Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Maybe the horrors of WW-II kept the lid on things for 60 years or so.

Once it becomes easy, you tend to do it again. I know we have a Executive Order about targeted executions, but maybe that's a better way to deal with things. At least it's up close and personal rather than a video game.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee

Having said which, targeted executions are a great way to deal with enemy leadership if they can be effectively carried out. If the Allies had had the ability to decapitate the senior Nazi leadership in 1939 that would have saved a few hundred million lives.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Maybe the horrors of WW-II kept the lid on things for 60 years or so.

Once it becomes easy, you tend to do it again. I know we have a Executive Order about targeted executions, but maybe that's a better way to deal with things. At least it's up close and personal rather than a video game.

Does anybody, now or then, think it was a bad idea to clip Admiral Yamamoto?

And would anyone have objected if we had "lobbed one into the men's room" of the Reich's Chancellery from November of '39 on?

And the "Horrors of WWII" didn't keep us out of Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, Iraq or Afghanistan. Seems like we've learned the lessons, but others haven't. And in the days before "video game" technology, of which you seem so strongly to disapprove, we had the slaughter in the trenches of WWI and the horrors of Antietam (combined, over 20K casualties in one day!). That's preferable?

Again, you seem to prefer tactics that would put American lives at risk. Is that what you really mean? In your view it's better to have American pilots risk their lives than to use drones? Really?

And this use of the phrase "up close and personal" is confusing. We should require each attempt on a senior leader to be like the raid on OBL? What? You're against using technology that saves lives (on both sides of the ball) because you think the availablility of that technology makes conflict more likely? More likely? Perhaps. Much smaller and less damaging? Absolutely.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee

Having said which, targeted executions are a great way to deal with enemy leadership if they can be effectively carried out. If the Allies had had the ability to decapitate the senior Nazi leadership in 1939 that would have saved a few hundred million lives.

Sure would have been nice-but the Nazis themselves had great difficulty in decapitating the senior leadership. How many assassination attempts did AH survive?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Sure would have been nice-but the Nazis themselves had great difficulty in decapitating the senior leadership. How many assassination attempts did AH survive?

According to that series on the Military Channel, dozens. And not because of great security, either. Primarily just luck and Adolph's penchant for not keeping to a schedule. Take Stauffenberg's failed bomb attempt: the luck that the meeting was held in a hut and not a bunker, the luck that only one of the two devices was armed and the luck that the Colonel's briefcase was moved to the other side of that massive table leg.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee

Having said which, targeted executions are a great way to deal with enemy leadership if they can be effectively carried out. If the Allies had had the ability to decapitate the senior Nazi leadership in 1939 that would have saved a few hundred million lives.

Few hundred million lives? Tens of millions, sure. But in a war that only cost something like 75 million, I don't see that as possible.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Few hundred million lives?

Counting disease, displacement, etc.

But I guess one hundred million is the top estimate.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Either way, it's truly hard to put into words how many people lost their lives. I do think WWII death toll kept the world together for as long as it has. The world can ill afford another world war. Everything is far too fragile right now.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

My trouble with drones is that they make war antiseptic. When war becomes clean, it becomes easier to do. I want the stench and the horror so that when somebody decides to push the button, they know that somebody's son, daughter, wife or husband is not coming home.

If we remember the lead up to Gulf War I, there were predictions of tens of thousands of US casualties. Great. It made us really think of a way to complete the mission without getting more than actually did die. And Bush #41 agonized over each of those 148 Americans who did not come home. Why? Because he lived through it 50 years before.

This modern way is too clean, and it's becoming a video game - not real. Growing up on Call of Duty is not substitute for the real thing.

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic" -Stalin

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Either way, it's truly hard to put into words how many people lost their lives. I do think WWII death toll kept the world together for as long as it has. The world can ill afford another world war. Everything is far too fragile right now.

No offense intended, but the casualty figures from WWII have zero to do with the probability of there being another conflict on that scale. Strategic nuclear weapons are another matter. The two great militaristic empires were crushed in the war. And the great Communist empire in Europe has collapsed. We no longer have to worry much about a massive Soviet armored thrust through the Fulda gap.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The point is partisans decide they love Sowell when in it is useful for them. He is just another club at hand. Sowell actually thinks through his arguments, whether one agrees with them or not, and that's a real problem for a party that already knows what the result of any experiment has to be before it's run.

In short, the flacks should be careful with this particular surrogate. He bites. They used another dude like this. His name was Colin Powell. Not real welcome at righty parties anymore.

I think Sowell is more than just another club at hand, principally because he does think through his arguments, and I suspect you're smart enough to realize that. Liberals are lucky that more people (right or left or center) don't read his writings since he so can so easily cut through the rhetoric from the left and show the fallacies of the liberal agenda.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I would argue (but I won't at this point) that we are as far from a world war as we've been since we were capable.

These days the people run the show. They can still be sold a lot, but not another WW or anything close. Power has moved to the corporate world...and they may even tolerate hiccups in the flow of oil, but they will not tolerate stopping the flow of money.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I would argue (but I won't at this point) that we are as far from a world war as we've been since we were capable.

These days the people run the show. They can still be sold a lot, but not another WW or anything close. Power has moved to the corporate world...and they may even tolerate hiccups in the flow of oil, but they will not tolerate stopping the flow of money.

I would partially agree-I don't think we are in any way close to having the number of countries involved in a war as we had with WWII. But as far as the number of casualties and destruction-I just do not know-there are a lot of very potent weapons floating around out there in the hands of some very emotional people.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I would partially agree-I don't think we are in any way close to having the number of countries involved in a war as we had with WWII. But as far as the number of casualties and destruction-I just do not know-there are a lot of very potent weapons floating around out there in the hands of some very emotional people.

Alright. I see the point there. Conventional mass war no...nuclear 'incident' with the potential for a minor war of retribution more likely due to proliferation yes. IMO the implications for our military are clear.

With the absence of mass scale war, I see it just being a peaceful chess game with the Chinese and Russia for the forseeable future. China will continue to push against its neighbors, while they push back. All the while all of Asia gets far too rich to ever contemplate a war of any kind. And Russia could well shift to be positive at any point with a change to a favorable US/favorable Russia president combination. We have half of that now...which is exhibit A why Putin was a bad deal for all concerned.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Alright. I see the point there. Conventional mass war no...nuclear 'incident' with the potential for a minor war of retribution more likely due to proliferation yes. IMO the implications for our military are clear.

With the absence of mass scale war, I see it just being a peaceful chess game with the Chinese and Russia for the forseeable future. China will continue to push against its neighbors, while they push back. All the while all of Asia gets far too rich to ever contemplate a war of any kind. And Russia could well shift to be positive at any point with a change to a favorable US/favorable Russia president combination. We have half of that now...which is exhibit A why Putin was a bad deal for all concerned.

Obviously this is all conjecture and your points are valid and well taken. But I never rule out the chance of some odd ball psycho nut job attaining a position of control and power who suddenly decides to react in a totally irrational way. Just imagine the definition of a fanatic (religious or otherwise) in charge of a bunch of nuclear weapons or an armed forces of a couple million followers. Then also imagine some perceived need for rapidly decreasing resources (oil? water? food? whatever?). Or some religious crusade. I wish I could feel as confident as you do-that people will behave in an educated, humane and rational way. I am by no means taking the opposite point of view-I am just not so sure that we are any safer from some world wide calamity now than we have been in the past. This may all be just a lull like the weather we have had between ice ages.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Obviously this is all conjecture and your points are valid and well taken. But I never rule out the chance of some odd ball psycho nut job attaining a position of control and power who suddenly decides to react in a totally irrational way. Just imagine the definition of a fanatic (religious or otherwise) in charge of a bunch of nuclear weapons or an armed forces of a couple million followers. Then also imagine some perceived need for rapidly decreasing resources (oil? water? food? whatever?). Or some religious crusade. I wish I could feel as confident as you do-that people will behave in an educated, humane and rational way. I am by no means taking the opposite point of view-I am just not so sure that we are any safer from some world wide calamity now than we have been in the past. This may all be just a lull like the weather we have had between ice ages.

No we can't know.

I am of the opinion that if powerful nutball leaders happen in nutball countries, a nuke might get thrown (which of course would be horrible). But the armed force of a million followers will not happen. Again China doesn't do it, too rich, too happy. Russia doesn't do it, nobody it could beat in a war and the people would never support it.

Many middle eastern countries have too few people and don't have multiple millions in their army...and those that do are surrounded by other Muslim countries with their own fanatics. They don't trust other middle eastern countries...and often they don't like those in their same country. And in the end were they amazingly able to get a force together...who do they invade? India? With a billion people, no. Russia? Ask the Germans/French about invading Russia. Africa? I'm not sure why they would invade Kenya. Europe? Ten times the economy and 100x the technology, no.

The rich are too rich for conventional war. The poor are incapable of it (except for terror and a throwing a nuke). That's the way I see it going forward.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The rich are too rich for conventional war.

I've heard this somewhere before. Prior to WW1 there was wide agreement that war was no longer a viable tool of state because the interruption of trade would impoverish everyone including the attacker.

We only have to look at the Neocons to see how a strong enough ideology can blind people to the realities of war. People who either think history is on their side or they are in an existential struggle or that God is involved have made and will continue to make reckless and stupid decisions. Any country with the means only needs a relatively short emergency in domestic politics to bring those kind of murderers to power.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I've heard this somewhere before. Prior to WW1 there was wide agreement that war was no longer a viable tool of state because the interruption of trade would impoverish everyone including the attacker.

We only have to look at the Neocons to see how a strong enough ideology can blind people to the realities of war. People who either think history is one their side or they are in an existential struggle or that God is involved have and will continue to make reckless and stupid decisions. Any country with the means only needs a relatively short emergency in domestic politics to bring those kind of murderers to power.

Exactly what I was alluding to-and said far more eloquently. Not everyone who should be on Prozac is taking it. And certainly not everyone who needs electroshock therapy has received it. There are some very odd thinking people out there-and some can be absolutely mesmerizing to uneducated or unknowing masses of people. And it may not be all that difficult to achieve a position of absolute power over some regime. Historically there have been lots of 'Wars to end all Wars'. But humans are creative people devising new and better ways to destroy each other. In the 1930's-1940's it took a fairly large military in close approximation to inflict a lot of damage. With modern weaponry (and computer technology and drones etc) a few button pushers could cause considerable carnage by remote control from a great distance away from heavily populated targets. I don't expect any of this to happen soon (I still have a few vacations planned), but I just cannot rule out the possibility at any time occurring almost any place in the world.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

2 more years and we hit the 100 year anniversary of WW-I. Civil War tactics vs. modern weaponry = senseless slaughter. Plus another redraw of the European Continent.

Now I ask you a question (sort of off topic) - you look @ a map of Asia from 1935 and a map of Asia in 2005 and know nothing of history. All you know is that one major war and two brush wars were fought between the White Man and the Occidental during that period. Who won?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

2 more years and we hit the 100 year anniversary of WW-I. Civil War tactics vs. modern weaponry = senseless slaughter. Plus another redraw of the European Continent.

Now I ask you a question (sort of off topic) - you look @ a map of Asia from 1935 and a map of Asia in 2005 and know nothing of history. All you know is that one major war and two brush wars were fought between the White Man and the Occidental during that period. Who won?

The British lost, so everyone won.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I've heard this somewhere before. Prior to WW1 there was wide agreement that war was no longer a viable tool of state because the interruption of trade would impoverish everyone including the attacker.

We only have to look at the Neocons to see how a strong enough ideology can blind people to the realities of war. People who either think history is on their side or they are in an existential struggle or that God is involved have made and will continue to make reckless and stupid decisions. Any country with the means only needs a relatively short emergency in domestic politics to bring those kind of murderers to power.

Why don't you try numbering these repetitive, boring, b.s. posts? It would save us all a lot of time. You trick or treating dressed as a Neocon this year?