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.

My mistake thought you were saying it was Roosevelt.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'd argue some terrorist organizations could have a valid case for Jus Ad Bellum. The primary problem is determining whether or not a non-state entity can qualify as a legitimate authority (traditionally the answer is no).

Usually its the later two that I think are automatic failures, as most terrorist organizations have unrealistic goals and engage in unethical war practices (hence the name terrorist XD)

Ah, check your quotes. You said that, not me. You're actually debating with yourself there

And I'd say that the various elements need to be understood as inter-related. That is, having a good cause actually makes it more likely you'll be able to achieve your ambitions, and provide some kind of stable outcome (whether its merely political freedoms won, or an overthrow of the old regime). Similarly, fighting the cause in a way that is justified by your cause also increases the chance of a stable outcome.

That last part is where I'd argue the Tamil Tigers failed. In being so ruthless, they put themselves in a position where there was no chance of a stable outcome. Sri Lanka couldn't tolerate independance for a group of people who had done what the Tigers had done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I am aware of how difficult a revolution is.

So it's a little unfair to claim he failed two of them, and therefore is a loser, surely?

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

I thought the story about him executing a traitor was considered pretty solid these days? Nothing compared to what he did while in power, of course, but still strong evidence he had become a very ruthless man during the fighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

It reminds of how interesting and nuanced it is to hear an Israeli talk about relations with Palestine, and compare that to the view of a Jewish American.

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

It reminds of how interesting and nuanced it is to hear an Israeli talk about relations with Palestine, and compare that to the view of a Jewish American.

Yeah, that's a useful analogy.

 sebster wrote:
Ah, check your quotes. You said that, not me. You're actually debating with yourself there

Arguing with one brick wall is the same as arguing with any other brick wall I suppose

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I am aware of how difficult a revolution is.

So it's a little unfair to claim he failed two of them, and therefore is a loser, surely?

I never said he was a loser, that was someone else, just that he did fail two revolutions. His introduction to his Congo diaries even starts with "This is the story of a failure." Che wasn't the kind of man to compromise or mince words. He would regard anything but the total completion of the goal as a failure. Still, his failures in Bolivia and the Congo don't detract from his success in Cuba, so calling him a loser is to do his whole history an injustice. It would be like calling Montgomery a loser because Market Garden failed whilst ignoring his victories in Africa.

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

I thought the story about him executing a traitor was considered pretty solid these days? Nothing compared to what he did while in power, of course, but still strong evidence he had become a very ruthless man during the fighting.

He did execute deserters if they were caught within the realm of operations of the Guerrilla column. A famous example was the execution of three deserters who had started terrorising the local peasants, including raping the women, taking their food and money and then burning their house down, all whilst they pretended to be high ranking members of the Guerrilla Army. Che's column caught them and he had them executed. Considering that the maximum punishment for desertion in the US army during wartime is death even now and the Guerrillas had no prison to hold detainees, or the personnel to guard it even if they did, executions were really the only punishment available. Che acknowledges in his Cuban memoirs that some of the people executed during this time might have deserved a chance to redeem themselves but without the resources to allow that chance it wasn't possible.

If people wanted to leave the guerrilla army they were given the choice after a couple of days of marching, if they chose to do so they had to immediately leave the area of operations or would be treated as a deserter and shot if they were captured. For a small force which relies on surprise and misinformation to defeat larger enemy forces this approach is understandable. You don't want lots of people moving about who know roughly how many men you have or where you are, in case they are picked up by the military the column is trying to ambush and become informers.

So there's a difference between the treatment of a captured enemy soldier and a captured person who had previously been a part of the guerrilla band and left without permission. Che's treatment and expectations of his men were quite severe but he held himself to the same standards.