Posted on 07/25/2006 4:40:49 AM PDT by oldtimer2
July 25, 2006 --
WHAT if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests? (snip)
What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy - the idea that all people are created equal - has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries? (snip)
Could World War II have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (snip)
If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I've read enough and it seems quite good to me. Basil Liddel Hart warned that one cannot win a war if one holds the enemy and cherishes it. That seems to be part of Israel's problem.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
i am not sure the problem is as much casualties as impatience. We were spoiled by Gulf I into thinking war just takes three weeks. Anything more is cast as failure. That, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that we didn't finish the job and take Bagdad. Anyway, what's this "we"? Is it us or is it politics?
References are often made to Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki as examples of times when Americans did what had to be done. The difference of course is that the American public had also suffered huge casualties by then and were in no mood to feel sorry for German or Japanese civilians.
To look forward in what's happening, question why we with a united world coalition have not bombed Irans Nuke sites yet.
Here is an OPENLY Hitler incarnate II and the world offers carrots and TIME to him and his terrorist nation.
If this humanitarianism prevails to that extent, the evolved civilization of the west is doomed. It is a frightening thought. Ultimately this is tactical blackmail by those who place less value on human life.
Millions died in the Second World War on both sides.
Todays war is different.
You may try to say yes we are engaged in a war of survival we are not.
Since sept 11th there has not been at attack against the American civilian population.
There has been one attack against London and one against Madrid.
The majority of casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are Muslim caused by Muslims.
What do you expect Israel to do fire bomb Beirut what will that achieve, more dead Lebanon civilians to be used as further reason to fight Israel.
In 1942 we fire Bombed Hamburg over 30,000 casualties, still Germany fought for another 3 years, although we bombed there cities day and night it was not until the Soviets seized Berlin that Germany surrendered.
Japan was teetering on surrender, it was more a case of the fact that the Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal that helped tip the balance towards surrender.
If it was the two A Bombs why did we still have to promise to spare the Emperor a Political decision.
Pure brute force will not win this war, it will take a case of intelligence led political as well as military decision making that will cover both the strategic as well as tactical arena
As a Christian I find it is painful to read the word 'humanitarianism' as interpreted by the world to be a value. Just this morning I read the Gospel of John where {around chs. 14,15} Jesus states we as disciples are chosen by Him and if we believe and obey His Commandments then we are to have Eternal Life. If we are for Him as a Nation how can we not defend ourselves in battle and protect His people??
As a Christian I find it is painful to read the word 'humanitarianism' as interpreted by the world to be a value. Just this morning I read the Gospel of John where {around chs. 14,15} Jesus states we as disciples are chosen by Him and if we believe and obey His Commandments then we are to have Eternal Life. If we are for Him as a Nation how can we not defend ourselves in battle and protect His people?? An of course we need to defend Israel against the Enemy as we would our own.
We killed 110,000 or so Japanese citizens in a three day span by dropping two atomic bombs.
Two weeks ago, the Japanese PM and the American President went to Graceland.
No matter how difficult, doing the correct thing stands the test of time,
I agree with you. Where is the so called 'humanitarianism' in regard to the years of homicide bombers Israel has suffered? It is sheer hypocracy to require a 'proportionate' response from Israel. That would never quell/wipe out the terrorism threat, neither to Israel nor the rest of the west or the world.
Dehumanize the opponent. Works every time.
It is heartening to be in your company!
Therefore a political compromise had to be reached.
Tactics and strategy are governed by political economic, geogrpahical, technological as well as military considerations.
The technical obstacles no longer obtain. John Podhoretz is absolutely right - it is solely a willpower question by now. Dehumanizing the enemy works every time, and that's what we should have already done.
Methinks we hesitate to go all-out in war precisely because we firebombed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - having the ability to practically wipe out whole cities with a push of a button, we know how horrible our arsenal is and loathe using it in all but the most extreme circumstances.
Our enemies, on the other hand, think themselves greatly accomplished for levelling a building or damaging a boat - their greatest efforts do relatively little harm. (Don't get me wrong: their harm done is grave and intolerable.)
Wanting to be "one of the big boys", our enemies fight dirty & ruthlessly to show off, trying to earn enough attention to warrant a big fight.
Wanting to not cause such terrible costly destruction again, the "big boys" push the little bullies back and tell 'em to shut it, knowing doing so merely stokes the antagonists and delays the inevitable.
Wiping out a culture is indeed possible. Somehow we hope to convince them to preserve their culture, not goad us into destroying it en masse (which we can). Grave irreversible acts are not done lightly; some, however, should be done.
My question has always been: if the Pakistani tribes are hiding Bin Laden and protecting him, why haven't we just levelled the entire region? This article seems to answer that question, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.