Just to throw in a point here while we’re talking about the mechanisms of war, and how civilised people are moving away from using gore as a valid mechanism for anything, what are your thoughts about “shock and awe”?
To quote a CBS article from that time:
Ofcourse, Centcom is media savvy so this never shows up on TV, and whatever does come is immediately lambasted as propaganda and hate mongering.
"Shock and Awe" was and is a misunderstood concept. The term originated during a study of the nuclear bombings in Japan. The question was asked, "Why did the Japanese quit?". The answer was, that given the obvious power, resistance was futile. The psychological expaination was that the Japanese were so filled with "Shock and Awe" of their opponent, that they just quit.
Suprisingly, in military terms, this is considered the most humane of all outcomes. A quick decisive win would avoid the very difficult, long and protracted conflict we are in now. "Shock and Awe" was an effort to spare human life by surgically getting rid of Saddam, and his regime, while sparing civilian life. Like it or not, the war in Iraq was by far the most humane war ever fought. Compared to all other conflicts, the casualties on both sides, and to civilians has been a fraction of all previous wars. That is an historical fact. The difficultly is that never before has every aspect of war been available live and real-time in your living room. The propaganda war is more intese than in any previous war.
Now, you may not choose to believe that this war was "humane". Because of your belief that the war was unjust, or because you are unfamiliar with the absolute horrors of wars before this one, you may believe that never before has a war been this horrible. If you are a student of history, please cite for me a war that was more humane?
That leaves us with the propaganda. In this regard the US is losing badly. Our military has been an abomidable failure in communication. Our ability to parry Al-Jazzeera, and other Arab media outlets has made us look foolish. The ability to take a phrase out of context, or worse yet, a photo out of context has never been worse.
But, the use of the media to portray the grisly horror of Al-Qaedda is truely historic. The number of apologists for their behavior is simply appalling. The lack of impassioned response from our political figure is truely stupid, as these acts expose the soft underbelly of Al-Qaedda. This is what they stand for.... death, power, at all costs in the name of Islam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"Shock and Awe" was and is a misunderstood concept. The term originated during a study of the nuclear bombings in Japan. The question was asked, "Why did the Japanese quit?". The answer was, that given the obvious power, resistance was futile. The psychological expaination was that the Japanese were so filled with "Shock and Awe" of their opponent, that they just quit.
Suprisingly, in military terms, this is considered the most humane of all outcomes. A quick decisive win would avoid the very difficult, long and protracted conflict we are in now. "Shock and Awe" was an effort to spare human life by surgically getting rid of Saddam, and his regime, while sparing civilian life. Like it or not, the war in Iraq was by far the most humane war ever fought. Compared to all other conflicts, the casualties on both sides, and to civilians has been a fraction of all previous wars. That is an historical fact. The difficultly is that never before has every aspect of war been available live and real-time in your living room. The propaganda war is more intese than in any previous war.
Now, you may not choose to believe that this war was "humane". Because of your belief that the war was unjust, or because you are unfamiliar with the absolute horrors of wars before this one, you may believe that never before has a war been this horrible. If you are a student of history, please cite for me a war that was more humane?
[/quote]
Like it or not, you're sprouting the usual, nonsensical BS thats come to be associated with right wingers these days.
Whatever reasons you may have for expediting a surrender, the methods employed are not justified by them. This is akin to the blowing up of civilians in Spain as being justified since Spain pulled out because of it. The bombing was quick, decisive and WRONG. Likewise, the incredible amount of bombs dropped in one day.. where do you suppose they were falling? I remember posting a video with a scene of chaos.. mothers rushing about in shock in the hospital, children screaming when stitches were stitched in without anaesthetic, because they had run out of that..and I also remember you dismissing that as propaganda. If you can find humaneness in that, I dont see how you cant find humaneness in having someone's throat slit for strategic purposes and greater good.
All this BS about this being the most humane war ever merely betrays your very sad tendency to accept whatever soundbite that is offered to you. You ask me to cite a more humane war, I ask you to give me your criterion for 'humaneness'. Personally I feel that whoever coined this notion was very clever in choosing a word that connotes a subjective sentiment instead of quantifiable commodity. If you speak in terms of civilian deaths, then you massively outweigh other wars like the Falkland War, which lasted longer, and had evenly matched opponents. Civilians were 0.3 % of the wars casualties, and the propaganda then was focused on the sinking of a fleeing argentinian ship. Saner times, a more civilised war.. where people are outraged at a sunk military ship as opposed to those who find dropping tens of thousands of munitions on a single city (read link above, read my 'Generation ' thread) fecking humane, regardless of any images of human injuries of the other side that are allowed to trickle in.
[quote]
That leaves us with the propaganda. In this regard the US is losing badly. Our military has been an abomidable failure in communication. Our ability to parry Al-Jazzeera, and other Arab media outlets has made us look foolish. The ability to take a phrase out of context, or worse yet, a photo out of context has never been worse.
[/quote]
ha. out of context. i guess theres nothing that can convince you, who beleives religiously in the goodness of the american bombs that there is nothing that can be taken out of context in a child who's limbs are spread across his living room. And before your dismiss this as emotive leftwing arabist propaganda, know that you're in the same position as the one who dismisses human concerns and moral qualms about having someone's throat slit as merely emotive right wing incitement against Islam.
[quote]
But, the use of the media to portray the grisly horror of Al-Qaedda is truely historic. The number of apologists for their behavior is simply appalling. The lack of impassioned response from our political figure is truely stupid, as these acts expose the soft underbelly of Al-Qaedda. This is what they stand for.... death, power, at all costs in the name of Islam.
[/QUOTE]
sure its truly historic. historic stupidity on one end, immense cleverness on the other. the methods employed may be different, but the gore isnt. who is more evil? i dont care to know.
Sorry dude,
You miss the entire point. Saddam and his henchmen were a brutal outrage. Commuters in Spain were not. Saddam was a dictator out of control. Attempts at moral equivlency are sad when they have no relevance.
IF you accept the fact that someday Saddam would go, the question is when and how many lives would it cost. The very same people who are indiscriminately bombing Iraqis today would be the one's attmepting to contol Iraq after Saddam's fall. It had become a culture of brutality and moral vacuum.
The fact that we now have beheadings is no small wonder. This is a culture that has gone from one of the most advanced in the Middle East to a barely comprehensible society driven by fear and intimidation.
The fact that we are now arguing about the US means that we have once again circled around a thread to the absurd.
Beheading was not taught by the US. There is nothing in our culture or heritage that would make you blame THIS on US! Let's see this one circle around so that once more the moral vacuum that is radical Islam tries to find another scapegoat for poor behavior.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Sorry dude,
You miss the entire point. Saddam and his henchmen were a brutal outrage. Commuters in Spain were not. Saddam was a dictator out of control. Attempts at moral equivlency are sad when they have no relevance.
IF you accept the fact that someday Saddam would go, the question is when and how many lives would it cost. The very same people who are indiscriminately bombing Iraqis today would be the one's attmepting to contol Iraq after Saddam's fall. It had become a culture of brutality and moral vacuum.
The fact that we now have beheadings is no small wonder. This is a culture that has gone from one of the most advanced in the Middle East to a barely comprehensible society driven by fear and intimidation.
The fact that we are now arguing about the US means that we have once again circled around a thread to the absurd.
Beheading was not taught by the US. There is nothing in our culture or heritage that would make you blame THIS on US! Let's see this one circle around so that once more the moral vacuum that is radical Islam tries to find another scapegoat for poor behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Woah. Hang on. Where did you go from arguing that it was the most humane war in history to arguing for its justification? I did not bring that topic up, seems like you were forced to.
Leaving aside the rationale for war, and rest assured there exist a fair many in opposition to it, we were talking about how it was waged.
Given that you do not address my example of the Falklands as a 'humaner' war, and instead launch into a diatribe about how necessary the war was, i gather that you do not have an answer to it. atleast one that demonstrates that it was 'the most humane war in history'.
Instead of addressing radical Islam and your opinions of whether its finding a scapegoate for poor behaviour you are shirking from addressing my points. I did not find a scapegoat for their behaviour, I dont intend on claiming that the US is responsible for the beheading. But Im also arguing that you have absolutely no cause for claiming high ground, for sitting pretty on your military's massive barrage of munitions into urban areas and claiming that it was a humane war.
Either concede that your humane war spin is a load of crap, or address my points without talking to imaginary conversants raising convenient points.
[quote]
You miss the entire point. Saddam and his henchmen were a brutal outrage. Commuters in Spain were not. Saddam was a dictator out of control. Attempts at moral equivlency are sad when they have no relevance.
[/quote]
i didnt address this part. when arguing about the grisliness of war, and especially when you are making the case that the brutality of AQ is at an out-of-sight high pedestal, political world view becomes irrelevant. political opinions justify nothing, not commuter bombing, nor cluster bombing.
furthermore, people here and elsewhere have repeatedly been saying 'war is ugly. collateral damage happens'. a sick argument often used by those who justify AQ acts. as you can see in the article above, the plan was to not leave any part of baghdad safe. a city bombarded with tens of thousands of bombs, 15 percent of which dont explode. is 1500 bombs exploded when discovered by children an acceptable number? would you prefer if somehow a kid was caught being blown up on tape? would that convince you that seen or unseen, the grisliness is ugly, but not unique to terrorists?
Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy the death of a million is a statistic.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
whereas there may be some idiots who celebrate such barbaric acts,
[/QUOTE]
At least a few of them, alas, nicks that post to this forum.