quote:

OK, my point, and I am sorry if I've misunderstood yours, is that there isn't any way one can apply rules to war and expect them to be followed

You're retarded. There's a lot more I could say. But that pretty much sums it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
Why Iraq will win the 2012 Olympics, and never forget the USA: The water bottle.

Inhumane bastard! Feh! (Gee, thanks for posting "my" troop's behavior with the locals.)

quote:

I believe you are on his ignore list as well, Liv.

It can be as much fun to talk *about* someone as to them.

quote:

War is beyond human ministrations. That is my point. Attempting to clarify what is essentuially a manifestation of human thanatos is more absurd to me than diving into the maelstrom in the first place.

I"ma two minds on that.

On the one side, some smart old guy (I think it was Seneca), described war as a wind that shakes the leaves off the human tree. That would be the Maelstrom of Thanatos.

On the other side, war is perhaps the most regimented, regulated, rule-bound function known to humanity, although the process of applying for work these days is getting there.

War is ministered by humans. From ministers of war to ministers of defense, it is among the most highly systematic activities known.

I think, perhaps, you're confusing the fact that most rules get broken from time to time with some alleged inability of war to be marshaled and directed.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:

quote:

OK, my point, and I am sorry if I've misunderstood yours, is that there isn't any way one can apply rules to war and expect them to be followed

You're retarded. There's a lot more I could say. But that pretty much sums it up.

No, really, do go on.... I long for the lucid perspective of a wannabe spook.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:Um... the original article was all about how we're supposedly breaking said rules by bombing too much. I suppose that one does have to assume that there are rules to argue about whether or not they are being broken.

I forgot this part, apologies. My point here is not that one cannot make "rules" but that they are meaningless. I mean, look at the very constuction of your own sentence which parallells the issue: "...breaking the rules by bombing too much." That's an absurd remark. Like, a little bombing is OK, just don't, you know guys, over do it? The US has killed more civillians than Al Qaeda according to most "documentation" but we are to applaud ourselves for showing restraint for not having a Mei Lai ever month? Congratualtions, we didn't kill too many inncoent people, everyone gets a medal!?!?

You see my point? War is a force that has no rules, being arrogant enough to think we can apply them successful, as a species, is folly. If we are to dive into war we ought to have the balls to admit we are really giving ourselves permission to give into our baseset instincts and stop purporting that it's really about anything else.

War is not about politics, it isn't about terror and it isn't about resources. these are all excuses that we use when we want populations to march off to war.

War hasn't existed since man became sentient because the above categories were contantly in jeopardy, they exist because, at a deeper, primal more necessary level, the human animal needs war.

Trying to control it effectively, over time, is a delusion that allows us to believe we are mitigating the effects of war and our therefore being humane. I am not saying war is evil or wrong or whatever pacifist bullshit is bandied about, I'm saying it is cowrdly and disengenous to the self, the populace and the soldier to pretend it's a just and human practice. Please.

quote:

War is not about politics, it isn't about terror and it isn't about resources. these are all excuses that we use when we want populations to march off to war.

War hasn't existed since man became sentient because the above categories were contantly in jeopardy, they exist because, at a deeper, primal more necessary level, the human animal needs war.

Trying to control it effectively, over time, is a delusion that allows us to believe we are mitigating the effects of war and our therefore being humane. I am not saying war is evil or wrong or whatever pacifist bullshit is bandied about, I'm saying it is cowrdly and disengenous to the self, the populace and the soldier to pretend it's a just and human practice. Please.

War is not about being understood by any one of the above you mention. Many many things go into any given war, and no two wars much resemble their contemporary siblings.

As for just, no. As for human, very much so.

As for attempting to control it: I like what MADD has done for my generation) kept it from glowing in the dark except when WAY high).

I didn't say it wasn't human I said it wasn;t humane.

As for your first sentence, could you clarify. please?

quote:

No, really, do go on.... I long for the lucid perspective of a wannabe spook.

I doubt Splitcoil would want to be a spook, as it would involve a move to D.C., a massive pay cut, and even more time away from the wife.

quote:

That's an absurd remark. Like, a little bombing is OK, just don't, you know guys, over do it?

Almost exactly that, actually. Well, the definitions get a bit more precise, but to use one of the simpler models, militaries are expected to use force proportional to the end to be achieved. Google "In Jus Bello" or "Law of Armed Conflict" if you want more details: there is an entire field of study dedicated to determining just conduct before, during and after war.

quote:

You see my point? War is a force that has no rules, being arrogant enough to think we can apply them successful, as a species, is folly. If we are to dive into war we ought to have the balls to admit we are really giving ourselves permission to give into our baseset instincts and stop purporting that it's really about anything else.

If you think American conduct in Iraq is “giving in to our basest instincts,” you clearly haven’t been following the news lately, more precisely, the Bad News thread. How about using rape as a weapon? How about turning an entire city to rubble? How about incinerating three hundred thousand people and wounding half a million more? We did that, and we have the materiel to do it again. That is the kind of awful power a modern military establishment has, and that is why rules are important: because it would be so easy to do it, to do worse. Every soldier has to grapple with that berserker instinct that wants to build a pyramid of human skulls, to fully embrace the awful brutality of war and keep killing until no one is left who dare raise a hand against us. Nietzsche had it right: he who fights monsters must take care not to become a monster himself.

quote:

Trying to control it effectively, over time, is a delusion that allows us to believe we are mitigating the effects of war and our therefore being humane. I am not saying war is evil or wrong or whatever pacifist bullshit is bandied about, I'm saying it is cowrdly and disengenous to the self, the populace and the soldier to pretend it's a just and human practice.

I’m trying very hard not to take that as a personal “Fuck You,” so please bear with me. Self restraint, accountability and following standards of conduct are what separate soldiers from murderers. It is cowardly and disingenuous to say that those who try to do their best in the worst of conditions are no better than those who give themselves over to unrestrained violence. You’re right that war doesn’t come with rules, but that is the reason that humans have had to invent them. I think we both agree that wars are inevitable, so isn’t the only just thing to attempt to minimize the suffering they cause, and to fight in such a way that reestablishing peace is possible?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BlueShift,

The war in Iraq is over, and we won. Apparently.

quote:

I didn't say it wasn't human I said it wasn't humane.

I know that's what you *meant* but I read what you wrote

quote:

As for your first sentence, could you clarify. please?

Sorry. I was in a hurry and the bluest mood I;ve had in quite awhile. Mr. Boohoo.

What I meant was that any of the single elements you mentioned, like resources or ideology or what have you are of themselves insufficient ti explainwar's happenstance but are nonetheless quite consistently and deeply involved.

Short form: war is not solely irrational nor instinctive nor what have you. It is extremely complex. Saying it's just an animal impulse, so to speak, is as crude and false a simplification as saying (as some have) that wars are fought over resources or ideologies or what have you.

Sure, there is a seemingly instinctive upper primate leaning toward coalitional male violence. This is typically centered on territorial concerns. The former is 'irrational' to us, since our genes don't offer sound bites; the latter is highly rational and easily understood on terms like resources, security, breeding (actually a subset of resources in many respects)...

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:Almost exactly that, actually. Well, the definitions get a bit more precise, but to use one of the simpler models, militaries are expected to use force proportional to the end to be achieved. Google "In Jus Bello" or "Law of Armed Conflict" if you want more details: there is an entire field of study dedicated to determining just conduct before, during and after war.

The lesser of two evils doesn't mean you get something worthwhile or necessary. Codes for war enable it to continue with a cleaner conscience. I do not believe anyone should be rewarded for the ability to kill 1000 people and instead only kills 500. Not that I am personally against war, just that, from a point of logic, it makes little sense. If one was truly concerened about minimizing loss of life and property one would commit one's troops to invading countries for profit.

quote:

If you think American conduct in Iraq is “giving in to our basest instincts,” you clearly haven’t been following the news lately, more precisely, the Bad News thread. How about using rape as a weapon? How about turning an entire city to rubble? How about incinerating three hundred thousand people and wounding half a million more? We did that, and we have the materiel to do it again. That is the kind of awful power a modern military establishment has, and that is why rules are important: because it would be so easy to do it, to do worse. Every soldier has to grapple with that berserker instinct that wants to build a pyramid of human skulls, to fully embrace the awful brutality of war and keep killing until no one is left who dare raise a hand against us. Nietzsche had it right: he who fights monsters must take care not to become a monster himself.

Nietzsche also had about as much respect for the species as whole as I do. Iwas not talking about basest instincts as applied to Iraq in particular. However, I again stress that killing less people is not meritorious as a nation. I am not addressing the individual on the ground in my assessment of war as a force nor am I addressing any war in specificity.

quote:

I’m trying very hard not to take that as a personal “Fuck You,” so please bear with me. Self restraint, accountability and following standards of conduct are what separate soldiers from murderers. It is cowardly and disingenuous to say that those who try to do their best in the worst of conditions are no better than those who give themselves over to unrestrained violence. You’re right that war doesn’t come with rules, but that is the reason that humans have had to invent them. I think we both agree that wars are inevitable, so isn’t the only just thing to attempt to minimize the suffering they cause, and to fight in such a way that reestablishing peace is possible?

Again, I was refwerring not to soldiers but to those that send them into combat and placate the public with the notion that one can start a war and then feel good because said leaders made sure that not everyone died. I also do not think for a moment that many in power in many a country would hesitate to go the route of total war if they thought it would help achieve their aims. In the case of Iraq it would not.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

As for your first sentence, could you clarify. please?

Sorry. I was in a hurry and the bluest mood I;ve had in quite awhile. Mr. Boohoo.

What I meant was that any of the single elements you mentioned, like resources or ideology or what have you are of themselves insufficient ti explainwar's happenstance but are nonetheless quite consistently and deeply involved.

Short form: war is not solely irrational nor instinctive nor what have you. It is extremely complex. Saying it's just an animal impulse, so to speak, is as crude and false a simplification as saying (as some have) that wars are fought over resources or ideologies or what have you.

Sure, there is a seemingly instinctive upper primate leaning toward coalitional male violence. This is typically centered on territorial concerns. The former is 'irrational' to us, since our genes don't offer sound bites; the latter is highly rational and easily understood on terms like resources, security, breeding (actually a subset of resources in many respects)...

OK. I can see what you are saying, but what I am saying is not that war is merely an animal impulse but rather a deeper force for which the above listed items are used as purpose and trim for a motivation or a need that will be satited one way or another. Man likes war. Man will make war, Man and war are currently inextricable. What we do to placate our reason and conscience in order to chase war is a by-product, to my mind, of a larger force over which we are not in control.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:

quote:

No, really, do go on.... I long for the lucid perspective of a wannabe spook.

I doubt Splitcoil would want to be a spook, as it would involve a move to D.C., a massive pay cut, and even more time away from the wife.

Yes, well, I'm a retard, what do I know?

quote:

Man likes war. Man will make war, Man and war are currently inextricable. What we do to placate our reason and conscience in order to chase war is a by-product, to my mind, of a larger force over which we are not in control.

I say closer, even a cigar, but anyone got a light?

General Pershing, I think it was, said that wars happen because men like to fight. 's true.

However, conflicts often turn into wars because of more rational things. Like: human are greedy. INsecure. Various theories of geopolitics create extreme, even hypertrophic, rational reasons for going to war. (For example, the 'Realist School' of geoP is extremely rational. In fact, the main reason it is so is because it more or less embraces your basic premise: war is a human given. As a result of accepting your premise, it endorses strictly rational, logically considered acts of war that are planned and executed as, in effect, a preemptive counter to the irrational belligerence of nations. Treaties and alliances are much much more about this than about Jungian/evolutionary species consciousness formations. MADD was the most frightfully (but realistically effective) war stance since Solomon solved the mother's plaint by recommending their child be split between them.)

So: the rational is not always peripheral. In today's world, it is more often in the lead of the evolutionary/Adamic impulse to bash thy neighbor's head in.

Osama bin Laden is extremely rational.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:

quote:

No, really, do go on.... I long for the lucid perspective of a wannabe spook.

I doubt Splitcoil would want to be a spook, as it would involve a move to D.C., a massive pay cut, and even more time away from the wife.

Yes, well, I'm a retard, what do I know?

Nah. Just a major Ativan addict, Mr. Milgrim.

I wish I was addicted to Ativan.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
I wish I was addicted to Ativan.

I hear Mr. Rogers singing that in a right merry voice.