Welcome to Gaia! ::

"Baghdad is under full control, as is most of the country. Do you see the Iraqis have any armies? Corps? Divisions? They don't even have a bloody platoon of soldiers. Why? We beat their army into pulp."

Actually a number of them surrendered because they didn't want to defend Saddam. That's reason enough to get rid of Saddam

"Not really, if you kill all the family and reletives, the problem is solved, ala Ghengis Khan. You don't have to kill all either, just enough for the people to fear you more then their belief. Fear is the best form of crowd control, and Islamics, being as weak willed as they are will be a pushover to intimidate if we procede to torture and terrorize them back."

Thats genocide and cannot be performed with good conciense

"If you look at the casualties, the vietanmese were losing millions of people. The US lost only 50,000. Hardly a "tactical disaster"."

alot of those killed in vietnam were civilians and cannot be counted towards the war

"Jungles are easily removed, with convenient things like Napalm, Daisycutters, and various chemicals we dropped on the buggers."

we cannot simply strip the world of jungles merely because they are inconvenient

"Not to mention we could have just proceded to bomb the hell out of them, safe in the sky, and simply allow soldiers to defend important cities. The problem is the Military was trying to defend everything. "He who defends everything, defends nothing" Fredrich the Great."

actually we were not "safe in the sky" a number of pilots were shot down also bombing an entire country is not an option that we would wish to even consider

"As for training, god no. You are not even allowed to beat soldiers anymore, hell we allow WOMEN in the military now. Discipline is horrible, and the military is entirely based upon on risky Blitzkrieg Type Doctrines, which is probably why the US is having so much trouble with the occupation, especially as they cannot use traditional means of partisan suppression (ie: sheer ruthlessness)."

people wouldn't join if the army was permitted to beat recruits


"Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Iraq is not a response to 9/11."

true I found out recently that by all accounts Saddam hated terrorists

They surrendered because of fear. Blitzkrieg attacks the mind through massive and seemingly unstoppable thrusts, with aircraft attacking everywhere to ensure the enemy sees there is no place to go. On top of that Islamic Willpower is worse then French Willpower, it is obvious why they surrended at the sound of gunfire.

"Not really, if you kill all the family and reletives, the problem is solved, ala Ghengis Khan. You don't have to kill all either, just enough for the people to fear you more then their belief. Fear is the best form of crowd control, and Islamics, being as weak willed as they are will be a pushover to intimidate if we procede to torture and terrorize them back."



No, its massacre. Genocide is the active annihilation of a certain race. We are merely killing because they are diobedient.

It is very traditional and very human, as well as effective, hence why we practiced it well into the 1970s.



In Vietnam, the civilians were soldiers. Hence, that means the ratio was even higher. Besides, communists shouldn't be considered human in terms of losses.


Why not? What use do Jungles have to us humans? Would it not be more beneficial to cut them down and build farms to feed more people, or to build factories to build things for people?



Very few planes got shotdown, due to enemy inferiority in technology. 50 bombers were shot down over those years. That's around a mere 300 dead, as compared the the millions of vietnamese killed in bombings.


That's what conscription is for. And yes, every army used to beat up recruits, most notably the Japanese who tortured their recruits everyday to toughen them up. And they grew up to be the most loyal and hardfighting groundslugger in the world.

We kind of selfishly took up that posision when we became a country. We vowed that we would not only defend our own liberties, but the freedoms of other countries. At the time we were doing it to inspire everyone else, but now we're kind of abusing that possision. We weren't even given it, we just self procalimed ourselves to be "The Policemen of the World."

Bah, ethics are nothing of importance. They are imaginary values. What is of importance is efficiency.


But they were all Commies, enough reason to kill the load of them.


A: So does Algae, trees actually do not contribute anything. The release all the toxins they obsorb when they die.
B: Why do inferior species deserve to live, it is evolutionary for us, the supreme animal to take control of what is rightfully ours. Also natives need to be integrated into our industrial economy, instead of starving in shithuts.
C: I would much prefer to look at pictures of naked women, or gaze at battle torn landscapes, covered with dead communists, with a heroic band of soldiers getting cut down as they plant a flag on top of a hill.


COMMIES


No, tax evasion is what your country is based on

Over ethics, I prefer Machiavellianism, anything is fine as long as the state maintains power in the end. Ideally I would promote utilitarianism, where ethics would be based upon maximum benefit to the majority, despite what suffering the minority may recieve, however such a system is open to personal views, like a murderer may recieve so much satisfaction from killing that it outweighs someone's death.
Hence, I prefer to not allow personal opinions, views, nor ethics inturrept in decision making, only cold hard logic.


Civilians power the enemies war economy, and are of such important targets.


Less then one percent of oxygen is produced by trees and jungles.

Trees are important to prevent soil erosion, by jungles as a whole are useless to humans.


Why not, less space for them, means more space for us. If we fully utilized and molded the entire planet to our liking, the earth can easily sustain 50 billion people at Indian food levels.
And if those ancient traditions or customs cannot defeat other traditions and customs, it has no right to exist and should be swept aside to the glory that is civilization.
Yes, taking Native lands was the wonderful thing for both sides. I highly doubt any native would prefer to return to their teepees and hunt animals naked for the rest of their short 30 year life span without modern medicine.


I see jungles as steamy, hot places full of critters and poisonous insects, and chock full of diseases.


Civilians are vital to any modern war as they power the economy. We have seen time and time again how a powerful and fully mobilized war economy can defeat a superior military force.
Besides, bombing communist civilians in wartime is much more acceptable to civilians then executing them on streets or sending them to concentration camps whilst there is no war.


Britain had the most freedom of any nation at the time, also if the revolution hadn't excalated, it would have been very likely that the British would allow Americans representation and all their demands, indeed they constantly almost appeased the continentals if it wasn't for the hardliner Americans.

Nay, be following a code of ethics, you are creating good and evil, and hence have to categorize acts as good and evil. It limits options that may be much more effective then the ethical options.
Besides, ethics have never stopped any nation from committing mass murders and atrocities when they saw the need to do so, they simply find loopholes, like Christians could kill, as long as the opponent was a heretic or other pagaan infidel.

The problem is, killing, lying, and cheating cannot be stopped, and will never be stopped. We can only accept them as being part of our being and use those to our benefit instead of allowing the scum of society to do so.

As Plato said, "The only ones that should have the right to lie, is the government"


Not nessecerily, the allies bombed the hell out of German and Japanese cities, targeting primarily civilian targets with firebombs, which are useless against hardened factories.
Of course, the problem with such nowadays is the free media. If you had some censorship and good old fashioned propaganda, there would be no problems.


Let's not get personal.
I exhale carbon dioxide, which various plants take in and exhale oxygen. It is a safe cycyle, except of course, humans have developed the means to convert their own carbon dioxide into oxygen themselves, we have been doing so in submarines for 40 years.


Animals we don't really want to eat, and we generally don't want insurgents to have safe grounds do we?


I already live in an apartment, and I have stayed at the capsule hotel for a few days already, and was quite satisfied.

The way I see it is, the Earth has been gifted with the capability to support life. It also created such an enviroment as to encourage competition, to allow only the most adaptable, and most efficient animals prosper.

Us humans are the reason the earth exists, to provide home for the fittest lifeform, and it is clear we are the superior species on this world. It is indeed ours to mold, or else nature would never have allowed us to become so advanced, we were meant to be the most ruthless, intelligent and powerful force as could be bred on this planet, we will now take the cake.

The Natives killed each other on a regular basis, practiced slavery and cannibalism, and died frequently from diseases, animals, and other natives. There is no such thing as the "Noble Savage" Mr. Rossieue spoke so enthusiastically about.

Of course, to say they had a good life before is a paradox. Do you think you would have a good life if you never knew of the existance of computers and television? We cannot say because you would never be exposed to it, you might find some other means of entertainment, or maybe be bloody bored, either way, to the outside looker, you would be looking bored compared to them, because they have TV.


Of course, we humans however are now above that, we have eradicated a great many diseases, which just further justifies the fact that nature no longer has anything left to teach us.


It wouldn't have been genocide since it would be indiscriminate shelling. It wouldn't be very thorough either as only 20% of the population of a city would die in such an attack.
I don't agree with the nazi belief that the Jews were inferior, and initially the nazis themselves didn't want to kill them off. The original plan called for them to be shipped off the Madagascar, or South America after France was defeated, then ship them to Israel to live out their lives in the holy land until the race died off from mandatory sterilization. Unfortunately no one else agreed, nor wanted to take in the Jews.

Also, the Jewish weren't terrorists, and it is wrong to kill based upon race. We should kill based upon ideology, religion, danger factor, and economic potential.


The British frequently gave very generous consessions whenever a revolt occured, to prevent it from happening again. Did they need to give independance to Canada, or Australia as Dominions, no, they just wanted to defuse the tensions before they become too much of a problem.
Of course, I would view this as weakness, but the Britian is a small nation, it had a powerful military but would only be able to handle one thing at a time. In order for it to control as much as the world as it did, they had to be nice, and compromise frequently, and only started hitting when they demanded too much.

I don't think I can debate this anymore Fubar. We're clearly operating under completely different premises about morality, so arguing over specific issues is going to go nowhere.

Well, I certainly don't believe in the "you're either Democrat or Republican" mindset that has screwed over US politics so much. Both parties are working towards the same large-government goals. But fascism is pretty much the polar opposite of what I believe.

And I guess we're all trying to push ideologies here.