Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Quote:
The nukes are really the only time bombing of cities worked.


What? You don't think firing bombing worked?!? More people were killed by fire bombing of Tokyo than by the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki.


To be fair, Fat-Man missed its target and hit in a valley. This signifciantly reduced the number of casualties.

That being said; craig has a good point. Look at the effectiveness of 24hour bombing raids against the german war machine. The conventional weapons carry with them the fear of uncertainty - "Is it going to hit me?".

As for the effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons, obviously they are incredible weapons of destruction. Modern-day hydrogen bombs like the Soviet "Ivan" test(50 MT), are capable of carving huge chunks out of the planet. Obviously these weapons are very effective for that- and propoganda(when people think you may use them). The Nuclear arsenal today only serves to deter a nuclear based attack. It does not stop anyone from building them, and I highly doubt it will stop anyone from using one(just not very likely they would use it on the states).
I think its a scary prospect that Iran could get a bomb and use it on Israel - and I often wonder if the world would react in kind? Would the U.S. hit Iran with a nuke?
I'm not sure...
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Israel has nukes in subs so even if their state got knocked out they could still wreck the middle east
2) Iran sees Israel as Palistine so they would be nuking Palistine which is something they would probably want to avoid

The only way a rouge state would use nukes would be by giving them to a terrorist group would would set one off in an urban area.
It would be very ahrd to strike back at this.

When you bomb someone with the hope they will surrender what occur is usually the reverse, people get angry

Another thing on the use of harsh tactics
They failed the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam etc all
Decolonization showed that harsh tactics do not work (I am aware of the ONE example of Burma where it worked)
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
When you bomb someone with the hope they will surrender what occur is usually the reverse, people get angry


This is a useless statement. Yes, when you engage a country in war there tends to be growing animosity between the peoples. When the US nuked Japan it resulted in this...



WHO CARES IF THE JAPANESE WERE "ANGRY". We won. And we would have lost if we had tried to fight a nice war like you seem to think we should. Guess what. Japan got over their loss and is now one of America's best friends.

Quote:
Another thing on the use of harsh tactics
They failed the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam etc all
Decolonization showed that harsh tactics do not work (I am aware of the ONE example of Burma where it worked)


This is a laughable statement. Do you think the Vietcong didn't use harsh tactics!!!!! Seriously dude, think before you type. The Americans were puppy dogs compared to their enemy in Vietnam so suggesting that the American failure there was because of harsh tactics is completely wrong. Their tactics weren't harsh enough. If the Americans had nuked the north they would have won. Besides, some wars are not winnable regardless of tactics employed.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
1) Israel has nukes in subs so even if their state got knocked out they could still wreck the middle east
2) Iran sees Israel as Palistine so they would be nuking Palistine which is something they would probably want to avoid

The only way a rouge state would use nukes would be by giving them to a terrorist group would would set one off in an urban area.
It would be very ahrd to strike back at this.

When you bomb someone with the hope they will surrender what occur is usually the reverse, people get angry

Another thing on the use of harsh tactics
They failed the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam etc all
Decolonization showed that harsh tactics do not work (I am aware of the ONE example of Burma where it worked)


1.) Israel apparently has nukes - this has never been confirmed, nor denied... But with their joint-test with South Africa, it's hard to imagine they don't. It is also suspected that Israels weapons are in the low kiloton range, meaning their overall effectiveness is questionable, even though they are rumoured to have upwards of 400 weapons. And their capabilities at sea are even more questioned; they use dolphin-class submarines, which by themselves are non-nuclear. Of course, it has been suggested that they could be made to launch cruise missiles. It should be noted that they only have 3 of these vessels.

2.) I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad would nuke them - none at all.

Harsh tactics in vietnam!? Hardly... In fact, many many american servicemen were killed by citizens within South Vietnam, the country they were protecting. One cannot underestimate the amount of non-conventional warfare in vietnam. The Tet offensive, largely seen as the begining of the end is an example. The actual offensive was crushed, but the propoganda win was huge.

The use of Napalm may be seen as harsh, but this is not why they lost the war. They lost the war because the American people were sick of it. Once they began getting sick of it, the leadership started pulling troop numbers down. In addition to this, airstrikes were limited to certain areas of operation, due to fears of involving the chinese. Many strikes did take place over the "neutral" Cambodia, but these had to be done with the utmost caution; and still left most of cambodia free for the VC and NVA to travel through. When the Americans began pulling troops out they started to shift more responsibility to the weak South Vietnam military.

I think there is a trend for the US Military now, because they are bound to be too nice; and they have an enemy that doesn't play by the same rules. Not to mention a society that wants to blame itself for everything and cannot stomach a long war.

Talk to vietnamese people in this country; few if any of them are angry at the americans for going in there and protecting them from the communists. But there are a lot who are pretty upset that they left. And a lot of south vietnamese still see America leaving as a massive betrayal. Food for thought with the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that Nukes work!
Nukes are the only time when bombing really works because they are so overwhelming.
If the US had bombed H and N conventionally and killed MORE people the Japanese would have kept fighting.
There are many wars we could have won with nukes but it is not going to happen.
The Berlin crisis, Korea, Vietnam all could have been handled with nukes, but I am very glad they were not.
In the long run it would be a mistake to nuke more places as we would lose any political capital. If we nuke Bagdad as you suggest what would we do about the humanitarian crisis we would create? What would be the point of nuking them? What would this accomplish besides making us international pariahs? A side effect could be other countries trying harder to get nukes so they have a deterrent!
I do not feel we should have fought a "nice" war against that Japanese.
In Vietnam the Americans killed far more people than they lost (same with the French in Algeria) but they LOST the war.
I am not saying they lost BECAUSE of harsh tactics but INSPITE of them.
I am sure you can come up with non-nuclear examples of harsh tactics working but there are more of them not working.
The old saying is kill one scare a thousand (like when the Mongols sacked Bagdad) but today you kill one and make 2 more enemies.
Ordinary people in Vietnam largely did not care about politics until the US came around and made them care locally.
Many of the Viet people in Canada and America were on the American side and left when the Commies won (a former roommate of mine for example) so they are pretty biased people to ask :P
Look at the situation with Vietnam now, they also got over the war and are now our friend (if their position was important strategically, as Japan is, we would care a lot more.

We could win the war with harsh tactics but it is not politically expedient and you can not change the general publics view on this.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Great War is one of the best examples of harsh tactics not working.
Everyone broke the rules of war (gas, bombing/shelling civilians) because it became a total war and winning became more important.
The result was that the other side would copy the harsh tactics!
The Germans were the harshest (ie setting up an electric fence to separate Holland and Belgium) and it did not help them win!
The Great War was won for a number of reasons but the use of very harsh tactics was not one of them.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
The Great War is one of the best examples of harsh tactics not working. Everyone broke the rules of war (gas, bombing/shelling civilians) because it became a total war and winning became more important.


Winning became more important?!? More important than what. In war winning IS the most important thing. My God. You are more concerned about political correctness than winning. Both sides used harsh tactics in WWI and WWII.

Quote:
The Germans were the harshest (ie setting up an electric fence to separate Holland and Belgium) and it did not help them win!


Setting up electric fences is harsh??? You have a messed up definition of harsh.

Quote:
The Great War was won for a number of reasons but the use of very harsh tactics was not one of them.


Fire bombing Tokyo. Nuking two cities in Japan. Fire bombing Dresdon. Harsh tactics played a HUGE role in our victory. If not for those harsh tactics we probably wouldn't have won. And I can guarentee you this. If we fought in Italy, Germany, and Iwo Jima like we are being made to fight today in Iraq then we would DEFINITELY lost.

If I ever go into combat I hope to God that you aren't the one calling the shots and handcuffing my ability to survive and win by imposing restrictions on me that my enemy laughs at.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both sides were harsh in the world wars but (besides the nukes) this never led to victory.
The use of gas (for example) was generally a failure. When we got gassed at 2nd Ypres it made us more determined. After gas was introduced it became a standard tactic which benefited neither side.
The reaction to being liberated by Canadians of the Dutch and French was heavily linked to how much we bombed their cities. This being said I would of course rather bomb French or Dutch cities than have more of our troops killed.
The setting up the electric fence was considered a war crime which is why I used it as an example.
We are going around in circles. You clearly believe that the fire bombings of Dresden (which was captured by the USSR shortly after) and Tokyo helped us win the war.
I disagree.
If we torture suspects in Afghanistan (which I am sure you are happy we are doing indirectly by handing them over to the governement which is one of the worlds worst human rights abusers) it will only make the local people hate us more.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
it will only make the local people hate us more.


You are under the false assumption that it is possible for them to hate us more. It doesn't matter what we do short of conversion...



You sound like Chamberlain.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
FascistLibertarian wrote:
it will only make the local people hate us more.


You are under the false assumption that it is possible for them to hate us more. It doesn't matter what we do short of conversion...



You sound like Chamberlain.


At least the Nazis showed their faces!
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Ordinary people in Vietnam largely did not care about politics until the US came around and made them care locally.


Perhaps it is important for you to study the history of the vietnam war. The americans were asked to come to the aid of Vietnam after the french failed to secure it previously. Most people consider the war to have begun when american infantry forces became involved, but that is completely inaccurate.

The average south vietnamese person was terrified of the communists and were horribly upset by the americans leaving.

And most in this country are not in fact ex-american workers; perhaps many in the states are(not as many as you may believe), but not here.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Both sides were harsh in the world wars but (besides the nukes) this never led to victory.


That doesn't mean anything - This is more because of the weapons of the day and relatively even-matched militaries.

Quote:
The use of gas (for example) was generally a failure. When we got gassed at 2nd Ypres it made us more determined. After gas was introduced it became a standard tactic which benefited neither side.


The use of gas was hardly a failure - it took many many lives and instilled uncomprehensible fear. Its eventual shortcoming was that it was relatively easy to defend against; the level of "harshness" has nothing to do with it's failure; but a great deal to do with its stunning success in both casualties inflicted and its effects on morale.

Quote:
The reaction to being liberated by Canadians of the Dutch and French was heavily linked to how much we bombed their cities. This being said I would of course rather bomb French or Dutch cities than have more of our troops killed.


I would argue that it was more heavilly linked to the fact that they had been invaded by another country and were eager to have their freedom back... but hey, if you think its because we didn't bomb them as much... Kinda makes it hard to explain why many German citizens cheered when the allies took their cities. Were I you, I'd have suggested demonstrating the situation on the eastern front, where germans and russians alike were so terrified of what the other would do if they won that they fought to the absolute end to win.

Quote:
We are going around in circles. You clearly believe that the fire bombings of Dresden (which was captured by the USSR shortly after) and Tokyo helped us win the war.


There is no doubt that these were massive propoganda events. Your denial of that fact is surprising, and any military historian would be quick to tell you that you are wrong.

Quote:
If we torture suspects in Afghanistan (which I am sure you are happy we are doing indirectly by handing them over to the governement which is one of the worlds worst human rights abusers) it will only make the local people hate us more.


Lets maintain some civility here, huh? No need to be suggesting anyone is happy that people are tortured; that is not the point of what anyone is saying. Furthermore, that torture you speak of is alleged... and from what I've seen alleged, I think using the term torture is stretching it a bit. It is strange that you would suggest the local people are hating us more, when it is the opposite that is occuring on the ground.
Tell me - would you prefer a Canadian version of Abu Gharib? The point in handing prisoners over to them is that they are a sovereign nation, and should take care of their own prisoners; we're not taking prisoners of war, we're taking part in a police-action in order to stabilize a democratically elected government.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig some people will always hate us but this is not a zero sum equation. Depending on how we act this can vary greatly. The last thing I wish to do is to appease any extremists. The second last thing I want to do is have people hate us who do not have to. This is why the “strategic corporal” is so important in the types of missions we are engaged in.

Biggie my point is that the average person does not care but if some side comes in and kills people they love they will turn against that side.
The reaction of liberated people varied greatly, those who had their homes bombed or their town/city fought over were less happy to see us than people whose possessions were intact because the Germans evacuated before we came (perfectly logical).
Caen was horribly trashed, we did not have a choice, but it is not something we should be proud of.
Tokyo did nothing to lessen Japanese resolve at the higher levels. The general population could see the writing on the wall but the army and Emperor were determined to fight it out no matter how many Japanese cities were destroyed.
Dresden was a message to the USSR not to mess with us when our armies link up as much as it was anything.
And you are of course correct that the war in Northern Europe and Italy was more “civilized” than the wars in the East and the Pacific (less wars of extermination and racism)

The point about the torture is that we do not really know what happened to the people we handed over.
The Dutch have an agreement in place whereby they can check on the status of people they have handed to the government. Why does Canada not have an agreement where SOMEONE checks on the people we hand over to ensure they are not liquidated?
Canada has no record of what happened to our suspects, they could be good and alive or dead, but we do not know. I personally feel we should know what happens.
The Karzai government SHOULD take care of its prisoners, I agree, but its human rights record does not give me confidence that it will.
As someone who has family members fighting for Canada captured by both the Germans and the Japanese in ww2 (roughly 5% fatality vs. 25%) I feel strongly about how captured people are treated.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Craig some people will always hate us but this is not a zero sum equation.


The USA could have raped and plundered Iraq. It could have went in there and turned the place into glass. They could have then broke the glass in select places in order to extract oil. They could have lined up their oil tankers and STOLE Iraqi oil (instead of PAYING for it like they are now). The USA could have left the place in ruins after they didn't find WMDs.

BUT THEY DIDN'T!!!!!!

American taxpayers will pay almost ONE TRILLION dollars when all is said and done trying to build democracy in a country on the other side of the world after removing an evil dictator. And thousands of American soldiers have given their lives in the process. And what does the US get out of this??? Cheaper oil? NOPE. A big thank you??? NOPE. They get NOTHING but hate.

Any other superpower in history would have laid claim to Iraq. They would have planted their flag and called it their own.

I'm so sick and tired of this suggestion that it is OUR fault. That we are imperialistic and egocentric. The United States of America deserves a HUGE thank you from the world. And that includes all the pathetic islamists burning the American flag.

Zero sum game??? This isn't a game at all. This is an anti-American hate fest.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignoring the fact that America spends way more on their troops and MID than on reconstruction. That much of the money they did spend was given to no bid contracts. That giving Iraqis democracy was never the plan.
Ignoring that Iraq and Afghanistan are in the situation they are in because of outside interventions.
Ignoring how horrible the US has done since they occupied Iraq.

Ignoring all this I have to ask, is Iraq better off as a democracy?
The problem with Democracy in states that have been created by the West (and you an see this in Rwanda, Burundi, Kashmir) is that you have a minority controlling a majority (which is how these countries were working before) and now with democracy it is seen as illegitimate.
But the minority does not want to give up its power (why would it).
And the result is civil war.
Why is democracy so important in Iraq?

The US attempted to do the invasion of Iraq on the cheap. They should have had 600,000 people (1 for every 50 Iraqis) to OCCUPY Iraq.
Instead they used something like 300,000 to invade and then immediately cut troop levels.
Why should I thank the US for messing up a war they choose to fight?
I love America and I love Americans but knee-jerk pro-Americanism is just as bad as knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
I see this as grey not black (everything the us does is bad) or white (everything they do is good).
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Fighting Germany the liberal way

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB