Bill Frist - Taliban Appeaser?

[CAnnoneer]

I thought you said that we won WWII by other methods.

Military victories were certainly instrumental, but let's not kid ourselves about the psychological, economic, and military effects of strategic bombing and ultimately the two nuclear attacks. In his memoirs, Akira Kurosawa has some passages worth reading about what difference the nukes made. It is always amusing to me that some of the most militant pacifists (hehe) wouldn't even be around protesting against the nukes if the nukes were actually not used and so their granddaddies ended up dying in the conventional invasion...

[Darwin]

Indeed logic cannot be expected to survive in the face of an emotional reaction motivated by arbitrary idealistic ethical belief.

I believe, and I recognize this is a belief and not a logical position, that one has to have some cut-off point for how low one will sink in his behavior, ie. an arbitrary, idealistic line between what is ethically acceptable and what is ethically unacceptable, to retain one's basic humanity. What you are describing crosses that line for most humans I know.

[Perd Hapley]

Two amusing things:  

How Mr. Darwin admits that he believes in alogical concepts, and would even die for them.

How Mr. Cannoneer prefers the arbitrary value of living to the arbirtrary value of being humane.  

A fundie like me would be laughed to scorn for such arbitrary and alogical thinking.  Allow me to return the favor.

[The Rabbi]

Of course, they are the ones whose butts would be hauled up in international tribunal for war crimes so I guess they have some stake in the matter.

By whom? Such trials are set up by self-indulgent victors. If you are the victor, you hold the trial. Kind of like what we are doing to Saddam now.

Maybe you should go read about Curtis LeMay and other fine Americans, and how they won WW2. It is so very ironic that the only reason you have the opportunity to criticize such methods is because they were applied by your ancestors for your sake. Hehehehe. It just does not get better than that...

Great.  Another loose CAnoneer on APS.

[CAnnoneer]

Great.  Another loose CAnoneer on APS.

A typical TheRabbism - cute but unsubstantive.

If you ever choose to face jihadists with such methods in an arena, please let me know. I'll be happy to sell tickets. Rest assured some non-zero percentage of the intake will go to a charitable cause.

[The Rabbi]

It was about as substantive as your bizarre posts.

[CAnnoneer]

Two amusing things:  

How Mr. Darwin admits that he believes in alogical concepts, and would even die for them.

How Mr. Cannoneer prefers the arbitrary value of living to the arbirtrary value of being humane.  

A fundie like me would be laughed to scorn for such arbitrary and alogical thinking.  Allow me to return the favor.

As usual, excellent point, fistful.

I'd add however that "To be humane, one must also be alive." Ergo the contradiction.

[CAnnoneer]

I believe, and I recognize this is a belief and not a logical position, that one has to have some cut-off point for how low one will sink in his behavior, ie. an arbitrary, idealistic line between what is ethically acceptable and what is ethically unacceptable, to retain one's basic humanity. What you are describing crosses that line for most humans I know.

In that we agree. I do not love my enemy.

[Lobotomy Boy]

It appears the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have come to the exact opposite conclusion as CAnnoneer about how to deal with a counterinsurgency, according to a draft of a new doctrine based on lessons from the Iraq war.

The spirit of the document is captured in nine paradoxes that reflect the nimbleness required to win the support of the people and isolate insurgents from their potential base of support  a task so complex that military officers refer to it as the graduate level of war.

Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. The more force used, the less effective it is, it notes.

Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. Tactical success guarantees nothing, it says.

Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. The more you protect your force, the less secure you are, it asserts.

Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:

The more force used, the less effective it is.

I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed, but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.

[The Rabbi]

I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed, but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.

+1

[CAnnoneer]

Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:
The more force used, the less effective it is.

I see no contradiction between what USMC says and I said.

If I had to work within the same political constraints as they do, I would advocate the same approach as they do. When I do my own assessments to form an opinion, I have the benefit of not worrying about what politicos in WashDC, bleeding hearts, leftists, liberals, multiculturalists, et cetera, have to say about anything. The USMC has no such luxury.

When you impose additional constraints on a problem, why is it you are surprised you would get a different optimal (least evil) answer?

I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed,

Now you are getting silly. In every historical example where sufficient draconian military force was applied without constraints, it either subjugated the population or eradicated it completely. Reread world history and see that the most often result of a conquest was elimination of the most belligerent segment followed by submission of most of the population in the face of brutal tactics. I can see your emotional need to believe in a better world, but wishful thinking and reality are different things.

Military force failed only where additional constraints, be it political, cultural, religious, or material made it impossible to eradicate a population that refused to submit even in the face of death.

but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.

You can hate me and dismiss me as much as you wish, but if you try to be honest with yourself you'll see that historical example is overwhelmingly on my side. Unless you envision a qualitative jump of humankind of some sort, the burden of proof remains upon you to provide convincing reasons of a potential behavioral discontinuity.

[Perd Hapley]

CAnny,

In your own defense, would you clarify something?  Darwin's Lobster asserts that you advocate genocide.  Is this so?  I didn't interpret your comments that way.  Genocide involves killing, or attempting to kill, an entire race of people.  I don't recall where you called for that.

[CAnnoneer]

fistful,

They wish me to argue genocide so they can pigeon-hole me and dismiss me more easily. That way, my words don't hurt as much. Hehehe. I wonder where we have seen or see such tactics before??

No, I am not advocating the destruction of ethnicities or races. I have friends and colleagues of virtually every tinge and flavor. I do not consider Americans of arabic descent or muslim belief any less American than any other. This is neither a racial nor ethnic thing. It is a cultural and military thing.

What I do advocate is the destruction of hostile cultures. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, some faster and less expensive than others. The fastest and least expensive way is indeed nuclear attacks all over the near and middle east, to eliminate the hostile cultures by eliminating their carriers; indeed that is the only way to win the WOT in an afternoon. A less bloody but more expensive and slower way is the cultural war tactics I explained in some limited detail, in a sense, hardcore "re-education". An even more sanitary and expensive way is "winning the hearts and minds" the smart way. The most expensive and least likely successful way is the current one, wherein we denounce terrorism but validate and "respect" the cultures that breed it.

[The Rabbi]

It worked so well for Hitler and Stalin....

[Lobotomy Boy]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why is the advocacy of the slaughter of one religious group--the Jews--genocide while advocating the slaughter of a similar religious group--the Muslims--not genocide? Either way, it is the plan of a psychotic mind.

[CAnnoneer]

It worked so well for Hitler and Stalin....

Funny that you should bring up those examples:

1) As much as you'd like to ignore it, what defeated Hitler were regular armies, not guerrillas. The guerrillas caused some material damage and tied up some units, but L'Resistance in any country was nowhere nearly as effective or meaningful as Hollywood revisionism would like us to believe. In fact, there is no question that the guerrillas would have been completely wiped out in an year or two, without the "distraction" of gigantic regular armies.

2) Please explain exactly where Stalin was permanently thwarted by guerrillas.

[Perd Hapley]

Lobby, how do you define genocide?

[CAnnoneer]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why is the advocacy of slaughtering one religious group--the Jews--genocide while advocating the slaughter or a similar religious group--the Muslims--not genocide? Either way, it is the plan of a psychotic mind.

This is not about religion and you know it. Besides, comparing jihadists with jews is a bit silly, unless you agree with the nazi ideas about zionist-bolshevik world conspiracies. Do you?

[Lobotomy Boy]

genocidenounthe deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

As I have argued previously, destroy their religious and cultural icons, abuse and destroy their relics, blow up their temples, kill off their leaders and ideologues, stomp their cultures into the dust.

I suppose you might argue that by killing off their "leaders and ideologues," you would not kill ALL Muslims, but you would wipe out a good portion of the people who inhabit the Middle East, well over six million, I reckon. Hence this would put your plan on par with Hitler's final solution, which was, of course, the event that led to the coining of the word "genocide."

How do you define genocide?

[Perd Hapley]

The same definition will suffice, but I don't see CAnnoneer's plan coming anywhere near extermination of Muslims, Arabs, Middle-Easterners, etc.  And that doesn't appear to be its intent.

I'm not signing on to his plan, just pointing out that it's not genocide.  Call it cruel, evil, despicable, whatever - it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.

[CAnnoneer]

Yep, fistful, I agree. My proposal for a cultural war is certainly not genocide. Not even by a long shot. If implemented, it is unlikely to require more than 1% mortality, at the worst. That's peanuts compared to 20th c. warfare.

Lobby, by your definition, what the Allies did to the Germans also qualifies as genocide, since the Germans lost well over 11 million in WW2. Am I to understand you believe FDR and Churchill to be war criminals?

Finally, this is not a numbers game. A cultural war is based on perception and psychological victories, not body count. That's one of the reasons it is incomparable to Hitler, because the nazis believed EVERY jew was equally responsible and equally needed dead. That was based on genus, ergo genocide.

[richyoung]

Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:

The more force used, the less effective it is.

A more self-serving, patently false sentence I have never seen.  These places wring a few bells?


Carthage
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg

...just off of the top of my head.  Force seemed to work pretty good on them.  Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?

I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed,...

...doesn't matter how many times a lie is repeated, its still a lie...

but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.

Where, oh where, is Patton and ('When we get done, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell") Halsey when we need them?

[The Rabbi]

Carthage
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg

...just off of the top of my head.  Force seemed to work pretty good on them.  Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?

This is the best list you can come up with?  What does Troy have to do with Nagasaki?
How about Romans vs Jews, Turks vs Kurds, Chinese vs Tibetans?  British vs Indians, Russians vs Afghans, one could go on.  Force worked for a little while but ultimately failed, as LB pointed out.  And do we really want to choose Spanish Conquistadors and other unsavory types as our role models?

[CAnnoneer]

How about Romans vs Jews, Turks vs Kurds, Chinese vs Tibetans?  British vs Indians, Russians vs Afghans, one could go on.

Come on now. In all those cases, there were additional constraints of various types. Just like I pointed out in an earlier post.

The Romans were utterly successful in crushing the revolt and subjugating the jews. The only reason why there are still jews around today is because the Romans were a slaveowning society that looked upon military campaigns as a form of harvesting operation. Since the jews were far more useful alive than dead, those who submitted (by far the majority) were taken prisoner, enslaved, and sold all over the empire. Vespasian and Titus made piles of gold in the transaction.

The turks could not wipe out the kurds because they wanted membership in the EU and because population is a source of tax revenue.

The Chinese wanted to reeducate, not wipe out the Tibetans. In addition, communist ideology is all about "freeing the oppressed" and "class education" as opposed to military action by any means necessary. The same held true for Russians in Afghanistan. The goal was to turn Tibetans and Afghans into commies, not wipe them out.

The British wanted natural resources and trade, not military conquest by the time of Ghandi. Compare their 1950s reaction to their 1850s reaction. Ghandi would have been strapped to a cannon and executed too if he were a Sipai (Sepoy) in 1857.

Liberal historical wishful propaganda is not history. Mantras are not facts, but propaganda tools. Learn to separate the seed from the chaff.

Force worked for a little while but ultimately failed, as LB pointed out.

You are free to repeat liberal untruth as many times as you wish. It does not make it so, no matter what Goebbels used to say.

And do we really want to choose Spanish Conquistadors and other unsavory types as our role models?

That is irrelevant to your argument. Nice redirection try, though. Dude, you have to clean up your arguing act. It is okay to argue whatever you wish. Just do it in a clean logical way. Your currents methods are simply silly and quite transparent. Besides, the liberal arguing points and techniques make you sound like a troll.

[The Rabbi]

Shouldn't there be a "Gresham's Law" for discussion fora?