is the downside. Yet it is the sentiment that we should strive to spread.
However, nobody fights wars to "correct abuses in the darker corners of the world". Nobody ever has. Don't fool yourself with such obvious propaganda.

Come on. That's not even a good use of slippery slope argument. We didn't, they did. What more do you want? If America had slipped down the path of that sort of insanity, it'd be the responsibility of the rest of the world to stop us.

It's not a good slippery slope argument because it was never meant to argue any such thing. My point was that nobody cared about Germany's evil, because all other nations were busy doing the same thing to their own population. As hard to believe as it may be from our perspective, such things where the norm and it only became evil and undesireable when we needed something of our enemy's to point at and say "Look! Look how immoral they are! That makes us the good guys! Let's fight!"

I agree, just on the basis that there exist just wars. If a war is just, then it doesn't matter who fires first, in fact, if the "good" side (talking in terms of a lighter shade of grey in a black vs grey world) is going to gain an advantage (thereby saving lives in the long run) it's immoral for them *not* to take it. See also preventive war and preemptive war. Preemptive war (NATO is going to launching a full scale attack in 72 hours, therefore we'll have our tanks through the Fulda Gap in 48, to use my ever required Red Storm Rising example) is certainly justified, while Preventive war often is (Operation Opera, for example, or operations undertook to prevent a crazy-type regime from getting nukes).

There are wars that might be called just, I won't argue with that. The most "just" of all wars, though, are the one fought to defend oneself from an active attacker. It very much matters who makes the first move. By attacking first, even if it's possible it might save lives in the end, your "good" side makes it "just" for the defenders to fight you. With all that entails.

That is the main problem with preemptive warfare. Not much of a way around it, other than the fact that hopefully one side is obviously anti-humanitarian. Else, there gets to be a point where the issue is grey enough that the attackers shouldn't be attacking.

Thank you for agreeing.

Strife skips lunch and spends what little free time he has to debate on the Internets!

You shouldn't, man. It's not fair to make us argue with you and worry about you at the same time. It makes my conscience all funny.

If it helps, the event that came right after said debating made me throw up anyway, so no real harm was done by my skipping lunch.
[/quote]
...No, it doesn't. Not at all

[Nikov]

THIS DAY IN WORLD WAR TWO!

On this day in 1944, Russia penetrates into East Karelia, in Finland, as it fights to gain back control of territory that had already been ceded to it.

According to the terms of the Treaty of Moscow of 1940, Finland was forced to surrender parts of its southeastern territory, including the Karelian Isthmus, to the Soviet Union, which was eager to create a buffer zone for Leningrad. To protect itself against further Russian encroachment, Finland allowed Germany to traverse its country in its push eastward into Russia, despite the fact that it did not have a formal alliance with the Axis power. Emboldened by the damage Germany was inflicting on Russia, Finland pursued the "War of Continuation" and won back large parts of the territory it had ceded to Moscow in the 1940 treaty.

But as Germany suffered setback after setback, and the Allies continued bombing runs in the Balkans, using Russia as part of its "shuttle" strategy, Finland began to panic and made overtures to Stalin about signing an armistice. By June 9, the Red Army was once again in the East Karelia, and Stalin was in no mood to negotiate, demanding at least a symbolic "surrender" of Finland entirely. Finland turned back to its "friend," Germany, which promised continued support. A change in Finnish government resulted in a change in perspective, and Finland finally signed an armistice that gave Stalin what he wanted: all the old territory from the 1940 treaty and a guarantee that German troops would evacuate Finnish soil. Finland agreed but the German army refused to leave. Terrible battles were waged between the two behemoths; finally, with the defeat of the Axis, Russia got what it wanted, not only in Finnish territory, but also in war reparations to the tune of $300 million. Finland would become known for its passivity in the face of the Soviet threat in the postwar era.

[Aqizzar]

Whatever anyone want's to argue about war means, can we all agree that saying American soldiers fought at Normandy to make their own decisions about healthcare is really fucking stupid?

I think we can all agree that's a stupid thing to say.

[Vector]

Come on. That's not even a good use of slippery slope argument. We didn't, they did. What more do you want? If America had slipped down the path of that sort of insanity, it'd be the responsibility of the rest of the world to stop us.

We did.  We only failed to enact gas chambers because we thought it would be too much work in the current infrastructure.

Instead we gave entrants to mental hospitals tuberculosis in order to purify the gene pool.  We sterilized people.  We demonized and categorized them.  We funded the Nazis (or, at the very least, the Rockefeller foundation did): for the common good.  For everyone's happiness.

We stopped, quietly, because we saw what it looked like when our enemies did it.  Or rather--"stopped."  The mentally ill are still often castrated.  Autistic children are lawfully submitted to electric shock.

And after the war, one Alan Turing, a British man known as the father of computer science, was chemically sterilized for his homosexuality, having worked extensively to crack German cryptography during the war.

So it goes, right?  I have more, but I don't want to even begin.

So let's not go glorifying ourselves on this field.  We were not pure, and we were not just.  We simply managed to help end a war.

[Leafsnail]

And after the war, one Alan Turing, a British man known as the father of computer science, was chemically sterilized for his homosexuality, having worked extensively to crack German cryptography during the war.

And he almost certainly killed himself two years later as a result.  It was an unbelievably stupid way to lose such a great mind.

[Nikov]

Whatever anyone want's to argue about war means, can we all agree that saying American soldiers fought at Normandy to make their own decisions about healthcare is really fucking stupid?

I think we can all agree that's a stupid thing to say.

I think we can all agree that has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is an attempt to derail us into contemporary American politics.

[Aqizzar]

No, it's attempt to say that you shouldn't project modern politics into history, especially events it has nothing to do with.  That's what he was doing, and I think it's disrespectful.  Hopefully, no one disagrees with that.

[Jackrabbit]

It's also really, really funny. Whose side is he on? I bet they feel embarrassed.

[Nikov]

No, it's attempt to say that you shouldn't project modern politics into history, especially events it has nothing to do with.  That's what he was doing, and I think it's disrespectful.  Hopefully, no one disagrees with that.

Conveniently ridiculing your political opposition in the process.

[Jackrabbit]

I'd disagree, since that was such a stupid thing to say that I'm surprised you're so worked up about this. As I'm not well versed in American politics I apologize if I'm naming the wrong party, but do you really think Aqizzar things all Republicans are as dumb as this guy or that he's just making fun of a really stupid person irregardless of their party?

Hell, if you showed me a video of someone using D-Day as an excuse for supporting same sex marriage I'd think he was an idiot, and considering the argument this guy made all you'd need to do is substitute a few words and make him a Liberal.

[Chaoswizkid]

The European Union and it's predecessors are not military movements. They were founded to avoid further wars in Europe by creating economical incent not to be hostile towards each other, and promote association, unison and good will between countries and beyond nationalities. And yes, it all comes down to money. As frightening as the Red Scare might have been, it was economical gain that fused our many warring little tribes together.

Eh, I somewhat disagree that the concept of economical gain outweighed the threat of the Soviet Union. Banding together formally and saying "If you fight one of us, you fight all of us" is more of a deterrent than "Feel free to pick us off one by one, because we love what Germany did not too long ago." That deterrent seems to me to have been especially necessary. I think you are underestimating the threat; the United States and the Soviet Union basically bankrupted themselves in perpetual arms races. Entire countries don't get to do that unless there is a substantial fear, and the United States was at a lot less risk of invasion than Europe (which I'm almost 100% sure was supplied by the US). Granted that the US was in more danger of being wiped off the map with the use of nuclear weapons because it was the greatest threat to the Soviet Union, the danger of nuclear war in Europe was also a large possibility with tactical rather than strategic nuclear weapons. I didn't live during that time so this is all speculation on my part, but it sounds a lot more threatening than you make it sound. I see the EU having a primary reason to form due to the Soviets, although economical gain is certainly high up there. Thoughts?

THIS DAY IN WORLD WAR TWO!

On this day in 1944, Russia penetrates into East Karelia, in Finland, as it fights to gain back control of territory that had already been ceded to it.

According to the terms of the Treaty of Moscow of 1940, Finland was forced to surrender parts of its southeastern territory, including the Karelian Isthmus, to the Soviet Union, which was eager to create a buffer zone for Leningrad. To protect itself against further Russian encroachment, Finland allowed Germany to traverse its country in its push eastward into Russia, despite the fact that it did not have a formal alliance with the Axis power. Emboldened by the damage Germany was inflicting on Russia, Finland pursued the "War of Continuation" and won back large parts of the territory it had ceded to Moscow in the 1940 treaty.

But as Germany suffered setback after setback, and the Allies continued bombing runs in the Balkans, using Russia as part of its "shuttle" strategy, Finland began to panic and made overtures to Stalin about signing an armistice. By June 9, the Red Army was once again in the East Karelia, and Stalin was in no mood to negotiate, demanding at least a symbolic "surrender" of Finland entirely. Finland turned back to its "friend," Germany, which promised continued support. A change in Finnish government resulted in a change in perspective, and Finland finally signed an armistice that gave Stalin what he wanted: all the old territory from the 1940 treaty and a guarantee that German troops would evacuate Finnish soil. Finland agreed but the German army refused to leave. Terrible battles were waged between the two behemoths; finally, with the defeat of the Axis, Russia got what it wanted, not only in Finnish territory, but also in war reparations to the tune of $300 million. Finland would become known for its passivity in the face of the Soviet threat in the postwar era.

Thanks Nikov! Always wondered about Finland's involvement but I've studied them the least. I hate to see that these posts of yours seem unnoticed in the wash of debate, but I wanted to let you know that it's definitely appreciated.

Yeah, honestly, I really think that I was born in the wrong year. Much rather that I was back then and fighting rather than here and now.

I feel you, Strife. I often feel the same way myself.

That said, reading what you've written brought a concept I was told about to mind and I figured I'd ask you what your opinion on it would be.

The idea is that the fastest way to win a war is to completely demoralize the opponent by bringing overwhelming firepower to bear on a constant basis. Minor threats are met with extreme prejudice, and when the enemy sees that doing absolutely anything against you is hopeless, morale is lost and the war is won. However, due to political reasons and modern humanitarian issues, such overwhelming firepower is detested due to the large possibility of civilian casualties (I say modern because back in WW2 it was fine to level entire cities with carpet-bombing when civilians were pretty much the target). In speculation, cases where the advantage of firepower is absolute will result in very fast drops in morale and requires less deaths on the enemy's side, resulting in an even more humanitarian method of war.

In cases like Iraq and Afghanistan, Coalition forces are forced to fight a war on the opponent's terms with troops on the ground in constant danger, rather than completely wiping out a village or section of town known to house enemies from across the horizon. While resorting to such tactics has its own political losses (relationships with the participating countries of the Coalition and NATO would probably decline faster), it removes the need to put the lives of Coalition forces in the line of fire. Allowing the enemy the capability to wound, kill, or otherwise disrupt Coalition forces allows an opportunity to raise morale, especially given an opponent's mindset of war and martyrdom is glorious. Ending a war by demoralizing the opponent becomes nigh impossible, and soldiers will continue to be killed.

Here's where the actual concept comes into play: Should politicians (who start the wars) be put on trial for mass-murder of its own and other countries' citizens for not committing all conventional weapons and resources into ending the war in the shortest amount of time possible? Should they also be persecuted for placing its own citizens in life-or-death situations when other alternatives exist?

It's a very extreme position to take, but it's an interest thought experiment in my opinion. The floor is open to everyone else, of course, this just came to mind and I wanted to hear Strife's take on it if he'd be generous enough to give it.

[Strife26]

I'd be happy to give my opinion (as per usual, I guess). Basically, you're proposing the theory of rapid dominance.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Doctrine_of_rapid_dominance

Now, in general, I'm a propononent of it. However, I think that it really depends on the motivation of one's enemy. If the enemy is motivated by personal profit, or the welfare of his nation-state/group rapid dominance is effective. Clearly show that there is *no* chance of him winning, remove his will to fight, end the war.

However, Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a traditional war, nor is it even one where the opfor cares about their country as a whole (I'd very very strongly contend that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan can be considered to have strong national identies. Iraqis divide themselves into Sunni, Shia, and Kurd while Afghanistan is all about the tribe and the clan. Even worse, the primary goal is not even the preservation of their local group, but a holy war against the Infidel Great Satan. Effectivley, for us to apply Rapid Domince against the insurgent forces that we're fighting right now, we'd have to get awful Salvation Warry. Either that, or in traditional senses, we'd have to do enough destruction that we're talking raze and salted earth, which is hardly a good thing.

The manner in which we currently are conducting the wars (COIN: Counter-Insurgency warfare) is, as far as I can reason, the best war to minimize everyone's causalities. The goal of this war is the common people. Call 10% of them are going to hate us no matter what we do. 10% are going to love us. It's the 80% in the middle that we've got to at least not aid the enemy.

We're helped by the fact that we can improve villages (Sewers, schools, electricity, food, roads, There's a few others, but I can't remember the acronym right now), but we're harmed by the fact that any civie killed hurts our side, not theirs, as well as the fact that we do our best to keep our own soldier alive.

[Leafsnail]

To add to the point about enemy motivation, there's also the fact that going for "rapid dominance" is likely to just drive more people towards the insurgency (while they're supposedly all about Holy War, a lot of their recruitment is based on anti-foreigner "get them out of our country" rhetoric).

[Nikov]

To add to the point about enemy motivation, there's also the fact that going for "rapid dominance" is likely to just drive more people towards the insurgency (while they're supposedly all about Holy War, a lot of their recruitment is based on anti-foreigner "get them out of our country" rhetoric).

Unless you are invading France, such as in THIS DAY IN WORLD WAR TWO!

June 10, 1940
France. Rommel continues his charge down the Channel coast, West of Paris. Northeast of Paris, Guderian’s Panzers advance towards Chalons-sur-Marne. Demonstrating the value of German flexibility & mobility, 16th Panzer Corps are withdrawn from Péronne & sent East to support Guderian’s breakthrough. With Paris threatened, the French government flees to Tours. They declare Paris an open city to avoid the destruction by bombing & street fighting seen in Warsaw & Amsterdam.

In a second Allied evacuation from the French coast (Operation Cycle), 3321 troops embark at St-Valery-en-Caux & 11,059 troops are evacuated from Le Havre. Overnight, 9000 men are taken from Le Havre to Cherbourg to continue fighting. Destroyers HMS Bulldog & Boadicea (6 lives lost) are badly damaged by German bombing off Le Havre. HMS Boadicea is towed back to Dover & will be out of commission until February 1941.

Italy declares war on France and Britain, effective June 11, expecting to make easy gains in Southern France. Benito Mussolini says cynically "I only need a few thousand dead to sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought." Equally cynical, Churchill reacts to the news “People who go to Italy to look at ruins won’t have to go as far as Naples and Pompeii again”.

Norway. British armed boarding vessel HMS Vandyck is sunk by German bombing off Andenes (7 lives lost, 161 men row ashore and are taken prisoner). The first convoy of troopships carrying men from Narvik (Group I) arrives unmolested in the Clyde at 6 AM.

[Jackrabbit]

I think, given the spirit of things, I'll create a thread for the 22nd of June.

You can work out for yourselves why that's an important date, in context.