Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 2, 2001 13:17:34 GMT -5
Elric, that wasn't what I was saying. I'm just wondering why they blatantly refused to even listen to the Taliban the past years. Can you give me a rational reason ?
And your example is although similar basicly different in a couple of key points.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 2, 2001 13:28:27 GMT -5
LB! Please point out to me how the Taliban has EVER offered full extradition of bin Laden? I realize the the scenario I painted is a one on one level analogy, but the theme is exactly the same. In our case, we know damn good and well that the Taliban is NOT going to find bin Laden guilty of anything! In the example I painted applying to you, I am convinced you could say the same thing!
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 2, 2001 14:31:32 GMT -5
it rather shows that the US have no intention to lose the massive oil supplies beneath Afghani surface With all due respect LB, you are seriously mistaken. If we wanted the "oil" under afghanistan we would have put our own government in there when the soviets moved out. Has it ever occured to you that the reason we are attacking the taliban and al queda is that THEY ATTACKED US AND MURDERED 5,000 PEOPLE IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON?
|
|
Zoras
Minion
Burn with the Dragon's soul
Posts: 203
|
Post by Zoras on Nov 2, 2001 19:18:31 GMT -5
I don't really wish to get into this argument, but I wanted to address Billy Yank's earlier post about winning a war.
There are two major ways to win a war: Through conquest, or through acceptance. The first is the most common, and it usually involves the conquerors coming in, enforcing their way of government, life, culture and so forth on the conquered populace for a long enough period of time that the conquered populace eventually comes to accept it and assimilates it into their own culture. We have seen this happen many, many times throughout history: The Muslim invaders into India about 1200 years ago, the various Medieval European wars, the Mongol invasions of China and Persia etc.
The second, and much harder, way is for the conquerors to show themselves as a much more appealing way of life than the original culture. This rarely happens because people will instinctively prefer the culture and life they are familiar with as opposed to one they do not know. It has occured though, the most notable example being Japan after WW2. English is now 'hip' in Japan, and many of the Japanese youth do outrageous things that would be suppressed harshly in the old culture, like dyeing their hair, piercing their ears and so forth.
I should point out that the older Japanese still hold grudges against the West and that if, given the chance, would they once again start their expansionist wars, most of them said yes. The younger generations however, would prefer to let things lie.
Then again, I know many older people from Australia and the UK who hold similar attitudes towards the Japanese and Germans.
Another example of the war by acceptance method occured in ancient China, during the period of the Three Kingdoms. One of the major Kingdoms, the state of Shu, was constantly plagued by barbarian attacks on their cities in the west. Eventually the King sent his most capable advisor and strategist, Zhuge Liang, to deal with the situation.
In the 2 year long war that followed, Zhuge Liang captured and released the enemy leader no less than 7 times, when he could have easily put the leader to death after the first capture. After the 7th time, the enemy leader relented and asked forgiveness from Zhuge Liang for his errors against the Shu state. Zhuge Liang happily forgave the enemy leader and allowed him to continue ruling his lands west of Shu.
Since then, even up till today, there have been no further conflicts in that region.
So it DOES work, but not all the time, and I suspect that the wider the gulf in cultures, religion and beliefs, the more difficult it will be to change somebody's attitude towards your way of life.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Nov 2, 2001 19:45:46 GMT -5
Anyway, the FIRST and most important concern of ANY war is to win... and the military concerns ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION should be above any other concerns (nation building, humanitarian aid, etc). Those who think otherwise are the same idiots who got us into the mess in vietnam I disagree, and I didn't get us involved in Vietnam. ;-) "Winning" in a war is totally dependent on what one's objectives are. It is not simply a matter of wiping out the "enemy." Military concerns HAVE TO BE subordinate to larger political goals. Otherwise, it degenerates into mindless, purposeless slaughter. There is rarely any real "victory" in that.
|
|
|
Post by Solaufein_Xiltyn on Nov 2, 2001 20:06:16 GMT -5
Vietnam was a political objective not a military one. The politicians used the military, like good little puppets that they were, to try and achieve their goals. The political process failed because we alienanted the Viets and our people back home so it was no longer a worth while pursuit
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 2, 2001 20:59:58 GMT -5
Military concerns HAVE TO BE subordinate to larger political goals. Otherwise, it degenerates into mindless, purposeless slaughter. There is rarely any real "victory" in that. Spoken by someone who has no idea what military concerns are.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 3, 2001 2:49:30 GMT -5
Elric, the point is that the US haven't even listened to what the Taliban had to say. I was just wondering if that might have anything to do with the earlier discussion we had on who's really in charge on this ball of mud of ours.
BY, are you serious ? You're saying that a war *doesn't* serve a higher political goal ? Would you care elaborating this ?
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Nov 3, 2001 4:57:20 GMT -5
Elric, the point is that the US haven't even listened to what the Taliban had to say. I was just wondering if that might have anything to do with the earlier discussion we had on who's really in charge on this ball of mud of ours. BY, are you serious ? You're saying that a war *doesn't* serve a higher political goal ? Would you care elaborating this ? The Taliban have had their Chances, and squandered them because they thought that YET AGAIN, they would just get a little slap on the wrists, well they have crossed the line now. How far do you want the free world to fall back LB? How much leeway do you want to give mass murderes and genocidal maniacs before action is taken, I tell you one thing, I feel much safer in my home knowing that the majoraty of world leaders are not like you in their thoughts on how to deal with these sort of people.....
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 3, 2001 5:03:54 GMT -5
Fonz, as far as I can tell the Taliban were given two options by the US : surrender (Osama) unconditionally or die. No room for their point of view let alone any negotations whatsoever. What would you choose ?
And this isn't about falling back, it's about finding another, more efficient (definetly on the long run) method of dealing with this scum.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 6:19:10 GMT -5
Spoken by someone who has no idea what military concerns are. Oh, is that right? Please enlighten me, Mr. Military Expert.
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Nov 3, 2001 6:22:02 GMT -5
Fonz, as far as I can tell the Taliban were given two options by the US : surrender (Osama) unconditionally or die. No room for their point of view let alone any negotations whatsoever. What would you choose ? Umm not hard Id send him over but no they were not even prepared to do that. Imageine it if in europe, we (england) had a guy that had just killed of 5000 of your guys, and we said oh yeah u can have him, but we get to say where when and how he will be held responsable LB thats pure BS and you know it. The Taliban were given chances STOP sponsoring the Al queda STOP harbouring the WORLDS most wanted man STOP assisting in THE MURDER of 5000 people, they chose not to, now they have brought this upon the Afghani people and the WHOLE of that area could be thrown into chaos, BUT THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN SOME WHERE.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 6:35:59 GMT -5
The Taliban have had their Chances, and squandered them because they thought that YET AGAIN, they would just get a little slap on the wrists, well they have crossed the line now. How far do you want the free world to fall back LB? How much leeway do you want to give mass murderes and genocidal maniacs before action is taken, I tell you one thing, I feel much safer in my home knowing that the majoraty of world leaders are not like you in their thoughts on how to deal with these sort of people..... Oh please. I am getting tired of people pretending that the only two possible reactions to the WTC attack were 1) Doing nothing at all and 2) immediately calling out the military for a full scale shooting war. That position is absurd, and shows nothing but a total lack of imagination (which certainly afflicts George Bush, Jr.) and a trigger happy finger. It is apparent now that Bush Jr. had made up his mind early on to treat this conflict as a full scale military war. He wanted to play with his military toys, like his father before him in the Gulf War. Bush Sr. never seriously gave other options a chance in the Gulf War, and Bush Jr. has now followed in daddy's footsteps. I sincerely hope that Bush Jr. does not succeed in covering my country's hands in the blood of innocents to the monstrous extent that his father did. It is self serving US propaganda that the Taliban could never have been expected to negotiate for the release of Bin Laden. The evidence points otherwise. In any case, the Bush administration never seriously tried that approach. Only 28 days went by between the WTC attack and the commencent of bombing in Afghanistan. The supposed justification for the haste? That we could not afford to be patient. That was blatantly ridiculous in light of the fact that gov't and military leaders are cautioning that we must now excercise great patience in expecting the military approach to work. That is, if they can ever make up their minds as to what the objectives of the military campaign really are in the first place. People who have been blindly following Bush the idiot's approach have tended to throw up their hands and say "well, what else could we do? Show us another alternative." WRONG!!!!!!! Listen, as the one's wanting to KILL people, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there are no other options at all. War is the LAST resort, not one you jump into right off the bat, without exhausting other possibilities first.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 3, 2001 7:28:54 GMT -5
BY, are you serious ? You're saying that a war *doesn't* serve a higher political goal ? Would you care elaborating this ? Of course it serves a higher goal, but Dio was suggesting that "purposeless slaughter" is a military goal. The military doesn't do "purposeless". Actions that don't aim towards completion of the mission just waste resources and lives. "Purposeless slaughter" is something pushed by politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 10:39:23 GMT -5
Of course it serves a higher goal, but Dio was suggesting that "purposeless slaughter" is a military goal. The military doesn't do "purposeless". Actions that don't aim towards completion of the mission just waste resources and lives. "Purposeless slaughter" is something pushed by politicians. No, that is not what I was saying at all. You talk about "completion of the mission." That is exactly my point. What the overall "mission" is in a war, what the overall objectives are, are of course a matter of political aims and goals. That is what I meant by the military having to be subordinate to political goals. It is those larger political goals which define what is or is not a "victory" in the war. Perhaps we really don't disagree on this issue, just using different terminology to make the same points.
|
|