Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 As a soldier on the good side I don't have the right to rape and murder. I might have to kill a civilian to get at the enemy but not break into a farmhouse, say, and bayonet a baby.Brant,Bob's idol (and that of John Lewis, Yaron Brook and other trivializers at ARI of selectively chosen innocent human life), Wm. T. Sherman, did not think so. I doubt he put it on paper, but that is exactly what went on (and worse) under his command during his burning of the crops campaign in the Shenandoah valley. They did not call it the "rape of the South" for nothing.To some, he was a hero and these folks claim he was humanitarian (or "moral") because such tactics ended the war sooner. I agree with you that such behavior is a war crime and I do not consider the infants killed or the women beaten and raped to be "blood on the hands of the enemy."In either choice, rape murder and plunder or allowing the enemy to stay strong, where is there morality to be found except for naked evil or suicidal foolishness? There is no moral good there.The third option, evacuating the innocent before destroying the goods used by the enemy army, was not much in use at that time. If morality is to be applied, I have to go with the third option. If any innocents get killed along the way in an honest attempt at evacuating them or giving them time to leave, or if they die because they refuse to leave the war zone, I don't consider that moral or immoral. It is just something very tragic that happens while they are in the way.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) I consider the Civil War to be absolutely wrong. A war to preserve the union? A war to free the slaves was a propaganda add-on. I much prefer the Jefferson to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. That famous inscription around the inside of the rotunda, "I have sworn eternal hostility ..." is there because my Grandfather, Irving Brant, suggested it to his friend Harold Ickes, the Secretary of the Interior. (Not my style of expression, BTW, but it's appropriate in that setting.)--Brant Edited January 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Brant:"A war to free the slaves was a propaganda add-on..."This statement is just a flat out untruth and it is sad that you still believe it.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Brant,Bob's idol (and that of John Lewis, Yaron Brook and other trivializers at ARI of selectively chosen innocent human life), Wm. T. Sherman, did not think so. I doubt he put it on paper, but that is exactly what went on (and worse) under his command during his burning of the crops campaign in the Shenandoah valley. They did not call it the "rape of the South" for nothing.To some, he was a hero and these folks claim he was humanitarian (or "moral") because such tactics ended the war sooner. I agree with you that such behavior is a war crime and I do not consider the infants killed or the women beaten and raped to be "blood on the hands of the enemy."He who starts the war bears the responsibility for all the deaths.There is only one war crime -- losing the war. It was General Phillip Sheridan who wrecked the Shenendoah Valley. They said he did such a thorough job of burning farms and crops that a crow would have to carry his own food in order to fly across the valley.Sheridan knew how to fight a war too.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) Brant,Bob's idol (and that of John Lewis, Yaron Brook and other trivializers at ARI of selectively chosen innocent human life), Wm. T. Sherman, did not think so. I doubt he put it on paper, but that is exactly what went on (and worse) under his command during his burning of the crops campaign in the Shenandoah valley. They did not call it the "rape of the South" for nothing.To some, he was a hero and these folks claim he was humanitarian (or "moral") because such tactics ended the war sooner. I agree with you that such behavior is a war crime and I do not consider the infants killed or the women beaten and raped to be "blood on the hands of the enemy."He who starts the war bears the responsibility for all the deaths.There is only one war crime -- losing the war. It was General Phillip Sheridan who wrecked the Shenendoah Valley. They said he did such a thorough job of burning farms and crops that a crow would have to carry his own food in order to fly across the valley.Sheridan knew how to fight a war too.If a soldier shoots at and kills an enemy that's his responsibility. Someone else has another kind of responsibility. "There is only one war crime -- losing the war." Blatantly untrue. One is merely more likely to get away with it if on the winning side. I think you are somewhat confusing a war crime with "Victor's Justice." I think you really must have Aspergers what-have-you.--Brant Edited January 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 If a soldier shoots at and kills an enemy that's his responsibility. Someone else has another kind of responsibility. "There is only one war crime -- losing the war." Blatantly untrue. One is merely more likely to get away with it if on the winning side. I think you are somewhat confusing a war crime with "Victor's Justice." I think you really must have Aspergers what-have-you.--BrantVictor's Justice (or Revenge) is real. Anything else is sentiment or wishful thinking. And I am an Aspie, which means I was born and bred for clear thought. I really do not understand why people cannot comprehend Sherman's doctrine. It is so plain, clear and logical. The reason why sentimental Good Guys can sleep in peace is because their beds are guarded by unsentimental rough men. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The reason why sentimental Good Guys can sleep in peace is because their beds are guarded by unsentimental rough men.Bob,Right.Until the unsentimental rough men turn on the sentimental Good Guys who are sleeping in peace.No thank you.I prefer that thing about he who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) If a soldier shoots at and kills an enemy that's his responsibility. Someone else has another kind of responsibility. "There is only one war crime -- losing the war." Blatantly untrue. One is merely more likely to get away with it if on the winning side. I think you are somewhat confusing a war crime with "Victor's Justice." I think you really must have Aspergers what-have-you.--BrantVictor's Justice (or Revenge) is real. Anything else is sentiment or wishful thinking. And I am an Aspie, which means I was born and bred for clear thought. I really do not understand why people cannot comprehend Sherman's doctrine. It is so plain, clear and logical. The reason why sentimental Good Guys can sleep in peace is because their beds are guarded by unsentimental rough men. I understand Sherman perfectly--and his "doctrine." He didn't have the right (moral) war, but industrialized warfare was his specialty--and the Union's. In terms of expense it was the worst ever American war. Comparatively, the US only got its toes wet in WWI, which was much, much worse for Britain, France, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. The stupidest, baddest war of all. In WWII the US only got its feet wet in spite of the "total war." Absent the trench warfare of WWI, it probably wasn't as bad for the combatants overall, but, boy, did the civilians die like flies! I think +70 million died as a direct consequence of WWII.--Brant Edited January 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight4thefuture Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) The reason why sentimental Good Guys can sleep in peace is because their beds are guarded by unsentimental rough men.Bob,Right.Until the unsentimental rough men turn on the sentimental Good Guys who are sleeping in peace.No thank you.I prefer that thing about he who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.MichaelMichael,Do you think we should feel guilty for having to kill innocent people in war? As a human being I understand what you mean. I would hate that I would have to do it. I would feel intense indignation and outrage. I would even feel a sense of helplessness, because I would not want to kill these people; I'd just have to. But I would hate the people who make such horrible choices necessary, not myself. Sorry, if you already answered this. A lot of technicalities were being discussed, so I did not go through all of the posts. Edited January 7, 2009 by Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Brant:"A war to free the slaves was a propaganda add-on..."This statement is just a flat out untruth and it is sad that you still believe it.AdamI missed this. I'll think about it this evening when I have more time.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Do you think we should feel guilty for having to kill innocent people in war?Julian,Who said anything about feeling guilty? But let's look at it. As human nature stands, this is something most people who kill innocents in war are going to feel anyway. I dread to think what a person who feels guilty will do if he learns how to alleviate his tormenting guilt through the lesson (on a psychological and premise level) that killing innocent people can be a moral good. I'm not so sure his subconscious will be as discriminating as his conscious mind in choosing innocents the next time, especially if he is a person who likes to be good.I think a much more realistic thing is to say that it was a terrible thing that needed to be done under extraordinary circumstances and strong wishes that it should never happen again. And if the person feels guilty, that is merely a sign that he is a human being. I see that as much healthier for those who have killed innocents in war. Through that way they can find some peace.Ignoring the fact that most people who have killed innocents in war are going to feel guilty all by themselves is ignoring reality. Trying to program that out of people and dismissing it by saying they shouldn't feel that way in the first place (because they were performing a moral good) is a bit too much for my reality meter—in addition to the fact that it can be quite dangerous to peaceful society.Battles are not just fought on the battlefield in war. They are also fought in people's minds and souls. Within this context, I fully believe war is hell.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Brant:"A war to free the slaves was a propaganda add-on..."This statement is just a flat out untruth and it is sad that you still believe it.AdamI missed this. I'll think about it this evening when I have more time.--BrantWell, "propaganda" is the wrong word. Lincoln's major objective was to preserve the union, not free the slaves--not at the beginning of the war. Emancipation was brought in the give the war badly needed moral gravitas. A lot of people were being killed and the home-front needed shoring up. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Brant:I have a lot of respect for your service and your arguments and I thought that you meant something different and I just needed to say it.Has anyone had the unfortunate opportunity to be shot and to shoot back and hit another human being in their sights?Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Brant:I have a lot of respect for your service and your arguments and I thought that you meant something different and I just needed to say it.Has anyone had the unfortunate opportunity to be shot and to shoot back and hit another human being in their sights?AdamI'm no authority on that. Happens in a lot of movies.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I personally favour this idea - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Brant:I have a lot of respect for your service and your arguments and I thought that you meant something different and I just needed to say it.Has anyone had the unfortunate opportunity to be shot and to shoot back and hit another human being in their sights?AdamAnyone who sends in men to kill men when a machine can do it better is guilty of criminal stupidity. The idea is to kill the other guy with as little danger to one's self as possible. As General Patton was supposed to have said - the idea is not to die for your country but to make the enemy son of a bitch die for his. I have seen my terrain guidance system tested and I have heard the explosion. I did not need to see blood to know that my "baby" was lethal. Face to face killing is for the most part unnecessary. One can do it remotely and efficiently. That is why we have planes, artillery, bombs, gas and missiles. Machines do it better.I agree with you. Being shot at is unfortunate, especially if it is unnecessary. And if the killing is done remotely as it should be one does not need to see the intended target die. Conan - what is best? To send your bombs and missiles against the enemy, hear the explosions, see the smoke rise and to behold the silence afterward. Face to face slaughter is so damned primitive and unsophisticated.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Robert is quite correct.We now have wonderful drones flying in the hinterlands along the Afghani-Paki border.They are being "piloted" by, in one example, an Air Force Reservist in America who is a civilian pilot.He can also release hellfire onto his target from an air conditioned room in Colorado or Florida.Now that is the way to fight a war. That is the way to kill the enemy.That is the way to win.Patten had the lowest per capita casualty rate of any unit in the European theatre because he believed in coordinated fast penetrating attacks. As he pointed out, fixed fortifications were monuments to man's stupidity. He is also reported to have said, when asked about his flanks as he pressed forward to Germany, what about your flanks? He is purported to have answered, let the Hun worry about his flanks. Essentially, depending on the logistics on the ground, that works quite well. I had the unfortunate opportunity to be shot and shoot two people and believe me the air conditioned room is infinitely preferred!Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You cannot control and occupy territory by remote control and destruction. That's just one facet of a war or military campaign. Right now we are losing in Afghanistan--not enough troops on the ground and not enough clarity of mission and not enough will.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You cannot control and occupy territory by remote control and destruction. That's just one facet of a war or military campaign. Right now we are losing in Afghanistan--not enough troops on the ground and not enough clarity of mission and not enough will.--BrantHow about kill the Taliban and screw the collateral damage? Forget about controlling territory. Destroy territory. Make it unfit to live in for a thousand years. The idea is not to defend your territory, it is to deny the enemy his territory. Make the son of a bitch die for his country. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Had Reagan not been dissuaded from turning the Bekaa Valley [Lebanon and Syria] into a wasteland, we might not even have a Hamas today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You cannot control and occupy territory by remote control and destruction. That's just one facet of a war or military campaign. Right now we are losing in Afghanistan--not enough troops on the ground and not enough clarity of mission and not enough will.--BrantHow about kill the Taliban and screw the collateral damage? Forget about controlling territory. Destroy territory. Make it unfit to live in for a thousand years. The idea is not to defend your territory, it is to deny the enemy his territory. Make the son of a bitch die for his country. Practically speaking you'd need nuclear bombs and you'd have to kill about 150,000,000 people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Insane or stupid, it's the same thing. Why not take a long sea voyage and enjoy yourself instead?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Had Reagan not been dissuaded from turning the Bekaa Valley [Lebanon and Syria] into a wasteland, we might not even have a Hamas today.He was going to do what, when, why?We don't have a Hamas. Gaza has a Hamas. Israel has a problem.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Sorry, I was speaking to Robert's point of laying the enemy's territory into a wasteland.My point was we might not have a current Hamas problem had Reagan gone ahead with laying waste to the Bekaa Valley.Sorry, quick posts sometimes can be confusing lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I'm glad that this kind of thinking is no longer respectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Joel:"...kind of thinking is no longer respectable..."Which kind of thinking and no longer respectable to whom?Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now