The "War" model

[Aelia Jusa]

This is an excerpt from a 60 Minutes story with US chief negotiator in the Bosnian situation Richard Holbrooke:

AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: This is not a court of law. You're going to have to go with probabilities. You're not going to go to the United Nations and say, "We think it was this guy, here's our evidence. Give us permission to hit him here."

TARA BROWN: If it's a matter of probability, there's a chance that you could get it wrong?

AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Yes.

TARA BROWN: And that means that there could be thousands and thousands of lives lost … innocent lives lost. Is that American?

AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Excuse me, thousands of innocent lives lost? You're sitting here in New York telling me about thousands of innocent lives lost when on September 11, 6000 innocent lives, including some of your countrymen and women, were killed here in New York and in Washington. You're sitting a few blocks from ground zero. How can you even imagine that the US is going to worry about "collateral damage", to use an awful Pentagon euphemism?

TARA BROWN: Is it really acceptable that the mood of a nation, no matter its loss — and I respect that loss — that the mood of the nation should determine that you can go and attack somebody?

AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: You have a perfectly rational point of view. It's just completely disconnected to reality. You're saying that you think that the US should behave in a nice, measured, calm way after the single worst terrorist attack in its history. And I just wonder if Australians would react that way if Sydney and Canberra were hit. I think we both know the answer because Australians and Americans have the same values and the same culture. I think you're misleading yourself if you think that the implication of your question reflects anything approximating a reality.

Interesting no?

------------------


Goddess and Sorceress of the HADB, and her sidekick Pink

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Nachtrafe, I really must commend you on your pleasant, non-aggresive post! It was a pleasure to read. I agree with a lot of what you say, though not all I accept that what I want is unlikely to happen. That does not mean to say it is the wrong thing to want, as some have implied (not you). And I also don't think the world sucks. Some people suck. But I suspect that is what you really meant anyway!? The two principle things wrong with this planet are terrorists of all types and 'profit at all costs' capitalism. They seem to be the causes of much of the distress in the world. There is nice sweeping generalisation for you, lol! I shoulda learned not to do that by now....!!!

Fljotsdale, the pleasure was all mine. *Bowing from the waist*(hey, I cant help it. Manners are bred in)

OK...I'll accept the 'people suck' premise. You're right, that's what I meant anyway. And I agree about your statement about what's wrong. Granted, I am most defenitely a capitalist, but I was never a big fan of the whole theory behind Les E Faire(sp) capitalism.

LOL...Yep, that'd defenitely a pretty big generailization. Nice job.

Originally posted by John D Harris: Nachtrafe, you're right about the techno. of our missles, and the picking of targets. I have a buddy that worked on the guidance of the Tomahawk cruise missles in the late 80's. At that time we could launch a Tom. from Fulton County stadium (Atlanta, GA) and put it through the up-rights in RFK stadium (Washington D.C.) with greater accuracy, then a field-goal kicker kicking from the 35 yard line. The weakness is always going to be the "human element".

ROFL!!! That's almost exactly what my buddy said. Said his missles were more accurate than John Elway, Troy Aikman, and Brett Favre combined. It was just that the "Morons with their fingers on the triggers need to learn to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses"

Originally posted by Liliara: NACHTRAFE!!!!!!! Hey you!!!!!! Not at all darlin'! LOL

Hi yourself Lil.
Thanks...I was hoping you wouldn't lump me with the Joan Baez types. I may have long hair, but I'm not an FM, dope-smoking type(those of you that listen to Rush Limbaugh will get that)

Laters

*HUG*

***********************************

Aelia Jusa

Defenitely food for thought. I take it that Tara Brown is an Aussy?

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: This is an excerpt from a 60 Minutes story with US chief negotiator in the Bosnian situation Richard Holbrooke: AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: This is not a court of law. You're going to have to go with probabilities. You're not going to go to the United Nations and say, "We think it was this guy, here's our evidence. Give us permission to hit him here." TARA BROWN: If it's a matter of probability, there's a chance that you could get it wrong? AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Yes. TARA BROWN: And that means that there could be thousands and thousands of lives lost … innocent lives lost. Is that American? AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Excuse me, thousands of innocent lives lost? You're sitting here in New York telling me about thousands of innocent lives lost when on September 11, 6000 innocent lives, including some of your countrymen and women, were killed here in New York and in Washington. You're sitting a few blocks from ground zero. How can you even imagine that the US is going to worry about "collateral damage", to use an awful Pentagon euphemism? TARA BROWN: Is it really acceptable that the mood of a nation, no matter its loss — and I respect that loss — that the mood of the nation should determine that you can go and attack somebody? AMBASSADOR RICHARD HOLBROOKE: You have a perfectly rational point of view. It's just completely disconnected to reality. You're saying that you think that the US should behave in a nice, measured, calm way after the single worst terrorist attack in its history. And I just wonder if Australians would react that way if Sydney and Canberra were hit. I think we both know the answer because Australians and Americans have the same values and the same culture. I think you're misleading yourself if you think that the implication of your question reflects anything approximating a reality. Interesting no?

Aelia, I heard yesterday that between 350-400 Australians died in the WTC. Do you know if this is correct? If so, it would make it the worst terrorist act in Australian history too.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: I was originally going to reply properly to your post, Yorick, and copied it so as to do so calmly. However, as I read it over again I found it so grossy offensive that I am now too angry to do so. You think I insult you, Yorick? I have never treated you with less than respect (certainly not deliberately), even when seriously annoyed with you. Even after your previous post I did my best to keep it friendly. But you seem determined to feel insulted and antagonistic, and to offer me (and Dio) insults that are clearly INTENDED as insult. (And you claim that you are not affected by anger and distress about the plane 'bombings'? ) So if you want further response from me in this thread you can whistle for it. I shall try to continue on a friendly basis with you in other threads, however, and to forget what you have said to me here. Oh, and while I'm bellyaching, my name is not Fjlotsdale, it's Fljotsdale. It has been niggling me for ages that you always spell it incorrectly!

Fljo, let's look at the situation shall we?
A couple of posters have a rather passionate disagreement. Just when the disagreement reaches a lull and resolves certain issues, in you walk supporting a very early statement, ignoring prior arguments, and accusing one side of not listening to/comprehending the other.

When the offensive nature of this action is pointed out what do you do? Apologise?

No that would be to easy.

Turn the other cheek?

No. Instead you reply with a sugar coated reply of nonvalidation for the offended, and then a post of anger. Since when does showing indignance at someone taking offense remove that persons offense? This, as I mentioned is not the first time, and by virtue of your refusal to acknowledge the situation, will hardly be the last that your words show veiled insult to the person you are disagreeing with.

I submit evidence #3 in this thread alone:
"Thank you, Diogenes!
Wouldn't it be nice if people read what we ACTUALLY wrote instead of what they THINK we wrote? Still - human nature, I suppose! I've been guilty of it myself! "

Fljo, I have been reading what you wrote word for word dear. To suggest the contrary is again a slight in the manner I am talking about. I have read misinformation in your details about the Afgahni situation. Were you to include the information I would read it. It is quite obvious you do not know what you're talking about regarding Afgahnistan, and you refuse to acknowledge that your words cause offense.

Again I repeat, rather than apologise, you retaliate.

What were you suggesting America's course of action should be in response to a much greater injury again?


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: I know that this is two days after your post, but I absolutely *have* to point this out. There have already been casualties. SEVEN BLOODY THOUSAND OF THEM!!! Every man, woman, and child, from over 80 countries around the world, that died on 9-11-01. That is a pretty steep list of casualties, dont you think? Just to put things into perspective, READ THIS!

Who are you talking to here Nachtrafe? I posted already that 7,000 are dead, so you can't be talking to me can you?



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Sir Kenyth]

Let me speak a little irritation. I'm starting to associate pacifist with idealist lately. I keep hearing that we'll be killing babies and innocent citizens. We should just be able to seive out the militants easy as pie. Let me tell you a little cold hard fact. The militants hide in a bunch of innocent citizens on purpose. It makes for indecisive and cautious attacks on them and good propaganda when "innocent" citizens die. A good number of those innocents will become militants in the time it takes to hand them a gun and an attitude. A good number of those innocents will have no problem and probably feel honored to hide their folk hero (Bin Laden) and his troops. Hell, they're buying "Bin Laden" T-shirts faster than they are being made and probably had a big party when the trade center went down! War is war. You can't spend years trying to sort out the bad guys if the population doesn't support you. The WWII bombing of Japan was horrific. It was severe overkill and not our finest hour. The sad fact of the matter is that it was effective. The enemy was severely crippled in every way possible and quickly surrendered. That's the way war is. If you don't hurt the enemy, the'll hurt you, and they won't quit just because you show mercy! They'll take the opportunity to strike again! It's a shame non-combatants have to die in combat. Think of it this way, we've already given in the non-combatant department, we've lost thousands of non-combatants. How high do you want the number to go before taking effective action? These are OUR people dying!!! You want THEM to be safe at the cost of US?! If they want to protect their people, they'll do what they can to avoid this and stop supporting and harboring the terrorist network. They'll quit playing dumb and sniping us when we're not looking. They're counting on our moral code to protect them and keep them going. Hardly an honorable thing. I don't think they'll ever give up Bin Laden, even if they had him right now. Face it, they LIKE him. They BELIEVE in him! They WANT him! They LIKE what he does! They DANCE on the graves of our dead! SO BE IT! It's time to take it to THEM now, instead of waiting for the next bullet in the dark!!!!!

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Let me speak a little irritation. I'm starting to associate pacifist with idealist lately. I keep hearing that we'll be killing babies and innocent citizens. We should just be able to seive out the militants easy as pie. Let me tell you a little cold hard fact. The militants hide in a bunch of innocent citizens on purpose. It makes for indecisive and cautious attacks on them and good propaganda when "innocent" citizens die. A good number of those innocents will become militants in the time it takes to hand them a gun and an attitude. A good number of those innocents will have no problem and probably feel honored to hide their folk hero (Bin Laden) and his troops. Hell, they're buying "Bin Laden" T-shirts faster than they are being made and probably had a big party when the trade center went down! War is war. You can't spend years trying to sort out the bad guys if the population doesn't support you. The WWII bombing of Japan was horrific. It was severe overkill and not our finest hour. The sad fact of the matter is that it was effective. The enemy was severely crippled in every way possible and quickly surrendered. That's the way war is. If you don't hurt the enemy, the'll hurt you, and they won't quit just because you show mercy! They'll take the opportunity to strike again! It's a shame non-combatants have to die in combat. Think of it this way, we've already given in the non-combatant department, we've lost thousands of non-combatants. How high do you want the number to go before taking effective action? These are OUR people dying!!! You want THEM to be safe at the cost of US?! If they want to protect their people, they'll do what they can to avoid this and stop supporting and harboring the terrorist network. They'll quit playing dumb and sniping us when we're not looking. They're counting on our moral code to protect them and keep them going. Hardly an honorable thing. I don't think they'll ever give up Bin Laden, even if they had him right now. Face it, they LIKE him. They BELIEVE in him! They WANT him! They LIKE what he does! They DANCE on the graves of our dead! SO BE IT! It's time to take it to THEM now, instead of waiting for the next bullet in the dark!!!!!

I trully see your point. War is War and quite frankly, their are no real innocent in war (not even in the US). However, I still don't believe that attacking indiscriminantly is the right way to go. Yep, killing all of them (Muslims) is the only way to really fix the problem (all of them both at home and abroad). However, it's impossible to kill them all (and I'm not sure even our society is ready to do that... I'm not). That means that we must go into contingency planning. Which one will be more effective while protecting more of US: 1- attack everybody and kill indiscriminantly. Which lead to more Anti-Americanism and more terrorists build-ups. Or 2- attack known terrorists and those actually involved with them while helping the rest of the populace out. Which leads to more pro-american sentiment and less terrorist build-up.

Personnally, I think 2. If you go in on two fronts, (the first being violence to remove terrorists, the second being help to the local population) I think that the impact will be less felt at home than if you go in with full blown military power. Yes, non-terrorists (note not innocents) people will still die. That's the way it is. But there numbers will be less.

I hate to say it but Bin Ladden had a superb first round. Not because he killed close to 7,000 Westerners but because he trully disrupted the World's economy and the lives of millions. He as one this first battle and quite frankly, even if he dies, he'll win many more in this war.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Let me speak a little irritation. I'm starting to associate pacifist with idealist lately. I keep hearing that we'll be killing babies and innocent citizens. We should just be able to seive out the militants easy as pie. Let me tell you a little cold hard fact. The militants hide in a bunch of innocent citizens on purpose. It makes for indecisive and cautious attacks on them and good propaganda when "innocent" citizens die. !!!!!

I already pointed this out. May not have been in this thread though - prob the Israel-Palestine thread.

------------------

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: Aelia, I heard yesterday that between 350-400 Australians died in the WTC. Do you know if this is correct? If so, it would make it the worst terrorist act in Australian history too.

Actually I'm not sure. The last count I heard was about 52, but that was a few days ago before they increased the toll to over 6000.

------------------


Goddess and Sorceress of the HADB, and her sidekick Pink

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fljo, let's look at the situation shall we? A couple of posters have a rather passionate disagreement. Just when the disagreement reaches a lull and resolves certain issues, in you walk supporting a very early statement, ignoring prior arguments, and accusing one side of not listening to/comprehending the other. When the offensive nature of this action is pointed out what do you do? Apologise? No that would be to easy. Turn the other cheek? No. Instead you reply with a sugar coated reply of nonvalidation for the offended, and then a post of anger. Since when does showing indignance at someone taking offense remove that persons offense? This, as I mentioned is not the first time, and by virtue of your refusal to acknowledge the situation, will hardly be the last that your words show veiled insult to the person you are disagreeing with. I submit evidence #3 in this thread alone: "Thank you, Diogenes! Wouldn't it be nice if people read what we ACTUALLY wrote instead of what they THINK we wrote? Still - human nature, I suppose! I've been guilty of it myself! " Fljo, I have been reading what you wrote word for word dear. To suggest the contrary is again a slight in the manner I am talking about. I have read misinformation in your details about the Afgahni situation. Were you to include the information I would read it. It is quite obvious you do not know what you're talking about regarding Afgahnistan, and you refuse to acknowledge that your words cause offense. Again I repeat, rather than apologise, you retaliate. What were you suggesting America's course of action should be in response to a much greater injury again?

Yorick, in the religious threads that we debated in, every time you said I had insulted you, I apologised. I ususally could not see in what way I had insulted you, but I tried to, and I apologised anyway, because I like you and I hate bad feelings to spoil a friendship.

You believe I owe you an apology. Since YOU believe I have offered you genuine insult, I apologise. I apologise that I said anything that you could construe as an insult.
But I don't know in what WAY anything I said to you can be considered insulting. Yes, I know you quoted me, and said the comments were insulting to you - but I honestly DON'T SEE in what way my comments could be seen as insulting. And believe me - I have tried. You know - or should - that I like and respect you, and would never go so far out of my way as to offer insult.

I have e-mailed you.

Teresa


------------------