- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Liberals are morons
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:24 pm to asurob1
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:24 pm to asurob1
quote:Using your logic, terrorists don't kill civilians, they kill legitimate war targets who are supporting the army they're fighting. (Note: I do not believe this, and I am not defending the way terrorists attack civilian targets)
Maybe you don't understand what total war actually is.
There are victims of war and there are combatants.
But there are no civilians.
People today freak out about combat footage showing corsairs strafing the hell out of fishing boats off the coast of Japan.
How could we (you know, the good guys) be party to killing of "civilians".
Those "civilians" were supporting the Japanese war effort with their fish.
Sure maybe they were feeding family members who just happened to work in munition factors, or digging trenches, or maybe their kid was about to head of to the naval academy.
Those fishermen were a legitimate target that were supporting an empire who was bent on the conquest of the all of asia.
Watching liberal weanies cry now about what we did then.
Hell that's entertainment I can't pay enough to see.
Civilians are still civilians even if they are supporting a nation's military that is engaged in war. I agree that WWII was a total war and it was impossible to achieve victory without inflicting massive casualties on civilian populations. I think the nuclear bombings were justified.
That doesn't change the fact that we killed civilians, or render their deaths any less tragic. They had value as human beings. But if I could go back in time, I wouldn't change what we did.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 3:25 pm
1
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:25 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
I am a subject matter expert on World War 2, specially the Pacific War. I have forgotten more about the topic then most people know.
I am the fricking source
quote:
I am the fricking source.
shrug.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:27 pm to asurob1
quote:Even using your goofy arse definition of what a civilian is, you wouldn't consider a newborn child a civilian? How exactly is that child contributing to the war effort?
Maybe you don't understand what total war actually is.
There are victims of war and there are combatants.
But there are no civilians.
No, dude. Just no.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:30 pm to asurob1
quote:
I am a subject matter expert on World War 2, specially the Pacific War. I have forgotten more about the topic then most people know.
I am the fricking source
quote:
I am the fricking source.
shrug.
Likewise. And
Posted on 12/18/14 at 3:35 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Even using your goofy arse definition of what a civilian is, you wouldn't consider a newborn child a civilian? How exactly is that child contributing to the war effort?
No, dude. Just no.
Enemy combatant.
Children in the hitler youth defended Germany during that country's dying gasps.
Students were mobilized as factory workers. Factory workers supporting the war effort.
Enemy combatants.
There are no civilians in a total war.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:11 pm to asurob1
quote:
Wikipedia on it's best day is a good place to go when you are looking for additional references. But to use that as a primary source, should get you laughed out of most centers of real journalism
Bait set.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:19 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Using your logic, terrorists don't kill civilians, they kill legitimate war targets who are supporting the army they're fighting. (Note: I do not believe this, and I am not defending the way terrorists attack civilian targets)
You mean like the french marquis during world war 2?
True statement.
I hate terrorists in every possible way. Their goal is to seed terror. They strike at soft targets now because hard targets are difficult. They view everyone of us as ...enemy combatants.
quote:
Civilians are still civilians even if they are supporting a nation's military that is engaged in war. I agree that WWII was a total war and it was impossible to achieve victory without inflicting massive casualties on civilian populations. I think the nuclear bombings were justified.
Sure...but the point is...in war...any war...we are trying to break the population's will to fight.
That makes civilians a target. Now do I agree with the bombings of cities and the like (because we all well know the Norton bombsite wasn't very accurate)...I don't know...it's a subject I do go back and forth on.
But if they people are supporting their country during a war...then that support must be stopped....
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:37 pm to asurob1
quote:
Enemy combatants.
There are no civilians in a total war.
I'm afraid that you are absolutely wrong here, friend.
"Enemy combatant" is a term of art that is not equivalent to "civilian".
Look up the meaning of the word "combatant". You'll find that it's close to being the opposite of the meaning of the word "civilian". In other words, a civilian is closer to being a NON-combatant than a combatant.
In total war, there are no civilians? In other words, instead of civilians, they are re-designated as "enemy combatants" due to the technical nature of the war, which is defined as "total war"?
This is pure fiction, what you say here. It's completely wrong, friend.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:54 pm to asurob1
quote:
You mean like the french marquis during world war 2?
French noblemen did take a high number of casualties.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:58 pm to asurob1
quote:
That makes civilians a target.
I'm not sure civilians constitute a valid target in their own right.
Civilians working at shipyard? Sure. Civilians working at the port loading ships for Japanese navy? Yep. Civilians making combat aircraft - heck, refining gasoline or producing electricity - all of those are valid military targets and, while civilian deaths are not the goal, destruction of the civilian infrastructure supporting an enemy's war effort is valid military activity and collateral damage, so long as it is not disproportional to the military goal attained, is not something we should be overly agonizing over.
In Little Boy and Fat Man, our goal was to end a very bloody and costly war. Japan is better off having lost the war, than if they had won it. More Japanese are alive today because of those bombs than died from the effects.
I have reservations about endorsing actions that killed ~225,000 civilians, but, dammit - at the end of the day, war is war and we didn't do anything that any warring nation pursuing victory wouldn't have done under the same circumstances.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 4:59 pm to Champagne
quote:
This is pure fiction, what you say here. It's completely wrong, friend.
targets work better?
If my goal in a total war is the sap the will to fight.
Then my goal is to kill and hurt as many people as possible to help bring down the country I am fighting.
If the people are working and living their day-today lives sans any threat whatsoever. Chances are they will continue to support said fight long after a point they should.
Part of the problem with how we fight wars today is we...the American people really don't realize we are fighting a war.
The are faux wars. There is no limits to food, gas etc etc.
If we get involved in a real war with a real enemy who can threaten us. Their first move should be to threaten our way of life. Attack our infrastructure and part of that is in fact the people who make that infrastructure go.
We are so powerful militarily no country can do that now. Which is a good thing...but we can do it to other countries.
Enemy combatants might be the wrong term. But it is the right idea...in a total war battlefield.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:27 pm to asurob1
quote:
targets work better?
I defer to your reading/study of the Pacific War. I've read and studied much less than you on the topic of the Pacific War in WW2.
The US bomber command in the Pacific never legally defined civilians as enemy combatants, but, that does not mean that civilians were not considered legitimate targets for destruction by bomber attack.
Are you saying that the US bomber command in the Pacific considered purely civilian areas of enemy cities as legitimate targets? That might be the case, I don't know.
I've never heard of USN/USMC Corsairs strafing Japanese civilian fishing boats for the purpose of depriving the enemy of this food source, so, I find that very interesting. I don't think that the US military would consider this legal today, but, tell us more about these incidents. I could see the US military back then looking at the issue and deciding that these fishing boats were legit targets because they were a source of food supply for the enemy.
The US and the world had a "rough hewn" notion of all of these issues back in the old days. For example, there was once a doctrine of "Retaliation" that was legitimate.
Retaliation teaches that, once an enemy nation surrenders and is occupied, the occupying military forces may retaliate, should they be subjected to terrorist attacks by franc-tireurs. Retaliation could take the form of burning an enemy town that harbored franc-tireurs or summarily executing franc-tireurs.
Of course, Retaliation is no longer considered legit. Summary burning of towns and executing partisans without trial are now called "atrocities."
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:34 pm to Champagne
quote:
these fishing boats were legit targets because they were a source of food supply for the enemy.
Or were doing double duty as scouts, relaying locations of U.S. ships or aircraft.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:37 pm to asurob1
quote:
Then my goal is to kill and hurt as many people as possible to help bring down the country I am fighting.
Keep in mind things have changed quite a bit from the days of WW 2.
Targeting of civilians directly for the purpose of killing and hurting as many civilian non-combatants as possible in order to "help bring down the country I am fighting" is probably now illegal under the laws of nations and laws of war.
I think that "Bomber" Harris and Winston Churchill would have no problem with your stated "goal", but, the rules of the game have changed quite a bit since back then.
Are you channeling "Bomber" Harris or Mr. Churchill this evening?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:45 pm to Champagne
quote:
The US bomber command in the Pacific never legally defined civilians as enemy combatants, but, that does not mean that civilians were not considered legitimate targets for destruction by bomber attack.
Are you saying that the US bomber command in the Pacific considered purely civilian areas of enemy cities as legitimate targets? That might be the case, I don't know.
Curtis Lemay sure did. Read about the firebombing of Tokyo sometime. That was pure and simple an attack against a civilian population as were many raids over Japan. We did the same thing over europe behind the mantra that we were trying to take out factories...but when you fire bomb an entire city (Dresden) you well know what you are doing whatever you'd like to call it.
quote:
I've never heard of USN/USMC Corsairs strafing Japanese civilian fishing boats for the purpose of depriving the enemy of this food source, so, I find that very interesting. I don't think that the US military would consider this legal today, but, tell us more about these incidents. I could see the US military back then looking at the issue and deciding that these fishing boats were legit targets because they were a source of food supply for the enemy.
If it moved it died. Today's military would never do such a thing because the conflicts we are involved in are very...sanitary. Our military now goes through great lengths to avoid civilian loss of life which isn't a bad thing at all.
quote:
Of course, Retaliation is no longer considered legit. Summary burning of towns and executing partisans without trial are now called "atrocities."
Yup welcome to modern warfare.
I will try to track down the vid of the strafing. I use to have it on my PC but I think I have long since deleted it. I remember there was more then a bit of outrage about it when it came out. Because it was a "civilian" boat....but that's people taking 2010 moralities and trying to wedge it on how we felt about things in the 1940s.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:46 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Or were doing double duty as scouts, relaying locations of U.S. ships or aircraft.
Which is why if it moved it died ;-) because one couldn't really be certain.
I assure you Halsey had no problems with killing Japanese.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:47 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Or were doing double duty as scouts, relaying locations of U.S. ships or aircraft.
Well, during WW 2, in order to be a real scout, that boat would need to be equipped with a radio in order to give current reports, so the antenna would be visible, thus making it a legit target.
An old man in a skiff with a cane pole, or a teenage girl riding a bike along the coast probably would not transform into "enemy scouts" because they could see a US plane with their eyeballs and "report" to the local enemy military authorities once they got back home.
I don't believe that the US engaged in that kind of creative thinking back then, that would be news to me.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:47 pm to Champagne
quote:
Keep in mind things have changed quite a bit from the days of WW 2.
Targeting of civilians directly for the purpose of killing and hurting as many civilian non-combatants as possible in order to "help bring down the country I am fighting" is probably now illegal under the laws of nations and laws of war.
I think that "Bomber" Harris and Winston Churchill would have no problem with your stated "goal", but, the rules of the game have changed quite a bit since back then.
Are you channeling "Bomber" Harris or Mr. Churchill this evening?
without question.
Winston was the one who started all the city busting ;-) fat bastard.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:49 pm to asurob1
quote:Goering
Winston was the one who started all the city busting ;-)
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:50 pm to asurob1
quote:
..but when you fire bomb an entire city (Dresden) you well know what you are doing whatever you'd like to call it.
Based on my recollection of Dresden, the US bombers were targeting parts of Dresden that had military facilities, weapons factories or strategic transportation facilities. Of course these targets were often in the middle of the city surrounded by civilian homes.
"Bomber" Harris, the UK bomber command dude, on the other hand, was indeed trying to incinerate as many German civilians as he possible by intentionally trying to create a firestorm. Under today's law of nations/law of war this would be illegal.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 5:51 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News