There is hope after all!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote: Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Which neatly removed all their rights....

**Wolfstan**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

**reds8n**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
reds8n wrote: Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

**Wolfstan**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

If Hamas is an elected government, then isn't Gaza a soverign state? If this is the case, then as far as I understand it, in the eyes of the UN you need a mandate to invade a sovereign state? I also believe that the UN has passed numerous resolution condemning Israel's action over the years.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Wolfstan wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

They can laugh all they want. My point is that they will say that they want peace to our face and shapen their knives in the back of our rib cages.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Wolfstan wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

If Hamas is an elected government, then isn't Gaza a soverign state? If this is the case, then as far as I understand it, in the eyes of the UN you need a mandate to invade a sovereign state? I also believe that the UN has passed numerous resolution condemning Israel's action over the years.

If Gaza is a soverign state, then where was the UN to stop one state from launching rockets into another without provication? And if Gaza is a soverign state, then Isreal has a right to defend itself from its attacks. If France started launching rockets into the UK, then the UK can legally retaliate.

**reds8n**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Also, Israel is fond of Bulldozing Palestinian Settlements, Tattooing young men and boys with Barcodes (doesn't that sound vaguely familiar..) and generally reacting incredibly heavy handedly.

A lot is made of their elite forces, yet they seem a helluva lot happier to merely bombard civilian areas rather than perform surgical strikes....

**Wolfstan**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

They can laugh all they want. My point is that they will say that they want peace to our face and shapen their knives in the back of our rib cages.

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote:

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.

But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Wolfstan wrote:

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

Nice work Freud. Care to look inward?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

**Grignard**

reds8n wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

And I might argue that trying to make a moral point is silly. Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, i'm going to respond in kind.

But for what it is worth I think Israel believes they've been given carte blanche to basically do what they want. I think it is ironic that they're essentially doing this based on ethnic and religious differences, when you think abou their history.

**Wolfstan**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

Nice work Freud. Care to look inward?

Complex? Nope, we know it's for real. When you used to control 1/5 of the planet you've got to be prepared for grudges

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

You really think Isreal did carpet bombing? A small area that has millions living in it has suffered a thousand casualties and you belive that is carpet bombing? If Isreal wanted to break the law, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands. As far as the UN inquieres... all the UN does is write angry letters and pout.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Grignard wrote: I think it is ironic that they're essentially doing this based on ethnic and religious differences, when you think abou their history.

I disagree. I think Isreal was being attacked based on religious and ethnic reasons. I think Isreal does not bomb people that dont attack them first.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I didn't say they did. I explained that the West has done horrific things in order to secure our own Borders, and that now, thankfully, the days of inaccurate and indiscriminate Bombardments are no longer necessary...

And we'll see about the UN. Wonder how Israel will deal with severe trade embargoes? Or of course they will simply ignore any resolution against it and press on with their course of extremely heavy handed reprisals, and then wonder why yet another generation of Palestinians despise them.

**ShumaGorath**

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And we'll see about the UN. Wonder how Israel will deal with severe trade embargoes? Or of course they will simply ignore any resolution against it and press on with their course of extremely heavy handed reprisals, and then wonder why yet another generation of Palestinians despise them.

But what did Isreal do that was wrong? There was no chemical warfare. They did not perfore ethnic cleansing. They did not rape the women and kill the children. They took precautions to prevent civilian casualties. They targeted specific areas (not carpet bombing). They showed restraint when going to war against a foe that hides behind children when launching its rockets.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

**ShumaGorath**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

Which is historically incorrect. Wars are won and lost via infrastructure damage, and generally beating up the other guys army through superior numbers/technology/deployment etc. Wars can be won by crushing the will of the resisting force through civilian casualties, but thats not a war that is then won for any reason other than to win. We beat the japanese by killing many, many, many civilians (and destroying their military and industrial capability). We beat the germans by breaking their militaries back and forcing surrender. The difference between the two is that we went with the expedient and easy answer in japan rather than forcibly deposing their governmental structure with troops, and in modern times our victory in the pacific isn't savored by many.

Killing civilians is a way to win a war. It also makes you a monster and more often then not emboldens your enemies to fight you all the harder (crystal nacht certainly didn't scare people into surrendering).

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

**Gen. Lee Losing**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

Which is historically incorrect. Wars are won and lost via infrastructure damage, and generally beating up the other guys army through superior numbers/technology/deployment etc. Wars can be won by crushing the will of the resisting force through civilian casualties, but thats not a war that is then won for any reason other than to win. We beat the japanese by killing many, many, many civilians (and destroying their military and industrial capability). We beat the germans by breaking their militaries back and forcing surrender. The difference between the two is that we went with the expedient and easy answer in japan rather than forcibly deposing their governmental structure with troops, and in modern times our victory in the pacific isn't savored by many.

Killing civilians is a way to win a war. It also makes you a monster and more often then not emboldens your enemies to fight you all the harder (crystal nacht certainly didn't scare people into surrendering).

I am NOT advocating winning a war solely thru civilian casualties!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!!)
But I am saying that if a few civilians die in a war zone, I am not suppressed! I was not talking about genocide, I was talking about that infrastructure damage you mentioned! It is not soldiers that are using the pipelines! it is not the army that is manning the trains!

As for the victory in the Pacific- My granddad fought in the British army in Africa and Italy. He prayed in thanksgiving to the end of his life that we dropped the A-Bomb. He was scheduled to go into the Pacific after the victory in Europe. My grandfather was not a hypocrite. He did not blame the US for killings that he knew would have been done by his hand if not by the US.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

**ShumaGorath**

I am NOT advocating winning a war solely thru civilian casualties!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!!)
But I am saying that if a few civilians die in a war zone, I am not suppressed! I was not talking about genocide, I was talking about that infrastructure damage you mentioned! It is not soldiers that are using the pipelines! it is not the army that is manning the trains!

Schools are not viable infrastructure targets to be shelled. Something which you defended in your initial post. Infrastructure targets are factories, refineries, bridges, trainyards, and anything else that directly supports the war effort. They are not schools, they are not churches/mosques/temples, and they are not peoples homes. Something Isreal doesn't understand.

My grandfather was not a hypocrite. He did not blame the US for killings that he knew would have been done by his hand if not by the US.

You're grandfather would have singlehandedly destroyed all of tokyo? He would have killed thousands upon thousands at hiroshima and nagasaki? A US invasion would not have done the things the bombings did, and we would have taken a fraction of the casualties in our invasion that we caused through the two nukes and the firebombing. An armed invasion would have been costly, but the human deathtoll would have been much less than the cowardly (but expediant) actions taken to put them down quickly. The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

So what was right?
The Korean 8 year old girls being dragged around by japanese soldiers to rape? (officers first, so they dont get any STDs!)
Forced labor and beating and starvation of the British POWs?
Telling the civilians to kill themselves to avoid capture form the barbaric westerns? (and husbands slitting the throats of their wives and children?)

War is ugly! It is always ugly! We have this misconception that we can have 'clean' wars. It is always dirty! I can sleep with the use of A-Bombs. Could you sleep with rape and murder? The US wins in that argument!

**Frazzled**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

You really think Isreal did carpet bombing? A small area that has millions living in it has suffered a thousand casualties and you belive that is carpet bombing? If Isreal wanted to break the law, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands. As far as the UN inquieres... all the UN does is write angry letters and pout.

I blame a lack of education here. If Israel had wanted to carpet bomb, Gaza would have ceased to exist. Heck they could fuel/air bonbed every square foot. Thats without resorting to nukes...

It would have stopped the rocket attacks much more easily and completely. If Gaza were an independent nation by rights Israel could have nuked it. Where was the UN for years when rockets were coming in? The proportionate response theory is BS from a losing side. When you have better tools you use them. If you are in a fight and the other guys is trying to kill you witha knife you don't use a stick if you have a gun. You use the gun.