The people we should "understand"

[Burgold]

Except that we did not totally destroy the people, just conquered their army. When we tried to totally subdue and crush the Germans after WWI, at least economically, the conditions eventually resulted in a climate that allowed Hitler. That is far to easy an explanation of why WWII happened, but I think you know where I'm headed. Total suppression and destruction is not the best long term answer. It is the easiest short term answer. The issue in the Middle East is somewhat different from the fanaticism of the Nazis and Japanese. Both began with religion and scapegoating, but if you look at the allies of the Nazis and the allies of the terrorists, you will find vast differences. Even when considering monsters like Mousolini as a Nazi ally.

The total destruction I was referring to was true total destruction or genocide, which is not preferable. Total victory from a military point of view of armies and governments is different than total destruction. At least the way I see it.

The defeat of Hussein, Bin Laden, and Arafat et al. will not eliminate the problem or end the threat as the defeat of Hitler did in Europe, because the source of the hatred while stoked by the governments is not the full or purest source. A military answer needs to be part of the answer, but it is not the full answer to resolving the issue of terrorism or social crime in the Middle East.

[Art]

Burgold,

We targeted and killed civilians in WWII killing them in the hundreds of thousand and beyond. We utterly eradicated any semblance of free will or control and we went in and occupied and ran these nations for many years before slowly giving back control. If you are suggesting this is the way to go, then I'm all for it and thank you for agreeing that the method for eradicating fascism is similar to the one we'll ultimately be required to undertake to wipe out fundamental Islamists.

[Burgold]

We targeted hundreds of thousands of civillians? That is news to me. I know many civillians were killed, but I did not know that we purposefully targeted several hundred thousand non-military, non governmental people. It may be true, but I can't see poor little Hans milking his cow by the barn when all of a sudden a GI walks into the barn with a gun in one hand a checklist in the other and then assassinates him. That sounds much more like what the other side was doing.

[Henry]

Burgold, ever hear of Dresden? It's a German city we bombed so intensely, civilians were literally cooked to death in their shelters. The enitre city was virtually destroyed. Men, women, children. Everything. By the time we were done, the damage was at least comparable to Hiroshima.

[Art]

Dresden was just one example. Our military policy was to target German and Japanese population centers to break the backs of the citizenry and cow them into wanting the fight to end. Notably, England was loudly against our actions, but, they were, nonetheless, part of the direct actions we took to end the war and save OUR lives. While we didn't do direct walk up killing of civilians as you describe, Burgold, we did absolutely target civilian centers to break the backs of the government's support and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants were killed by our bombs. More by the bombs of Russia.

[Burgold]

yup I have, though one city is hardly genocide and still not to the level that I would call total destruction. Hiroshima is closer, but it still doesn't rise to that level. But it is horrible enough though. Historically, there have been times when entire peoples have been utterly destroyed, to the degree that they just don't exist anymore. That's what I mean by total destruction.

Maybe you and Art are right that we really did intentionally set out to kill hundreds of thousands of people with nonmilitary status for no military purpose other than to demonstrate our strength and ruthlessness. There is a time for that sometimes, though I personally find that methodology repulsive. I hope we all do, even if it is thought necessary sometimes. Great debates have been delivered on whether Hiroshima was necessary or even aided the surrender of the Japanese, so I won't go there. If one, however, is on the route to defend Hiroshima and Dresden one can call them demonstrative points, but can't equate them with outright cultural oblivion. Demonstrative destruction can be a Pandora's box. WIth the technology we have today, I personally do not want to play Russian roulette with nukes. I do wonder if that that type of demonstration of will is probably what Bin Laden was showing, because I think that is different as well since we weren't at war (At least most of us didn't know we were at war), but in his case when he opened the Pandora's box of destruction he got bitten harder than he thought he would. Personally, I think the military should be a last resort, but when it is justifiably used (as it is now) it should be used without restriction, but I don't know if I would want that to include genocide or nuclear oblivion.

[Henry]

If one, however, is on the route to defend Hiroshima and Dresden one can call them demonstrative points, but can't equate them with outright cultural oblivion.

Of course you can. The common German citizen needed to be shown what supporting fascism would bring him. And for that reason Nazi Germany doesn't exist. The Nazi party is illegal in Germany. That culture, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. Such was also the case with imperial Japan.

I belive Art is saying we should send those whose culture lends support to the cause of Al Queda a similar message. I'm not sure I disagree (although I don't think that means we need to break out the nukes or anything.)

[Art]

Tactical nukes are in process again since we only have city killers in our arsenal. We will use a tactical nuke before this is all said and done. Thermobaric bombs may do the job, but, tactical nukes will obliterate Iraqi underground chemical weapons labs entirely. When you hear of the massive explosion in the Iraqi desert, you'll know what happened.

As for the general use of nukes, no, I don't think that'll be necessary ultimately. The Middle East doesn't have the resolve to withstand even cursory fighting much less provoking the need to break out for any regular need the use of nuclear weapons.

I remember a funny story my cousin who is in the air force told me after the Persian Gulf war. He said for years, everyone in the U.S. has seen the Israelis kick holy hell out of all Arab nation aggressors and we attached some awe to that ability. We viewed the Arab world as sort of like Vietnam, with the kind of tenacity and vigorous resistence we experienced there, despite killing millions of people, that we assumed the same was seen in the Middle East and therefore Israel was viewed as one arse kicking military.

Then the Persian Gulf came around and it became evident. Middle East militaries are incompetent and frightened and are looking for a reason to retreat, rather than fight. Unlike Germany, which had a large and loyal following of support for the government, the Middle East is by in large against the rule they are under.

So, while it may become necessary to engage the Middle East as we did Germany and Japan during WWII, it may also be the case that simple massive regime changes could also prove satisfactory. But, that will be the first step in the years required to change the hearts and minds even if it ultimately means ending the hearts and minds that can't change.

[Burgold]

Actually, though illegal, the Nazi party is well alive in Germany unfortunately and has even grown in recent years. I hope your right about the will of the millitants in the Middle East, Art. I worry about what will be and where it will take us. I can envision truly terrible things happening and not to far in the distance. I know that our answer needs to be primarily military and if a military response is needed it should be unfettered. But man, if you're right and it is inevitable that there will be a nuclear part in all this I fear the domino effect and I fear how that could impact all future engagements. I suppose all generations feel this, but we live in a very dangerous time.

Towards the original point of the discussion. I do think it will be useful to understand how each player feels, how far they go, and what their rules are. We also need to know what we can tolerate, stomach, and will not let stand. Perhaps, it's important to let those who are our enemies know that there is no line that we are unwilling to cross... so that they understand too.

So, much different than the Christians who let themselves be eaten by the lions rather than fight. Still, I don't think the example of their eventual victory and philosophical conquering is what I'd recommend.

[fansince62]

henry/art...interesting exchanges....i hasten to point out that when it served our interests we found it very convenient to "recruit" nazis.....former nazis....into the fold. we wouldn't have had a space program without them! point being that there were times when the philosophy of nazism or having been a nazi was not a terrible impediment. mind you...whether they weer actual party members is an arbitrary distinction as they were part of the culture as defined in previous posts.

[Darth Tater]

The Nazi party does not represent a systemic issue among the German people and when anyone researches it, the world view is filled with a host of logic errors supported by a very wierd quasi-religion. In general, the German people are, at least currently, not a recognizable threat to the the US. Fact is, that many WW2 US vets of the European theatre reported they had more repect for the Germans than the French (not very hard) and maybe even the English.

I saw the article highlighting a systemic issue in Radical Muslim culture. An issue that is not compatible with western thought (although, like any culture, we do not always act as we would). In general, honor is more important than certain human life.

In western thought, war occurs because one culture tries to dominate another by force while the other one resists. To the Muslim Radicals, there is the world of Islam which is peace and the world of war, which is any culture not submitted to Allah. And while most Muslims do not actively support this world view in its literal form, many sympathize with it, since this view goes back to Muhammed.

[fansince62]

having read most of the thread....there is an interesting point to be raised. to wit, are there limits, from a moral perspective, to the extent we as a culture are willing to wage war? are any means merited by the ends? carpet bombing is a cool concept - until you are the one who has to do it. similarly so it goes with nuclear weapons. what are the bounds? for they surely exist.....

[Henry]

Originally posted by fansince62

henry/art...interesting exchanges....i hasten to point out that when it served our interests we found it very convenient to "recruit" nazis.....former nazis....into the fold. we wouldn't have had a space program without them! point being that there were times when the philosophy of nazism or having been a nazi was not a terrible impediment. mind you...whether they weer actual party members is an arbitrary distinction as they were part of the culture as defined in previous posts.

FORMER Nazi's being the important term. Not that I agree with the practice. (They should have all fried.) But the Nazi culture as a significant influence on global politics was removed. We made sure people who supported or even tolerated a facsist government knew we were serious. That's the point.