Proper use of the military

[Apokalupsis]

When should the military be used? Only in defense? To aid another country? To remove POSSIBLE threats? Or only DEFINITE threats? Should it be used to remove regimes that are guilty of crimes against humanity?

To give a quick (but unofficial) answer to get us started...

Defense: Of course...but not "only" for defense.

Aiding other countries: Allies definitely...but other nations when in need, and if we are able to assist.

Removing "possible" threats vs "definite" threats: Obviously a source for much controversy. And both lead to "pre-emptive" action. I believe that reaonable reasons must be used if pre-emptive measures are to take place.

Removing "evil regimes": Yes, the military should be used to aid others who are severely oppressed, tortured, murdered, etc...

This of course, means that IF the possibility exists that it can be done, or is feasible. It in no way implies that a nation must be involved with all "problem regimes" in the world at once, simpy because they are considered "problem regimes". Also, different regimes/scenerios, require different actions/reactions.

One would confront a non-nuclear, oppressive regime much differently than one would a nuclear, oppressive regime.

[Demosthenes]

I think that if a country had a large enough military, it should perform those actions. It should definately use its military for its defense and to help allies. Removing evil regimes is also necessary but not to the extent where every country with problems is going to be calling for that superpower to solve them. The only problem I see would be that a country like this could eventually get so used to removing evil regimes and threats that it gets careless in evaluating each situation and makes mistakes that anger other countries that could unite against it, resulting in war. The other possibility, of course, is that that the country or at least its leaders is wise enough not to fall in those problems.

[F1Fan]

Peeling potatoes. And keeping peace. Oh, they look good in parades, too.

Personally, I think a threat is an armada heading for your shores. A missile with coordinates in America or any country (their cooperation is probably assured). Interpreted threats based on guesswork, or past history, or suspicion, or wishful thinking, to my mind is not good enough, not when the lives of people are at stake. It's gambling. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards.

Some say if Saddam were still in power many more people would have died since. Maybe. Maybe not. Guesswork. Fantasy. What we do know is good American husbands, wives, sons and daughters died, as well as Iraqis, including children, from the actions stemming from orders based on what is now faulty intelligence.

Oooops. Sorry. We'll do better next time, promise. What do you say? You have to accept responsibility first.

Now we have a mess to clean up, and still more dying. Who is accountable? Bush's Meet the Press interview was all over the place, he blamed Iraq on being the fault of intelligence to it being the right call once the evidence is found. This sounds like a child's answer "No mom, I didn't eat the cookie. Maybe the dog ate it. But you said yesterday I could have one and I didn't. Dad said I could. It was only one." Can we say the child is responsible (I'm referring the child in my example).

[Demosthenes]

I agree with you F1Fan, but I just have one question. If you were living in an opressed country ruled by an evil dictator, wouldn't you wish for someone to liberate you? I am not saying that it is okay to fight a war, but whatever was done, was done with good intentions. And it also brought about results, by capturing Saddam, who was supposed to "change his ways" after losing the first war against the United States. Even though is is impossible to tell what would have happened if for example, Saddam won the war you have to agree it would have been very unlikely that he would have relented.

[F1Fan]

If you were living in an opressed country ruled by an evil dictator...


If?



If you were living in an opressed country ruled by an evil dictator, wouldn't you wish for someone to liberate you?


The problem with "what ifs" are that I'm usually sitting in a comfy chair, enjoying some treat, dabbling on the internet, and so on, it's hard to place myself outside of that, to be honest. I would like to think myself as heroic, standing up for a cause and rebel. But I might be a coward, who knows. But sure, I'm sure, with my brain, I'd want freedom. It's arguable many of us free thinkers want freedom from the Republican party, just we have a means to do that, unless the more supernaturally-inclined get out and vote in greater numbers.



I am not saying that it is okay to fight a war, but whatever was done, was done with good intentions. And it also brought about results, by capturing Saddam, who was supposed to "change his ways" after losing the first war against the United States.


I've studied war and actually have a bit of internal conflict about it, yet my higher moral self does take authority over my egotistic side which glorifies in it.

I don't mind war. But, in such a case as this war, like any other, I would hope for honesty. If Bush wanted to get even for daddy, then show integrity and admit it. To hide behind a veil of questionable info, even if just, tells us something about the leadership, not the war itself. It was a war we were going to win, it was a matter of how long and how many dead, and now, how many more killed. I predicted a year ago that occupation will be like Russia for the Germans. The admin. was wrong about that too.

I support the troops, after all, they're fighting for their lives more than anything, my cousin among them, but I don't support the failure of integrity from its leadership. A just war extends from just policy, and if the policy-makers are not just, then it goes to follow.

That Bush Sr. didn't finish the job when we were there, well, then he's to blame. It seems evident with recent reports in the press that Bush had plans to invade before 9-11 showing intent. So, I think to justify the war as anti-terrorist is quite thin, and unjustified to the lives lost.

[Apokalupsis]

Let's try not to turn this into another Saddam/Iraq war thread. We have enough of them. Feel free to use it as an example...but I prefer to limit it at just that if we could. ;)


Personally, I think a threat is an armada heading for your shores. A missile with coordinates in America or any country (their cooperation is probably assured).
That's the easy kind...overt. What about covert? What if for instance...the 911 hijackers were NOT of a terrorist organization...but that of another nation's intelligence or military agency? They didn't exactly sail over in colorful ships, waving their arms in the air declaring war.

Also, in the event that another nation asks for aid...and there isn't a vested interest for the nation that would lend aid...SHOULD that nation lend aid anyway, if it can? Or are the lives of its sons and daughters too valuable for non-interested conflicts?

Also, would the lives of our servicemen be the only deterrent or opposition for such engagements? In otherwords, what if the lives lost were 0-10? Would the war be worth it? If so, this places weight on the # of lives lost...so what is the "line to be drawn" in such an instance? How many lives would be acceptable for such engagements?

[F1Fan]

That's the easy kind...overt. What about covert? What if for instance...the 911 hijackers were NOT of a terrorist organization...but that of another nation's intelligence or military agency? They didn't exactly sail over in colorful ships, waving their arms in the air declaring war.

Frankly, I think someone is doing a pretty good job, as I would think by now some terrorist would have struck since 9-11. We can't be everywhere, we still have weakness at ports, and even airline facilities. It aint a perfect world.

One purpose for a strong military is other nations knowing 'if you hit us, you are going to pay'. That's fine by me. There's an integrity to not striking first, to bearing the hatred of another and defending yourself. Our difficulty in this modern world is economic stability. The stock market can be pretty twitchy with bad news, and a great deal revolves around the flow of money. So Korea can attack us, but they will suffer economically too in the long term. It's in their best political and economic interest to 'play ball'. They can still dabble with nuclear weapons to provide one-upsmanship in a global power sphere. One the other hand, we assume their leader is mentally sound.




Also, in the event that another nation asks for aid...and there isn't a vested interest for the nation that would lend aid...SHOULD that nation lend aid anyway, if it can? Or are the lives of its sons and daughters too valuable for non-interested conflicts?

Value is a matter of circumstance and interpretation. The reluctance to send troops to Africa last summer showed some tendency to favor American interests first. Oil? Money? That sends a mixed and dubious signal to the world, especially the US being the world power. Can we be trusted? There should certainly be a primary consideration for human rights being violated as a means to intervention, and the UN step in to do something. I think more non-violent pressure could placed on despotic countries without harsh measures. With the US playing cowboy, unity for peaceful solutions seemed strained, and could be manipulated by despots to build their power.

I know we dabble in this, but do we act as decisively as we did in .. that other country?




Also, would the lives of our servicemen be the only deterrent or opposition for such engagements? In otherwords, what if the lives lost were 0-10? Would the war be worth it? If so, this places weight on the # of lives lost...so what is the "line to be drawn" in such an instance? How many lives would be acceptable for such engagements?

Do you step in for a noble cause, or for some uncertain ends? If hundreds of innocent people are being killed, you step in, do the noble thing for your fellow human being. If some guy is in power, and you think he's a threat, maybe, well, find out first, don't rush into it.

I don't think it's all weighed in lives lost. But a cause must have some value that is worth the cost of lives, and in the end was the far better thing to do than to do nothing, or wait for another solution.

I'm probably a coward where it comes to dying for some idea. I'm worth more than some idea, and I won't die for it. And I won't kill someone over a dispute over who's right about it. But if my family, or even a stranger, were in danger, and I could do something to save them and probably die, well, I might not hesitate.

I'm much like Gandhi, non-violent resistance. Sometimes it is necessary, but we should not celebrate its use or effects.

[Demosthenes]

F1Fan, you say that one purpose of a strong military is other nations knowing "if you hit us, you are going to pay". Well how have we made the organization that performed the September 11th bombings pay? If the organization retreats in some country do we wage war against that country in hope of luring the terrorists out? No. So our only hope of making them "pay" is to pursue them individually. Well we still haven't caught Osama and even if we do, how are we going to make him "pay" for the crimes he committted? There is no punishment that can bring back all the people that died on September 11th.

[Telex]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

If you were living in an opressed country ruled by an evil dictator...




If?


I assume you are refering to Bush. Just how, exactly, are you being oppressed? Maybe you should talk to someone living in, oh, I don't know, a country that's not the standard for other democracies. Maybe North Koreans? I'm sure they'd love to hear you whine about how Bush is using all the money that should go towards feeding your starving kids and censoring your political views. Oh wait, no one is coming to your house and arresting you for typing that post, are they? No one is confiscating all your wages? Bush was elected, buddy, and if he is acting like the dictator you claim he is, then something would be extremely wrong with the government that has lasted over 200 years so far. Maybe you should just be glad that you are allowed to vote, and vote against him in the next election. But don't make yourself sound like an ass and claim you are being "oppressed."

[mog]

Maybe you should just be glad that you are allowed to vote, and vote against him in the next election.
I laughed at the irony of this sentence. So I take it you have never heard of Jeb Bush's antics regarding restricting the vote, or for that matter how George Dubya won with less votes.

You make a valid point of course, that Bush's America isn't in the same league as say, North Korea. But surely you must be disturbed at how closely the last US election resembles a banana republic-style farce.

[Telex]

I havn't heard of "Jeb Bush's" antics. Are you saying he rigged the vote?

Bush won because of the electorial college, which is basically unnecessary today. The difference between the last election and others was that it was very, very close. Is every close election won because one side used underhanded means to achieve it? Of course the supporters of the loser may think so, but someone has to win.

[F1Fan]

F1Fan, you say that one purpose of a strong military is other nations knowing "if you hit us, you are going to pay". Well how have we made the organization that performed the September 11th bombings pay?

I said this in response to Apok's question of dealing with nations, not terrorists. The new dilemma for defense and security is no longer dealing with national interests, but ideological interests. And this is the invisible problem. I don't know how you deal with this.

I think the various departments have been doing a pretty good job, despite lingering problems here and there, and people relaxing security measures.





I assume you are refering to Bush. Just how, exactly, are you being oppressed? Maybe you should talk to someone living in, oh, I don't know, a country that's not the standard for other democracies. Maybe North Koreans?

Ya think?

Actually, I was being sarcastic when I said "If." and making a subtle joke about his antediluvian ideas about morality. I don't like Bush, he needs to go. But I'm much more moderate that you seem to think I am. And you seem very defensive about this subject.

[Telex]

Actually, I was being sarcastic when I said "If." and making a subtle joke about his antediluvian ideas about morality. I don't like Bush, he needs to go. But I'm much more moderate that you seem to think I am. And you seem very defensive about this subject.
What, exactly, is so defensive about my position? What am I trying to defend against, you criticizing Bush? Disagree with him all you want, but comparing his leadership to that of an "evil dictator" is ignorant at best. He was legitimatly voted in by our system (until I see conclusive proof otherwise, I'm not assuming the vote was rigged), and sometimes you agree with the people's choice, and sometimes you don't.

[CC]

Frankly, I think someone is doing a pretty good job, as I would think by now some terrorist would have struck since 9-11.

So Clinton did a "pretty good job" between the first attacks on the WTC and the 9/11 attacks?.......................:O)

[Xalpharis]

"If you were living in an opressed country ruled by an evil dictator, wouldn't you wish for someone to liberate you?"

If they were so eager for America to liberate them, why are they still killing American soldiers? Crime has skyrocketed, along with "honor killings". Ask any Iraqi, and they will have serious doubts of whether Saddam was really worse then the American occupation. Is proper use of the military removing democratically elected leaders? America has publicly staged coups in South Korea, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, Iran, and Guatemala, in which the democratic leaders were assassinated, with pro-US dictators installed. Let's not forget General Noriega, who was working for our own CIA! Killing world leaders is not to proper use of the military, nor inciting revolutions in other countries. Would the American people stand for George Bush being overthrown and a puppet installed to kiss the Saudi or Israeli ass even more? On second thought, maybe America would welcome it.

[FruitandNut]

Remember that the use of force is an acknowledgement of the breakdown of reason.

The greater the military strength, the greater the moral and ethical imperative to use it as sparingly as possible and only after wise and democratic council.

If the USA felt that attacking Lichtenstein, Andora or Monaco was needed, it should us less resources than if it was attacking the UK or Germany. The latter may punch back above their weight.

[WatsonGlenn]

If the USA felt that attacking Lichtenstein, Andora or Monaco was needed, it should us less resources than if it was attacking the UK or Germany. The latter may punch back above their weight.

I disagree with this whole idea of proportionality. I believe if you are going to get into a fight your should fight to win using all the might and power needed to win as quickly as possible. If we had fought with all our might in Vietnam then we could have won with ulitmately less damage and loss of life.

In for a penny in for a pound.

[FruitandNut]

What, use all your fleets and air groups, all the regular forces and the national guard and start conscription.

Poor little Monaco, vapourised casinos and five star hotels!!!!!!!!

If you were 'Dirty Harry' would you have two .44 magnums or would you opt for a couple of Eagle specials?

---------------------------------------------------------

More seriuosly though I feel the biggest danger would be some kind of political paranoia and media fanned hysteria getting a hold of the general public. Causing precipitous or ill considered action.


'We' are after all, a fickle crowd with long term memories that can get us into trouble and short term memories that are inclined to do the same.