VoodooAce
Emperor
Haven't the slightest idea. Never heard of them before this thread.
SKP statement
- Thread starter Håkan Eriksson
- Start date
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
knowltok3, quick wars are quite obviously better. Air power is essential. This is all pretty basic, of course.
Honestly, the only unsatisfactory outcome of the Gulf War is the decision not to rid us all of Saddam Hussein. That war, with the exception of friendly fire, was the perfect campaign. And yet it was certainly different in character to the Kosovo crisis.
All questions of motives aside, the Gulf War was a major commitment. Half a million troops went off and they liberated Kuwait, with amazing speed, which is great.
Kosovo is different. NATO actually violated international laws to bomb the dickins out of a sovereign country which had not invaded another country. It was an internal affair, albeit a particularily nasty one. What's more, they claimed that ethnic cleansing was occuring, a sort of mini-holocaust, which didn't materialize. They did it completely with air power. The acts of war were disconnected from any real sense of the destruction. The kicker for me was when that bomber (or was it a spy plane?) went down and all of America got all worked up over the four pilots captured on Serbian soil. Jessie Jackson went over to negotiate their release for Christ's sake. And all the while innocents were dying, or living in inhuman conditions. That is where I have my problem.
It is good to concern yourself with your own servicemen. Hell, they are yours, they are people. But how does one become so concerned about four pilots involved in a mass bombing campaign and excuse the effects of the campaign in the first place?
Air strikes and cruise missile attacks protect American civilians from the horrors of war. That is why they are used first and most. I have my problem with that. If one is going to wage war, then it is important to know what kind of war it is. If civilians are willing to bear the weight of their nations actions, then THAT is how you know when a nation is waging a truly moral war, if there is such a thing.
Alternatives? If you are an idealist, then none come to mind. I am a cynic, or even worse, an "idealistic realist", and I can think of one or two.
Honestly, the only unsatisfactory outcome of the Gulf War is the decision not to rid us all of Saddam Hussein. That war, with the exception of friendly fire, was the perfect campaign. And yet it was certainly different in character to the Kosovo crisis.
All questions of motives aside, the Gulf War was a major commitment. Half a million troops went off and they liberated Kuwait, with amazing speed, which is great.
Kosovo is different. NATO actually violated international laws to bomb the dickins out of a sovereign country which had not invaded another country. It was an internal affair, albeit a particularily nasty one. What's more, they claimed that ethnic cleansing was occuring, a sort of mini-holocaust, which didn't materialize. They did it completely with air power. The acts of war were disconnected from any real sense of the destruction. The kicker for me was when that bomber (or was it a spy plane?) went down and all of America got all worked up over the four pilots captured on Serbian soil. Jessie Jackson went over to negotiate their release for Christ's sake. And all the while innocents were dying, or living in inhuman conditions. That is where I have my problem.
It is good to concern yourself with your own servicemen. Hell, they are yours, they are people. But how does one become so concerned about four pilots involved in a mass bombing campaign and excuse the effects of the campaign in the first place?
Air strikes and cruise missile attacks protect American civilians from the horrors of war. That is why they are used first and most. I have my problem with that. If one is going to wage war, then it is important to know what kind of war it is. If civilians are willing to bear the weight of their nations actions, then THAT is how you know when a nation is waging a truly moral war, if there is such a thing.
Alternatives? If you are an idealist, then none come to mind. I am a cynic, or even worse, an "idealistic realist", and I can think of one or two.
How much can one country do? We help and we get blammed for putting our noses in where we aren't wanted. We stay out and people call us uncaring. At least Kuwait appreciates what we did for them. I would like to see how many other countries put so many of their own young men and woman and those young men and women's children in harms way for other countries. Yes, there may be some gain for us, but can't people also thank us for what good we are also doing? It comes down to the US being more powerful and that causes jealously. I am proud of what my country has done for others. I wish we did more, but I am tired of most, not all, non-Americans cursing us for our "bad" actions but not praising us for our "good" ones. I am glad my time of service is over and I can worry about myself now. I don't have to go to other countries with my wife staying home worrying b/c she doesn't know exactly where I am and doesn't know if I am in a "Friendly" area. A profound thank you to the non-Americans who value us for what we try to do and that forgive us for what we flub up. We are only human.
There is no conspiracy, but it makes for good movies and threads.
There is no conspiracy, but it makes for good movies and threads.
We were over there trying to help people out so why this sense of outrage? So what if Jessie Jackson (whom I don't like BTW) went over to secure the release of some of our fighting men and/or women? Call it protecting our own. I think it is a great policy that keeps the men and women in our fighting forces confident in the knowledge that our politicians care enough to see the enemy face to face and ask for us back. Thank you Jessie (I still don't like you though).
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Originally posted by VoodooAce
Come, on, andy. Your nitpicking. I've heard the entire 9/11 tragedy referred to many, many, many times at "the attack on the WTC". I understand that you were probably just breaking this down in order to find stuff to disagree with, but nitpicking is nitpicking.
Voodoo, I wasn't nitpicking nor was I breaking the SKP statement down just for the sake of disagreement - I've got better things to do with my time.
When analysing propaganda, which is what this statement is (shock, horror!), the devil is in the detail such as emphasis, implied meanings and what is not said - I should know, this used to be part of my job, both writing and analysing propaganda - and no, I wasn't a spook!
You will notice that in the very first paragraph of the SKP statement they condemn "the attacks against the US civil society". Their wording is specific, IMO, because they are drawing a distinction between an attack on civilians (WTC, New York) and a military target (the Pentagon, Washington).
I acknowledge this point is minor when discussing the document as a whole, however you took the trouble to raise it so the least I can do is give you some assistance in the analysis of political propaganda.
As I said before, often it is just as much what is not said that signifies the real intent and meaning in a statement such as the SKP's. The last two paragraphs in the SKP statement sum up their position as to what should be done in response to Sept 11 which, IMO, clearly does not include military action to destroy al Qaeda, but rather the establishment of an "international UN Commission to investigate terrorism wherever it occurs".
The SKP idea of the a UN Commission is a 'red herring' and a substitute for an effective way of stopping al Qaeda from pursuing it's murderous mission.
I don't suggest that you are a supporter of terrorism because you think the US is wrong to put civilian lives in Afghanistan at risk, as I would hope you won't suggest that I'm indifferent to human life because I think the US (and Allies) are right to try and destroy al Qaeda where ever they find them, even if that may mean some innocents are hurt as an unintended consequence.
The fact that the SKP are prepared to devote eight out of ten paragraphs to explaining, in essence, that the US is a "imperialist power" which kills "hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world" through "state terrorism" to sustain it's world "hegemony" and therefore are "sowing the harvest of the seeds of violence that it has planted" (Sept 11) says volumes about their intent.
And you don't think this statement (the SKP's) ignores anything?!!
You refer, indirectly, to the ommission yourself when you mentioned "Islamic terrorists".There is NOTHING in the SKP statement about the Islamic world that has been happy to tolerate and foster the hatred of non-muslims that has given rise to Bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Nor is there any reference to Bin Laden's own statements which make it quite clear that he is on a mission to exterminate or subjugate non-muslims which is in accordance with his version of Islam.
I believe that when something like Sept 11 occurs you should examine ALL the reasons that contributed to such horror and not just those that suit your own political (or religious) agenda in the way SKP have.
Voodoo, in your next post you presume to know my political views and accuse me of bias against the SKP because they're communist. I do have political views (of course) but they do not neatly fit into left or right.
The only relevance to me that the SKP are communist is that it identifies them as a political organisation with a certain agenda to push - which should be an obvious consideration to anyone that is attempting to understand what they are saying.
I think SKP's intent is quite clear in drawing a parallel between Sept 11 and "the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade". They are implying that the US is as guilty of terrorism as those that perpetrated Sept 11 which is the precursor to saying the US reaps what it sows (although, the SKP mess up the metaphor).
Your failure to understand, or acknowledge this suggests that you may have a political bias yourself.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Voodoo, that's a damning admission.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Bravo, andy, your analysis is quite correct, and cuts through to the true agenda of the subject. The only approach to take with these ...individuals is to stop them through the use of righteous and overwhelming force, and terminate their commission with extreme prejudice.BTW, re your mentioning of former familiarity with propaganda. "M" tells me to inform you that even slight comments on the very existence of the Firm are strictly forbidden, and repeating this offence will result in compulsary erasing of your memory
And look what happened to the last chap they did that to, Kevin S. He runs about talking about Martians, and makes throat slashing gestures to opposition players. Completely insane!
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
I'm beginning to think I might be a bit insane myself - spending time analysing an SKP statement about Sept 11 - why bother!
Btw, Sheeds problem is that he was hit by a low flying seagull.
Btw, Sheeds problem is that he was hit by a low flying seagull.
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
It is a fine policy. No arguments. Did you not eread my next paragraph? It just bothers me that such a minor thing would take center stage in the middle of everything that was happening. That was pretty much the closest that any NATO servicemen were in danger, while they blasted away at cities crowded with civilians.
Another thing is that if my tone or stance seems too harsh, I don't hate the States or anything, and I'd be awfully ungrateful if I didn't appreciate NATO's existence at all. I simply see differences between what is the official version and reality.
Not sure how you figure this. They eliminate the enemy and soften up resistance. They are also a strong phycological weapon that the enemy cannot effectively fight back against. This helps to break their will to resist. They are used first because that is the logical time to use them. It doesn't make much sense to capture an airfield and then bomb it. They are used most because they are the most effective. They gain the quick victory that results in a much lesser amount of fighting and destruction as would occur if they were not used.
It sounds like you want the military to get into a slugging match with enemies so that the American people can feel the cost of these conflicts. Historically, such slugging fests have resulted in greater devastation than if one side proves quickly victorious. The two German attempts to invade France in the last century come to mind. The occupation and later liberation aside, which one caused greater damage, the one that used the new tanks and dive bombers to penetrate enemy lines and take out key installations, or the one that devolved into a bloody stalemate lasting four years? Certainly both sides suffered more in the first attempt that matched like forces than the second which used new weapons and tactics to quickly defeat the enemy.
Care to share them? And I am talking about alternatives to standard US doctrine for armed intervention. I beleive that sometimes force is needed. If you believe that it can always be avoided (not saying you do) then there is no point to the discussion.
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
What Palehorse said was what I didn't add in my post, the element of jealousy involved in this...
But people sure won't ante up their troops or money to help...
World neighborhood watch??? Isn't that what the U.N. is supposed to be doing?
When at war, you must put a spin on everything... Trivializing your enemy by not giving him any airplay is a normal tactic...
"We aren't really bombing anything, except targets!"
If NATO wouldn't have gone into Kosovo, would there be any ethnic Albanians left there?
If the answer is no, then the Serbs were ethnic cleansing. Or at least they were prepared to ethnically cleanse...
Granted, I am STILL highly pissed off that I went to Kosovo and wasted 7 months of my life for their freedom. Just because they decided that they wanted to be free...
But when you have been there, and seen the people whose lives you have saved just by being there, then you would understand.
But people sure won't ante up their troops or money to help...
World neighborhood watch??? Isn't that what the U.N. is supposed to be doing?
When at war, you must put a spin on everything... Trivializing your enemy by not giving him any airplay is a normal tactic...
"We aren't really bombing anything, except targets!"
If NATO wouldn't have gone into Kosovo, would there be any ethnic Albanians left there?
If the answer is no, then the Serbs were ethnic cleansing.
Or at least they were prepared to ethnically cleanse...Granted, I am STILL highly pissed off that I went to Kosovo and wasted 7 months of my life for their freedom. Just because they decided that they wanted to be free...
But when you have been there, and seen the people whose lives you have saved just by being there, then you would understand.
VoodooAce
Emperor
What's a damning admission??? That I've never heard of the SKP before? Well, I'll be damned then, cuz it's true.
