UCAV makes first ever combat kill*

You'll stop generalizing if we're a generalization?

Anyways on to reality, yeah you weren't there is the bottom line. You can be from god knows where and that will never change the fact that unless you can prove you, yourself saw the SWT order an airstrike on two civilians doing road-side construction all we can do is take the word of the people who are actually fighting.

It's fun being the arm-chair general or a critic thousands of miles away isn't it?

Shattered OUT...

Did he just criticize, de-humanize and over-all [snip] about the entire American population, then claim that we're the ones who don't see others as human beings?

Nice.

BlueRaja,

No, I didn't miss the point at all.

You must still balance the force you use in a given situation.

If the US is in Iraq to fight the supporters of terrorism, and if you believe that you should use the maximum force with the least risk to your forces, then why didn't you just nuke the place??

The answer is that the US also went there to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, so already perhaps you can see that to do so you have to moderate the force at your disposal to achieve that aim. Obviously there is more risk to your forces.

If you use force out of proportion with the threat then you will alienate the people that you are trying to liberate (they just see a bully in action). If you show them that you are going to 'answer stones with air strikes' they will see you in the same light as the dictator you have replaced. Do you think that they will want to embrace democracy then?

Yes, you must protect your forces as best you can, but it is a balancing act to achieve the outcome of your overall aim. Like I said - you can win the battle and lose the war.

The other consideration is cost effectiveness - to get the same result (eliminate the two bombers) you could use one sniper, a very expensive UCAV and smart bomb (the guidance of which requires the target to be marked by a laser, for instance - in this case, I assume by the SWT), or indeed you can have all your B-2s loitering 24/7 over Iraq. It is a matter of appropriate force in a given situation, balanced by the risk to your forces.

If you think that even the might of the US economy can afford even a 250lb bomb (plus its very expensive guidance system) to kill every two terrorists, let alone the cost of a UCAV etc, then I'm afraid you are living in fantasy land.

Two of the basic principles of war are Economy of Effort and Concentration of Force. They are at odds with one another and if you fail to strike the correct balance between them - you lose!

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 12/9/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by Iblis
Did he just criticize, de-humanize and over-all [snip] about the entire American population, then claim that we're the ones who don't see others as human beings?

Nice.

No, I think he was accusing and criticizing your leaders of attempting to de-humanize the American view of the consequences of the war on Iraqis. He also hoped that your servicemen (many of whom joined the forces merely to get a job) can overcome the inevitable de-humanizing influences of fighting a war at the sharp end.

I don't see why he can't criticize your leaders, about 40% of your own population is doing just that, after all. Why should you have exclusive rights to it when they are having such a profound effect on other people's lives?

The Winged Wombat

I think the fact that 40 percent of the population gets away with criticizing their own leader is a good sign that the people still have power.

Shattered OUT...

I'm not sure about that Shattered.

Freedom of speech, yes, but freedom of speech ignored does not necessarily infer power, especially in a society that does have mandatory voting.

The other worrying aspects concerning politicians is that a) you basically need to be rich to be a contender and b) the range of policies put forward over the field of candidates varies so very little - so the voters get a choice of policy A or policy A with sugar. Policy B never gets a look-in. Guess they are all reacting to the market research - nobody wants to run with policy B because the market researchers say that the voters won't want it, and the market researchers will never acknowledge that the presentation of policy B might create a groundswell that could invalidate their market research. So, in that sense market research becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In that light freedom of speech becomes little more than an annoyance that some politicians just seem to ignore without consequences.

Obviously, I'm not singling out the USA with these comments. The practice seems to becoming quite widespread in the world.

The Winged Wombat

Once again a thread gets off topic!

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Freedom of speech, yes, but freedom of speech ignored does not necessarily infer power, especially in a society that does have mandatory voting.

If your talking about the USA Wombat, they don't. Australia is one of only a couple of nations (including Nth Korea) that has compulsory voting.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The other worrying aspects concerning politicians is that a) you basically need to be rich to be a contender and b) the range of policies put forward over the field of candidates varies so very little - so the voters get a choice of policy A or policy A with sugar. Policy B never gets a look-in. Guess they are all reacting to the market research - nobody wants to run with policy B because the market researchers say that the voters won't want it, and the market researchers will never acknowledge that the presentation of policy B might create a groundswell that could invalidate their market research. So, in that sense market research becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is one of the best and most efficient summations of what is wrong with much of western democracy I have seen. Particularly your comment about market researchers not wanting to have the light shone on their smoke and mirrors routines.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Obviously, I'm not singling out the USA with these comments. The practice seems to becoming quite widespread in the world.

In our election year, sadly true mate,.... sadly true.

LEE.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

Freedom of speech, yes, but freedom of speech ignored does not necessarily infer power, especially in a society that does have mandatory voting.

The Winged Wombat

Sorry guys, a bit of finger trouble there - I meant to say ' ..... in a society that does NOT have mandatory voting'.

Although it doesn't seem to make much difference, even wide-spread criticism of leaders within their own countries doesn't appear to hamper their ability to enact their policies. Therefore freedom of speech is rapidly becoming quite powerless and in some cases the exercise of it merely aids the 'security services' in targeting the speaker. While I am definitely NOT a conspiracy advocate, I have no doubt that our respective 'protectors' keep a watch on our comments.

The practical differences between democracy, monarchy and dictatorship appear to be disappearing by the day!

Unfortunately democracy (as practiced) seems to be getting almost as far away from the definition of democracy as Communism was from Socialism.

While in no way wishing to negate America's right to defend itself (and getting more off topic all the time), consider the following figures.

Estimated world population (2007) - 6,602,224,175
Estimated US population (2007) - 301,139,947
USA as a percentage of world population - 4.56%
The USA professes to be a democracy - ie:- the majority rules and everyone gets to have a say in running the country.
The USA advocates (nay, demands) of the world that everyone else do the same - ie:- assuming the role of world leadership (increasingly by force, or threat of force).
Why is it then, that I fail to see rule of the world (or at least to dictate the policies of the world - oops there's that 'D' word) by 4.56% of the population (with the other 95.44% denied any input at all) as 'democratic' ?

I wonder what would have been the outcome if those 95.44% had answered the Bush 'with us or against us' challenge with a resounding and unanimous 'against'! (This is not an anti American statement - merely one of the two choices that Bush gave the world - that kind of challenge does not give the option of saying 'well I tend to agree with you but I don't necessarily think your answer to the problem is totally appropriate' )

While that may sound clear cut, and possibly infers that the answer might be a vote for all in the world - which leads to the concept of a 'United Nations' type of organization, unfortunately that body is the perfect example of the limitations of democracy - when you have more than two major 'parties' and three or four minor 'parties' it makes any agreement or action virtually impossible as no view can attain a majority.

Sorry, I don't have all the answers, but I get the feeling that the basic concept of separate 'homelands' (countries, if you wish, but equally applicable to ethnicity or religion) is counter productive to peace. While there is massive inequality across the world, then those conceptual 'homelands' will continue and we move no closer to real democracy or peace. Therefore it could be said that both the richest and the poorest 'homelands' of the world are the greatest dangers to peace - ie:- those with the greatest inequality.

Ergo, any desire to increase the inequality (greed, if you will) is the most dangerous thing an individual or 'homeland' can possibly do.

Again, my apologies for introducing philosophy into a technical forum.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 13/9/07 by The Winged Wombat]