Tony

Some Taliban are working under the UN banner. This is a warlord dominated society.

I am intrigued, can you tell me which Taliban warlords are under the UN banner?

Red:

Why the self deprecating undertone to your posts?

Well, some on the "Right" of this issue thought I was on the "Left" of this issue.

Also, do you have any military experience, I do not,...

Neither do I.

...but I have fought, with guns, been shot and shot at least two (2) folks that I am sure of.

I've only fought with my fist and feet. Fortunately, I never had to use weapons, but I am pretty well-trained with them.

I do not think that makes your opinion better or worse because of it...it is just an inquiry.

I agree, after all, Mao didn't know how to use them very well either. Stalin, on the other hand, supposedly knew how to use knife very well, allegedly killed a man with it in prison. Voroshilov was a crack shot with rifle, but a very poor general.

I still support the mission in Afghanistan with our voluntary military, but I still swear by MacArthur's proviso about not getting in a ground war in Asia.

Didn't MacArthur want to go to war with Red China?

No obiwan the diminishing has skyrocketed the drone/predator attacks. There was one wherein approximately 19 of them appeared and decimated a high high value target.

Granted that most probably there was a series of boots on the ground which called in and spotted for the drones. but can you imagine being a tribesman and suddenly, silently 19 planes pop into your field of vision and ...well we all know the Russel Crow scene from Gladiator.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KMRClSR_-C0

Adam

I wish we had better intelligence than better drones or more soldiers on the ground.

Red:

Is Taliban under the UN banner?

That's a tricky one. Since Afghanistan is a UN nation and the Taliban are of that country, then technically...yes. As such, they are unlawful combatants.

Ummm, so Mujahadeen was under the Soviet banner? Since Afghanistan was a communist country in military alliance with Soviets?

Didn't U.S. public at large regard the Natives as less than human at one time? So according to your logic, the U.S. soldiers/civilian combatants captured by the Natives didn't deserve chivalry?

By natives, I assume you mean Native Americans? If so, UN wasn't around then. What we did to the Native Americans was deplorable. I would have to say that Native Americans were practicing common law retribution (with the whites getting what they deserved).

So you wouldn't have had problem if the Natives killed the most population of U.S. back then?

Who decides what is right or wrong? - Red

Victors write history. - Shane

I agree, but.......

Society has the final say in what's right or wrong. - Shane

Not necessarily.

But by humane standards, I would go out on a limb saying that we are in the right. - Shane

I would prefer the expression, "I agree with the way they are doing it for now from the standpoint of view where I am on"

Are we fighting this war to protect our interest or are we fighting to be humane?

As a member of the UN, the US has followed the edict on how we conduct war and how we fight against the enemy. Using their tactics by putting innocent civilians in harms way is not right. - Shane

But isn't it in their interest to do so?

Indeed, what they are doing it is natural consequence of the war, according to you? - Red

Correct. - Shane

So for the right price, everyone's a whore? - Red

Under favorable conditions, I'm sure everyone has a price. ~ The enemy of my enemy is my friend -

So we are following UN standard to be humane or because it's in our perceived overall interest... for the time being?

Mao was a civilian, Chiang was a career Military man, Mao won despite the overwhelming disadvantage.

My statement implied the local population under Taliban control. They are given little to no information and kept at bay with boots on their throats.

~ Shane

I am sorry for getting off track, I've met too many who say only career military men know how to win wars.

Which makes his analogy a little too overly "nuanced", because the problem with the Roman Empire (and the Republic before it) was that the Roman military was, at the high levels, part of the corruption problem.

The nub of the problem was that under the Roman Republic, the politicians and the generals were the same people.

Hadn't it been always the case? This didn't necessarily weaken Rome, in fact when the politicians and the generals were the same people, Rome became the superpower and overcame both massive babarian invasions, and Hannibal, plus other patriotic citizen militias.

In America, we have a tradition of retired military running for office, but in the Roman Republic it went much further. Think of Newt Gingrich leaving his position as Speaker of the House and instead of going into private life, taking up the command of an army ready to invade a potential new piece of territory after he had arranged for Congress to declare war on some pretext. Gen. Gingrich's aims were to increase his own political clout by conquering new territory and to increase his own personal fortune through his portion of the loot and ransoms to be gained by his army as it pillaged its way through enemy lands; and then Gen. Gingrich would return home to make a run for Senator or President.

Would it necessarily have been or be a bad thing? What about the war against the Natives?

The army in general stopped invading new territory; one reason was the early Emperors didn't want to give possible rivals a chance at generating their own power base.

Wasn't it the disaster at Teutonberg forest that put a stop to expansion?

In the result political vacuum, the army decided who would be emperor. (It had already done so in the case of Claudius, but now it became the permanent base of power.

So that was the real problem, not the fact that the politicians and generals were the same people?

But through it all, the ultimate power was the army, and the key part of the army, because it was based in Rome and therefore was physically on the scene, was the Praetorian Guard, which never really went to war: it was the simply the most prestigious division of the army, assigned to guard Rome and the Emperor.

Rome always had a garrison assigned to protect Rome, how come this hadn't caused the political problem during the early Republican Rome to the extent it caused during certain period of the late Republican Rome and the sucession problem for certain time periods of the Imperial period?

And after a certain point, recruiting among the 'barbarians' became a normal way of filling up Roman military manpower. The whole area of relationships between Rome and the "barbarians" is a complex one: sometimes the barbarians invaded, but just as often they were invited in to settle territory the Romans were having trouble keep populated. And it was entirely normal to see a barbarian leading an "invasion" who had spent many years as the Roman version of a NCO or even junior officer.

Jeffrey S.

Indeed.

Something is happening here, and we need to take it onboard. But doing so means throwing off our narcissism and certainty of entitlement It is a heavy burden to shrug off. But shrug it we must."

Adam

Good Luck!

Red:

LOL.

Yes, that walk to ending narcissism, etc., would be the march of a million miles. I am not sure it is resolvable

Oh, I think it's resolvable, it's simply a matter of timing and the will for those who want to resolve it, but I don't know whether resolving it is necessarily the optimum solution.

Do you think we should be in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

Adam

Yes. I know this has surprised some who don't like me that much.

Note to Mr.Kelly, my purpose for the recent edit was...

.

But it's so darn easy to sidestep this altogether, I don't understand why people have such an issue with it. It takes nothing to say in a later post, "Here is a correction of my last post. I wrote xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and it should have read yyyyyyyyyyyy."

I have done this myself many times.

Michael

Well, the reason is many times when certain posters with more ego/vanity than intelligence post something stupid and get caught at it, they would say, "Oh, well, I really meant this, not that" as an excuse. True, sometimes most of us might do that for real, some others make a habit of it as way of not taking responsibility for what they say.

I still favor the Kill'em All and Let God Sort Out the Bodies approach.

If your enemy can't breath he won't have much of an identity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How old are you? Following your logic, U.S. should have killed all the British, all the Southerners, all the Natives, all the Hawaiians, all the Filipinos, all the Germans, all the Japanese, all the Russians, all the Koreans, all the Chinese, all the Mexicans, all the Spainards.

Something is happening here, and we need to take it onboard. But doing so means throwing off our narcissism and certainty of entitlement It is a heavy burden to shrug off. But shrug it we must."

Adam

Good Luck!

This a section of one of his articles. The full link is below the quote.

"Virtus. But as Rome shows, all is not just about the Emperor/President. Roman wars were also equally about the virtuous discipline of all Romans. Vegetius says it all:

It is evident that the Roman people have subjected the world by no other means than the exercise of arms ... What indeed could the small number of Romans have accomplished against the multitude of Gauls?

I am open to what he is analyzing. He raises serious issues.

Adam

So is he suggesting we all become "Good Germans"?

Sorry about another editing mistake.

As to the first, my knowledge, limited as it is as to what our military actually could bring to bear, is absolutely yes.

That is a technical answer.

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of "win". However, I do agree that U.S. would "win"[per your definition] if U.S. used all the technology available.

Do you think it would be in our overall interest to "win" no matter what the cost of using all the technology available entails?

Red:

American as an expansionist occupier of territory wherein they would receive value in a specific form for an area acquired by the empire.

Fair questions.

Adam

As to the second, my answer is no.

Adam

Do you mean you don't agree with their[the significant segment you mentioned] definition of 'evil empirical empire' or their opinion that U.S. is an 'evil empirical empire'?

Sorry, messy editing mistake.

The very fact of the movie's success offers evidence that it tapped into the elicitation of universal human emotions and human needs.

Do you think the movie would have been the success that is now, without the fancy special effect?

It would be a loss if the watcher was not able to accept the arousal of such experience, for it seems this was the director's intentions.

You know what, I kinda agree with you, I did read an article on the director's review.

Red:

Winning a war is accomplished when all the enemy are dead or surrendered and there is a formal surrender with terms.

Adam

Do you think that's what would happen if U.S. used all the technology available against Taliban?

American as an expansionist occupier of territory wherein they would receive value in a specific form for an area acquired by the empire.

Fair questions.

Do you agree with that definition?

Red,

Why do you think they[Taliban] should play by our[their enemy's for now] rules? - Red

Countries under the UN banner fight using LOAC. - Shane

Is Taliban under the UN banner?

Taliban doesn't care about human lives,so the above does not apply to them. Too bad Taliban doesn't follow Saladin's example of chivalry. I imagine that in their eyes, we're seen as less than human, so do not deserve chivalry - Shane

Didn't U.S. public at large regard the Natives as less than human at one time? So according to your logic, the U.S. soldiers/civilian combatants captured by the Natives didn't deserve chivalry?

Do you think we should play by their rules just for the hell of it? - Red

No. Two wrongs don't make a right. - Shane

Who decides what is right or wrong?

History has shown that offense breeds new defense and vice versa. In an asymmetrical battlefied, we adapt new tactics to counter theirs. They do likewise.

Indeed, what they are doing it is natural consequence of the war, according to you?

Did Mujahadeen in the 80's wear uniforms while fighting the Soviets? If they didn't, then they were not lawful combatants against the Soviets?

So why did the U.S. help them? - Red

My personal guess is that the expansion of communism was the greater threat. - Shane

I agree.

Right or wrong the US has been caught in that vice before. - Shane

So for the right price, everyone's a whore?

They care litte for their own lives...why should they care for anyone else? Problem is, the civilian point of view is limited.

Mao was a civilian, Chiang was a career Military man, Mao won despite the overwhelming disadvantage.

Are you a civilian?

Active duty AF - 17 years

Splendid! Just 3 more years to go!

We have to shape the battlefield with the bright glare of an instant media and a significant segment, no where near a majority, that is of the opinion that our military is an instrument of an evil empirical empire.

Why do you think they [the significant segment you mentioned] is of the opinion that our military is an instrument of an evil empirical empire?

I just wonder if it is our, myself included, belief that we could "win" the Afghan conflict if we unleashed our technology?

Adam

What do you mean by "win"?

However, the language in it speaks more to two sides that play by the rules. Clearly, Taliban does not.

Why do you think they[Taliban] should play by our[their enemy's for now] rules?

Do you think we should play by their rules just for the hell of it?

Opposing forces are supposed to wear uniforms which mark them as lawful combatants, meaning that they are legally engaged in war.

Did Mujahadeen in the 80's wear uniforms while fighting the Soviets? If they didn't, then they were not lawful combatants against the Soviets?

So why did the U.S. help them?

Taliban forgoes that in favor of blending in with the local population. This tactic ensures that we have the harder road to travel in making the distinction between them and the civilians in hopes we will inflict civilian casualties. Politically, it distorts the world's views on our efforts. For the Taliban, it eases their recruiting efforts. It's very dicey.

Forget about "What would Jesus say?", What would Breznev say?

In some articles I've read, our aim was to notify the civilians we were rolling in...and to get out. The Taliban have kindly informed those trying to leave that it's dangerous because of bombs and IEDs. Bullshit! They want them there to maximize civilian casualties.

Indeed, why shouldn't they want the U.S. to cause maximum civilian casualties?

They care litte for their own lives...why should they care for anyone else? Problem is, the civilian point of view is limited.

~ Shane

Are you a civilian?

I highly recommend the movie. I also must say, "hey guys, be human a little!" We can't think our way into a lot of what it means to be human, we have to realize it through experience. This movie offers some rich experiences that provide food for thought.

Christopher

What 'food for thought' did the movie provide?

I have come to really hate Obama and his cronies.

I, too, have come to dislike Obama and hate some of his cronies.

In which a lot of Marines are going to die. Why? Barak of Obama has sent them in with rules of battle: do not fire unless fired upon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, can you quote the original source from which that rules of battle you attribute to Obama came from?

That is no way to win a war.

What would be a way or the way to win a war?

Cameron has made good movies before (Aliens, the 2 Terminators) but I wonder if he's jut become rusty in the writing dept.

I don't think Cameron's "Aliens" was an improvement over Ridley Scott's original, and I never was impressed with Terminator series.

Ok. So, with that definition in mind, you are:

"...motivated to found an economic/political philosophy that will better the part of mankind I find to be worthy."

What type of model or paradigm have you developed?

Now here is where the devil lurks in those details.

Adam

Some of the books that inspire me, (in no order of preference),

* The Fountainhead

* "Mind and Society", and "Transformation of Democracy" by Vilfredo Pareto

* Joseph Shumpter's works

* Human Action (I'm still working on it, like many German translations into English, it is a bit pedantic, making it unnecessarily slow-going)

* Keynes, I've been working on his book for awhile, and while I found some of his attack on certain assumptions of "Free Market Economics" powerful, I also found him to be a little unnecessarily obtuse.

* Mao, the unknown story, a bio

* Young Stalin, a bio

* Huey Long's bios

I am also doing a research on "Kempeitai", "Special Assignment Brigade" of defunct Securitate, and Saddam Feyadeen, and "National Syndicalism", and planning to give a fair hearing on Karl Marx, and South Korean economic model during 60's and 70's under General Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kempeitai

Ok.

Provide your definition then.

Adam

The same as yours, the red-highlighted one.

[

Altruism, in practice, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one's efforts. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form of gratitude or remuneration then it is not an altruistic act. It is in fact a selfish act because the principal motivation was to reap some benefit for oneself. The desire of this benefit exists equally whether it is psychological, emotional, intellectual, or material - each form of desirable benefit is philosophically identical as a motivation.

http://www.knowledge...pedia/Altruism/

I can work with the red highlighted definition.

Adam

Well, by the definition you used above, the red-highlighted one, I am most definitely not alturist.

What it does highlight is the specific sectors of capitalism and militarism that use force as an option and willingly so.

~ Shane

Please enlighten me, is there capitalism and militarism that does not use force as an option?

Red:

...I find to be their real personal philosophies...

Interesting, can you provide, for example, three aspects of their "real personalities"?**

As I analyze these three, based on published bios and articles I have read so far.........

1. Ability to see beyond superficial, and comprehend the real cause and effect(as they saw it).

2. Courage to defy the crowd even at the risk of their lives when risk/reward ratio (as they perceive at the moment) is in their favor in matters they perceive to be worthy.

3. Fortitude not to be swayed by cheap sentimentality, but still capable of mercy/compassion (that is, real mercy/compassion), not phony mercy/compassion for pr purpose.

Above apply to Stalin, and Mao.

As for Salinger,

1. Analytical ability to see beyond the superficial

2. Courage to defy what other want in favor of what he wanted.

Additionally,

...that will better the part of mankind I find to be worthy.

A new altruism based on the worth of whom it is trying to help...is that a fair statement of your intent?

Adam

What is your definition of altruism as you used in your question above?

Note to Mr.Kelly, my purpose for the recent edit was to correct my misquote of Selene,due to mistake during my original post, not to put words into Selene's mouth something he had never said. Moderators in other forums used to engage in that kind of bs, and I don't want anyone to imply I'm doing the same.