Britain ends 'War on Terror'

[Adrian II]

About time.


International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, says in a speech prepared for delivery in New York that the expression popularized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle.

“We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” Benn said.

“It is the vast majority of the people in the world — of all nationalities and faiths — against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.”Clickety-click (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18133506/)

[Fragony]

The pen is truly mightier then the sword it seems, so what exactly do you expect to change with a shift in definitions? Will England leave Iraq? Should it because things have changed, no less then it's very linguistic definition at least? Let's change the world by making better words that look better on paper, yay.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Anybody have 800,000 gallons of Vagisil? looks like the U.K. might need some.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Semantics and classifications are important. This is excellent news.

(and a major breakthrough in the war on terror ~;p )

[Adrian II]

It is a protest of truly eh, semantic proportions - but the Frog is right: words are important in politics and diplomacy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Have they signed a peace treaty ? Have the terrorists surrendered or Britain? :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

the Frog Watch it! Semantics and classifications are important...~;)

You don't want to provoke me into derailing this thread into a poststructuralist Baudrillardian (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0253329469/ref=dp_proddesc_1/103-6858354-1143033?ie=UTF8&n=283155)expose about why the War on Terror never took place. :frog:



Have they signed a peace treaty ? Have the terrorists surrendered or Britain?Stupidity has surrendered. Reason and the English language have signed a peace treaty. :yes:

[Adrian II]

Watch it! Semantics and classifications are important...QED. ~D

I knew you would react in this way. I honestly did.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You don't want to provoke me into derailing this thread into a poststructuralist Baudrillardian expose about why the War on Terror never took place

Sure we do. Start another thread. Just like the war on drugs never took place LOL.

[Adrian II]

Stupidity has surrendered. Reason and the English language have signed a peace treaty. :yes:If we want to be semantically correct I feel we should call it a truce.
It's early days... :coffeenews:

[Adrian II]

Just like the war on drugs never took place LOL.Oh, but it did. Your guy lost.

[Vladimir]

:laugh4:

US: War on Terror

UK: It is the vast majority of the people in the world — of all nationalities and faiths — against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.

Imagine saying that every time you refer to the war. Yes like the war on drugs, crime, poverty etc.

Way to go weenie!

[Vladimir]

Stupid stupid IE! :angry:

[macsen rufus]

US: War on Terror

UK: It is the vast majority of the people in the world — of all nationalities and faiths — against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.


Yup:

US: soundbite to appeal to the masses with little or no real meaning but a great way to scare them into giving up basic rights and freedoms without a second thought

UK: semantically accurate description of the engagement so nuanced that the masses stop worrying about stuff they can't influence

I generally believe the more you have to think about what you're saying the better.... :yes:

[Vladimir]

Yup:

US: soundbite to appeal to the masses with little or no real meaning but a great way to scare them into giving up basic rights and freedoms without a second thought

UK: semantically accurate description of the engagement so nuanced that the masses stop worrying about stuff they can't influence

I generally believe the more you have to think about what you're saying the better.... :yes:

Thank you. I'm really against the soundbite culture but also don’t care for the drawn out, semantically correct, nuanced version of it either. This is especially true when it comes to national security. I may be more 1950’s than I like to admit.

[Pannonian]

Thank you. I'm really against the soundbite culture but also don’t care for the drawn out, semantically correct, nuanced version of it either. This is especially true when it comes to national security. I may be more 1950’s than I like to admit.
Have it your way on your side of the pond. I like my government to be sensible and think their actions through, and if it means they're fantastically dull, that's what we pay them to be. Blair is despised partly because of his soundbite policies (the other main reason being Iraq).

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is good news for people who despise terrorism, despotism, and language slaughter.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup:

US: soundbite to appeal to the masses with little or no real meaning but a great way to scare them into giving up basic rights and freedoms without a second thought

UK: semantically accurate description of the engagement so nuanced that the masses stop worrying about stuff they can't influence

I generally believe the more you have to think about what you're saying the better.... :yes:

Ah, but Americans are able to grasp such nuances without having the whole thing spelled out.

CR

[Bob the Insane]

Ah, but Americans are able to grasp such nuances without having the whole thing spelled out.

CR

All 300 Million or just the ones on each coast?? :laugh4:

Seriously I don't see how greatly simplifying what is a very complex situation can help people understand it... It simply misleads people into think the situation is actually simple...

[Scurvy]

Seriously I don't see how greatly simplifying what is a very complex situation can help people understand it... It simply misleads people into think the situation is actually simple...

people aren't able to understand the complex version (not everyones a genius) --> by simplifying it at least they gain some understanding, albeit limited

:2thumbsup:

[BigTex]

people aren't able to understand the complex version (not everyones a genius) --> by simplifying it at least they gain some understanding, albeit limited

:2thumbsup:

Funny I've always found a measure of a genius is their ability to simplify the complex, "A Brief History of Time" is a good example. If you can't simplify the problem you wont be able to deal with it.


“We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” Benn said.

Since when has any war been won by military means alone? The war on terror is a darn good term. War has always needed diplomacy, propaganda and many other things to win.

Looks like the price of midol and vagisil is going through the roof.

[JAG]

I have a lot of respect for Hilary Benn, he is by no means the man his father is, but still he is one of the more genuine and sensible politicians in the Labour high ranks at the moment. At last the British government starting to change tack when it comes to stupid American thinking such as labelling the problem of terrorism as a 'war'. Next on the list - Guantanamo bay, please.

[econ21]

Funny I've always found a measure of a genius is their ability to simplify the complex, "A Brief History of Time" is a good example. If you can't simplify the problem you wont be able to deal with it.


Yes, indeed - who exactly was the genius who came up with the phrase "War on Terror"? Was he the same chap who recommended invading Iraq as part of it? And do let us know when the problem of international terrorism has been dealt with.

Less facetiously, re-labelling counter-terrorism as a "war" is dangerous doublespeak. Quite aside from the valid points Hilary Benn made, the term is insidious for two more important reasons: because it made it easier to start an irrelevant real war in its name and to suspend well-established legal rights because you are "at war". The UK got dragged into going along with this terminology - and much else - in the aftermath of 9/11, silenced by sympathy with New York's plight and cowed by America's wrath. I welcome this first sign of official dissent.


Anybody have 800,000 gallons of Vagisil? looks like the U.K. might need some.


Looks like the price of midol and vagisil is going through the roof.

Ahh, sexist insults towards one of America's allies - very classy. Of course, women are a bunch of wussies when it comes to leading a country in war. Golda Meir, Indira Ghandhi, Margaret Thatcher etc. ... bunch of soft touches.

[macsen rufus]

The real down side of simplifying the complex is that those who DON'T understand can be fooled into thinking they DO :juggle2:

Or to put it another way, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Ronin]

well....the reduction of pompous semantic BS is always to be applauded in my book. :yes:

[Sir Moody]

ive always hated the "War on Terror" as a label its horrible, how in hells name do you wage war on an emotion? - the "war on Terrorism" would have been better but its still very vague and doesnt cut to the point at all... which is the point they wanted a catchy phrase that they could bandy out whenever they did something that some poeple would think was slightly... iffy - because its not defined they can make it meen anything

[Pannonian]

ive always hated the "War on Terror" as a label is horrible, how in hells name do you wage war on an emotion? - the "war on Terrorism" would have been better but its still very vague and doesnt cut to the point at all... which is the point they wanted a catchy phrase that they could bandy out whenever they did something that some poeple would think was slightly... iffy - because its not defined they can make it meen anything
It's a bit like the "Forward, not back" slogans Blair was so fond of - utterly meaningless in practical terms.

[Adrian II]

Ahh, sexist insults towards one of America's allies - very classy. Of course, women are a bunch of wussies when it comes to leading a country in war. Golda Meir, Indira Ghandhi, Margaret Thatcher etc. ... bunch of soft touches.Don't you love it? We Europeans started the biggest bleeping wars the world has ever seen and Americans complain about it all the time, yet when we are hesitant to start some more they call us woozies of whatever the insult du jour is.
Can't they make up their minds over there? :whip:

[Husar]

Don't you love it? We Europeans started the biggest bleeping wars the world has ever seen and Americans complain about it all the time, yet when we are hesitant to start some more they call us woozies of whatever the insult du jour is.
Can't they make up their minds over there? :whip:
I have a guess, technological advantage.
Now that they feel superior, they like going to war, but when we started wars back then, their forces were a bit crippled which they didn't really like(especially the USAAF wasn't really that great when WW2 started, bunch of outdated planes with a very few newer ones).
Just a theory though.:sweatdrop:

[Blodrast]

I believe it has to do with the fact that the people themselves have never had to endure a full war on their own turf (a civil war does not count). This is, I think, the major reason for the difference in attitude towards wars between euroweenies, who've seen wars for 2000+ years on their own lands, and americans, who haven't.

Yes, of course the US participated in wars, and its people were affected by the war: draft, killed relatives/family members, the lowering of the standard of living, but it is much, much worse, when you're actually a full target of the entire thing, with all the nastiness it includes.

[Stig]

Don't you love it? We Europeans started the biggest bleeping wars the world has ever seen and Americans complain about it all the time, yet when we are hesitant to start some more they call us woozies of whatever the insult du jour is.
Can't they make up their minds over there? :whip:
heheh, when we want their help they always jump in late. Never in time. They don't even have manners.

But then if you're the greatest country in the world you can demand things ... even tho you can't even beat 50,000 badly equiped and ill-disciplined militia fighters.

[Adrian II]

heheh, when we want their help they always jump in late. Never in time. They don't even have manners.

But then if you're the greatest country in the world you can demand things ... even tho you can't even beat 50,000 badly equiped and ill-disciplined militia fighters.Back in the old days we Yurpeens knew how to deal with that. Kill the men, put the women and kids in concentration camps and steal all their land.

*downs another glass of port wine*

[ShadeHonestus]

Its been leaked that the original plan was to switch from "war on terror" to "crusade", but that got dropped. Now its just been referred to as "Measured and Largely Symbolic Action Taken to Look Like we Haven't Lost Both Testicles While Appeasing the Droning Simpletons at Home who Wear Pink"


In the U.S. this is known as the Potomac Two Step when in London its the Thames Tango

[Adrian II]

Its been leaked that the original plan was to switch from "war on terror" to "crusade", but that got dropped. Now its just been referred to as "Measured and Largely Symbolic Action Taken to Look Like we Haven't Lost Both Testicles While Appeasing the Droning Simpletons at Home who Wear Pink"


In the U.S. this is known as the Potomac Two Step when in London its the Thames TangoYay, it's sexual slight time. That's the gratitude the UK gets for being the U.S. most grovell faithful ally.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Don't you love it? We Europeans started the biggest bleeping wars the world has ever seen and Americans complain about it all the time

No we dont. We only bring it up when you start calling the US an imperialist nation and the like. As if you guys were so much better. LOL.


yet when we are hesitant to start some more they call us woozies of whatever the insult du jour is.


Since the first part of your premise is wrong so is this part. Remember we fought on your side in many of these great wars. And what do we get for it?


I have a guess, technological advantage.
Now that they feel superior, they like going to war, but when we started wars back then, their forces were a bit crippled which they didn't really like(especially the USAAF wasn't really that great when WW2 started, bunch of outdated planes with a very few newer ones).
Just a theory though

The USAF in Europe had the highest casuality rate of any american units in WW2. I believe any allied unit as well. These were some of the bravest men ever to go to war. Dont go dispariging their efforts. At least we had the balls to bomb in the daytime. Not like some wussies i know :laugh4: But lets not turn this into another pissing contest.

[Adrian II]

Remember we fought on your side in many of these great wars.Who's "we"? You never fought on my side, buddy. Maybe your Dad fought in Europe back then. So did mine, with his bare hands. Does that give me rights over you? Think not, eh?

Lol @ the weird ideas some people have :rolleyes:

[Stig]

Remember we fought on your side in many of these great wars.
What you fought on both the Axis and Allied side?
That's pretty well done

Sides there have been only 2 great wars, in one you arrived 3 years late, in the other only 2.


The USAF in Europe had the highest casuality rate of any american units in WW2. I believe any allied unit as well.
I doubt that. Take British 1st Airborne, they lost 8000 men in about 9 days
I doubt the USAAF could lose 900 men a day

[Don Corleone]

If we can leave the Nationalistic pissing contest aside for a second, I'd like to get back to the original topic of this thread.

I've always hated the "War on Terror", just as I've hated the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Child Abuse". It shows a basic and fundamental laziness on the parts of the supposed-to-be informed masses that these terms get any traction at all.

War is an armed struggle between two parties. Terrorism is not a party. Poverty is not a party. Neither can surrender, nor can we identify, objectively, when victory has been achieved. If you cannot win, the best you can hope for is a draw, and more than likely, you will lose. As referenced by the very wise British minister originally cited, it lends credibility to a bunch of miscreants that don't deserve it. As long as some Palestinian can be convinced to strap some dynamite to his chest, the USA is losing. Think on that for a minute.

We should have declared war on Al-Queda. You can in fact declare war on an organization (sure, it's not a formal nation-state, but it is an organization). Either we can declare at the onset who we deem the leader(s) to be and wait for their capitulation, or we can say that as long as anybody is carrying out violent acts in the name of Al Queda, we have work to do. Personally, I would strongly advocate the first approach. We could have then said, any group offering shelter and hospitality to Al-Queda are viewed as an ally of said group and we declare war on them too. Bam, the Taleban are now on the list too. Problem solved.

But nope. We had to be too clever by half. We wanted no responsiblity for our actions, so we avoided formal declarations of war. And we wanted to have broad powers to bomb, infiltrate, commit espionage etcetera anybody that was currently ticking us off. So we had to make it on a nameless, faceless enemy... of which anybody could theoretically be associated with. Using some hardball trading policies like import tariffs? You must be working with the opposition in the War on Terror!!! Bleah. I don't blame the Swamprats (my new name for the Beltway Bunch) for this, it's the sort of thing they do. I blame myself and my countrymen for being lazy enough and scared enough to give into it.

If we wanted to have it out with Saddam Hussein, we should have had the cojones to say "And oh, by the way, we're going to go after Saddam while we're in the neighborhood". But the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are only linked because we linked them. Yes, Al Queda is in Iraq. Mainly, because we attracted them there.

As for giving Britain a hard time for their dropping the use of our poorly chosen Nome d' Guerra (help, Louis), it shows us in a very poor light indeed. If we want British help in the future, we should start by expressing our gratitude for it here in the present. On behalf of my countrymen, I would like to apologize for the adolescent remarks. Britain has done a great deal to help us make the world a safer place and cracks like the ones I've seen in this thread do much to weaken it. It must seem like an early version of the 70 virgins to Al Queda to have the Brits and the Yanks at each other's throats, and over something so stupid, to boot. If you can't say something nice about allies, perhaps you have nothing to say at all.

[Tribesman]

If we can leave the Nationalistic pissing contest aside for a second,
OK Don you had your second .Good post BTW .
Sorry but I just have to .....
The USAF in Europe had the highest casuality rate of any american units in WW2. I believe any allied unit as well. ...wow ...just wow , do you actually believe that bollox to be even remotely true Gawain ?:dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

"Allied". Does this include the USSR? When it came to casualties those guys knew how to suffer 'em. I've no idea about numbers, but I'm sure on several occasions entire army groups were slaughtered before finally surrendering.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nome d' Guerra 'Nom de guerre'. Swap the 'a' at the end of all those Spanish words you know for an 'e' and there's a fair chance you've stumbled on the correct French word.
Also, oddly enough, nom de guerre is hardly ever used in French. It's more of an English expression. Reversed Franglais. (Er, Frenglish maybe?)

Nice post btw. This thread is as good an example as any of why the terminology of 'War on terror' is so wrong. It shows how quickly people confuse reality with terminology, almost like nominalists. How terminology decides how people classify the world around them.
There is no war, and the effort is not waged against terrorism. But ask for a more precise term than 'war', and you're accused of surrendering. Ask for a more specific term than 'terror' and you're a girly wus.

All of this also shows why we should continue our War on English. The encroachment of Franglais means also that cultural conceptualisations creep in, a mindset, a classification of reality.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who's "we"? You never fought on my side, buddy. Maybe your Dad fought in Europe back then. So did mine, with his bare hands. Does that give me rights over you? Think not, eh?



You know damn well who "we" is. And who said anyone had rights over anyone?

Lol @ the weird ideas some people have :dizzy2:


What you fought on both the Axis and Allied side?
That's pretty well done

Sides there have been only 2 great wars, in one you arrived 3 years late, in the other only 2.


Thanks for proving my point. No gratitude ever. Id like to see how you would faired in either war had we taken Germany's side. The Europeans messed up the world and now blame us for the state its in. Now their too civilized to fight . Only us dumb barbaric Americans still love war.


I doubt that. Take British 1st Airborne, they lost 8000 men in about 9 days
I doubt the USAAF could lose 900 men a day

You do know what a casualty rate is dont you? Im talking a sustained rate of loss over its entire time of operatrion. And were talking about a much larger unit than the British 1st Airborne. Were talking the US 8th Airforce. It suffered almost 50,000 casualties. Thats half of the losses suffered by the entire Armyy Air Corps in WW2 in all theaters. This includes fighter losses. The casulity rate of the bomber crews alone must be horrendous.

By the way I stand corrected. Im surprised you all missed this one. It shows how nationalistic some are here, myslef included.


The 8th Airforce is memorable for another reason. It’s a symbol of US sacrifice. 30,000 Bomber crews in the European Theatre lost their lives. Service in allied heavier bombers was one of the most risky places in World War Two in any of the combatant arms. Only U-Boat crews suffer a higher proportion of casualties. The sacrifice and human story is very much part of the heritage of World War Two and films such as Twelve O clock high and Memphis Belle provide some of the strongest images of World War II.

So there. Acting like Im some kind of jerk.:whip:

LINK (http://www.ienevents.com/wbiii/emchq/35/index.html)

PS I watched 12 Oclock for the upteenth time again yesterday. If you havent seen this movie you should.

[Stig]

Im talking a sustained rate of loss over its entire time of operatrion.
So did I, ever heard of Market Garden, you yanks had 2 divisions in it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So did I, ever heard of Market Garden, you yanks had 2 divisions in it.


I wasnt aware that was the only battle the 1st fought. Besides cant you read?


Service in allied heavier bombers was one of the most risky places in World War Two in any of the combatant arms. Only U-Boat crews suffer a higher proportion of casualties.

I didnt make this up. I was off as it was only the second most dangerous service. But I was right as I said it suffered the highest casuality rate of allied forces. Now im sure I can find whole platoons of Marines that were wiped out almost to a man. But were talking major combat units here of army size. Why is it so hard for you to aknowledge?

[Tribesman]

I didnt make this up. I was off as it was only the second most dangerous service. But I was right as I said it suffered the highest casuality rate of allied forces. Now im sure I can find whole platoons of Marines that were wiped out almost to a man. But were talking major combat units here of army size. Why is it so hard for you to aknowledge?

Its hard to acknowledge because what you wrote is bollox . And now despite you initially saying "allied" you include the kriegsmarines U boat arm .

So lets disect this bollox you wrote piece by piece .

The USAF in Europe had the highest casuality rate of any american units in WW2.No it didn't , simple as that , no it didn't , there are many American units that had a far higher casualty rate .


I believe any allied unit as well. :dizzy2: Certainly not , just as it didn't have the highest American casualty rate it most certainly didn't have the highest allied one , not by along chalk .


Were talking the US 8th Airforce.
Ah just the 8th then , not the 9th or 12th , that simplifies things , its still bollox though .


It suffered almost 50,000 casualties.
errrrr...wasn't it more than 50,000 ? a casualty rate of just over 1in7 .


Service in allied heavier bombers was one of the most risky places in World War Two in any of the combatant arms.
Now you are talking , so what was the casualty rate in RAF bomber command ? Is it an allied formation ? Is it part of the USAAF ?are both the actual casualty figures and casualty rate higher than those you said were the highest ?
BTW just to be picky , when it comes to airforce casualties the anti-shipping strike units in the Med had higher rates of casualties than the heavy bombers .


I didnt make this up.
Ah but you did didn't you :whip:


I was off as it was only the second most dangerous service.
Nope you was off by saying it was the US air force completely neglecting the higher casualty figures and much higher casualty rates in the allied forces doing the same job .


But I was right as I said it suffered the highest casuality rate of allied forces.
Nope , you wasn't right at all .


Now im sure I can find whole platoons of Marines that were wiped out almost to a man.
You can find whole companies ,battalions , regiments , brigades and even armies if you bother to check . Remember you said allied , that includes Russia and China .:idea2:


Why is it so hard for you to aknowledge?
Can you see why yet ?

As a further thought
Now I wonder , leaving out civilian casualties and counting only the number of troops deployed to the percentage of casualies sustained , which major allied player had the lowest casualty rate ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Do casualty rates include those command structures who utilized the tactic of untrained human waves?

I honestly can't see rewarding them with victory in the casualty rate game. IT'S CHEATING!




lawl

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its hard to acknowledge because what you wrote is bollox . And now despite you initially saying "allied" you include the kriegsmarines U boat arm .



No I dont. I said I was right but that I didnt figure in the kriegsmarines U boat arm . Accordding to that article and every thing Ive ever read or seen on the 8th AF it suffered the highest sustained casualtie rate of any major allied fighting unit in the war.

The USAF in Europe had the highest casuality rate of any american units in WW2.

No it didn't , simple as that , no it didn't , there are many American units that had a far higher casualty rate .



Not more than the 8th Airforce. Again if we go to smaller units there are some that were wiped out entirley. Is the guy in the article I quoted lying?


Certainly not , just as it didn't have the highest American casualty rate it most certainly didn't have the highest allied one , not by along chalk

So again the guy is lying.


errrrr...wasn't it more than 50,000 ? a casualty rate of just over 1in7 .


No. About 135.000 men flew in combat in the 8th. Something on the order of 47,000 were casualties and of those 30,000 were killed. So its about a 33% CASUALTY RATE. But again this includes fighter losses. Of the 10,561 aircraft lost by the 8th only around 3500 were fighters.


Nope you was off by saying it was the US air force completely neglecting the higher casualty figures and much higher casualty rates in the allied forces doing the same job .


Because there arent any . Are you going to claim bomber command suffered higher lossses? Those fly by night wussies? :clown:


You can find whole companies ,battalions , regiments , brigades and even armies if you bother to check . Remember you said allied , that includes Russia and China

Your nit picking here. Again Im speaking of thier actions over the entire course of their involvment in the war.

Take a look at this


umber of bombers lost by each heavy bomber group in the 8th Air Force during World War II
These statistics came from the 398th BG newsletter. These numbers match up with what I have seen listed by individual unit histories and in reference books. It also matches up with the wall in front of the American Air Museum before the unit names were worn away by rain.
Bomb Group Station BomberType Missions Losses

34th Mendelsham B-17 170 34
44 Shipdham B-24 343 153
91 Bassingbourn B-17 340 197
92 Podington B-17 308 154
93 Hardwick B-24 396 100
94 Bury St. Edmonds B-17 324 153
95 Horham B-17 320 157
96 Snetterton Heath B-17 321 189
100 Thorpe Abbots B-17 306 177
303 Moleworth B-17 364 165
305 Chelveston B-17 337 154
306 Thurieigh B-17 342 171
351 Polebrook B-17 311 124
379 Kimbolton B-17 330 141
381 Ridgewell B-17 296 131
384 Grafton Underwood B-17 314 159
385 Great Ashfield B-17 296 129
388 Knettishall B-17 306 142
389 Hethel B-24 321 116
390 Framlingham B-17 300 144
392 Wendling B-24 285 127
398 Nuthampstead B-17 195 58
401 Deenthrope B-17 256 95
445 Tibenham B-24 282 95
446 Bungay B-24 273 58
447 Rattlesden B-17 257 97
448 Seething B-24 262 101
452 Deopham Green B-17 250 110
453 Old Buckenham B-24 259 58
457 Glatton B-17 237 83
458 Horsham St. Faith B-24 240 47
466 Attlebridge B-24 232 47
467 Rackheath B-24 212 29
486 Sudbury B-17 188 33
487 Lavenham B-17 185 48
489 Halesworth B-24 106 29
490 Eye B-17 158 40
491 Metfield B-24 187 47
492 North Pickenham B-24 64 12
493 Deebach B-17 158 41

[Tribesman]

Accordding to that article and every thing Ive ever read or seen on the 8th AF it suffered the highest sustained casualtie rate of any major allied fighting unit in the war.

Well you may have to do some more reading then , and accept that the article you used is wrong .


Not more than the 8th Airforce. Again if we go to smaller units there are some that were wiped out entirley. Is the guy in the article I quoted lying?

Yep it certainly appears that he is mistaken , maybe he should read more before he writes .


Because there arent any . Are you going to claim bomber command suffered higher lossses? Those fly by night wussies?
Amazing isn't it , a higher number of actual casualties from a smaller number of personel miraculously results in a higher casualty rate .



Your nit picking here. Again Im speaking of thier actions over the entire course of their involvment in the war.


Another amazingly miraculous occurance :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: if a major formation is effectively destroyed and not reformed as a fresh replacement unit then its actions and involvement during the entire course of the war tend to end when it ceases to exist .

[JimBob]

Now that we've determined that the men of the 8th AF have gigantic penises can we move back to the topic?

I'm really failing to see how the UK is womanly (standing in for cowardly, but I'm sure you'd like to say that to Faye Turney's face, or the 18,000 in the UK military or the 200,000 women in the US military) for calling a spade a spade. A war on terror cannot end until fear ends which is impossible. They babbled on a bit but its better than the macho nonsense we spew. We are at war with al-Queada and because of some stupid decisions we are now at war with insurgents in Iraq. Show me the gun that kills fear and I'll join your war on terror.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Amazing isn't it , a higher number of actual casualties from a smaller number of personel miraculously results in a higher casualty rate .


Its amazing you make such a claim. That is if your trying to compare bomber command to the 8th.


Another amazingly miraculous occurance if a major formation is effectively destroyed and not reformed as a fresh replacement unit then its actions and involvement during the entire course of the war tend to end when it ceases to exist .

Name a unit the size of the 8th that was destroyed until late in the war? And I dont neam it surrendered but was systematically wiped out. By the way I looked it up and allied heavy bomber crews suffred a combined 71% casualty rate. Now certainly its more dangerous to fly over Fortress Europe in the daylight without fighter escort that to bomb it at night. Anyone can figure that the US bombers would sufffer far higher casuality rates. I suggest you do a little research. Either that or the British crews were really bad.

[Pannonian]

Its amazing you make such a claim. That is if your trying to compare bomber command to the 8th.

Name a unit the size of the 8th that was destroyed until late in the war? And I dont neam it surrendered but was systematically wiped out. By the way I looked it up and allied heavy bomber crews suffred a combined 71% casualty rate.
Chuikov's 62nd army?

[Tribesman]

Its amazing you make such a claim. That is if your trying to compare bomber command to the 8th.


Somone by the name of Gawain clearly has a problem with facts , to not only make ridiculous claims but to attempt to stick by them .


Anyone can figure that the US bombers would sufffer far higher casuality rates. I suggest you do a little research. Either that or the British crews were really bad.
Pathetic .:thumbsdown:


Chuikov's 62nd army?
Don't be silly Pann , Gawain wants something with 350,000 personel who suffered 54,000 casualties , since something with 125, 000 personel who suffered 55,000 casualties doesn't fit his math then don't try and confuse him too much .

[Sir Moody]

allright lets end this pissing contest once and for all ok?

US millitary Casulties Total WW2 = 407,300
USSR Millitary Casulties Total WW2 = 10,700,000

ok? happy now? dont enter a pising contest on WW2 casualties the Russians will always win

now get back on topic guys you have totally derailed this thread

[Bijo]

How amusing when these "contests" appear. Especially when egos are involved, for as far as they are of course :|


Let me put it simple: Europe knows more civilization than America. Europe is still a POS of course, but America is very far behind, so it seems. When the US has waged war enough and their homeland is actually used as stage for grand military battles for centuries to come from now on in the modern world, they will have more "civilization" like Europe........ maybe (?)......


...but even that is doubtful. They will continue to as long as they are a superpower, and the US will do anything to remain a superpower. Also have a look at the Art of War by Sun Tzu. Maybe Bush is influenced by parts of it like they were in the old days? :smash:

The state and war: two things America has been practising. If y'ask me, America is *INDEED* an imperialist with more than just military means.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What a rubbish thread this is. :shame:

[Pannonian]

What a rubbish thread this is. :shame:
I liked Don's post.

[Sir Moody]

How amusing when these "contests" appear. Especially when egos are involved, for as far as they are of course :|


Let me put it simple: Europe knows more civilization than America. Europe is still a POS of course, but America is very far behind, so it seems. When the US has waged war enough and their homeland is actually used as stage for grand military battles for centuries to come from now on in the modern world, they will have more "civilization" like Europe........ maybe (?)......


...but even that is doubtful. They will continue to as long as they are a superpower, and the US will do anything to remain a superpower. Also have a look at the Art of War by Sun Tzu. Maybe Bush is influenced by parts of it like they were in the old days? :smash:

The state and war: two things America has been practising. If y'ask me, America is *INDEED* an imperialist with more than just military means.

i disagree heavily with this - Civilization has nothing to do with wars being fought on your home territory (although war does effect it).

We judge civilization on culture not war and the US leads the west on culture - we in Europe respond to clothing, food and political changes spurred on by the US culture - when a change occurs within US culture it normally doesnt take long to cause a change to European culture i would say if anything the US is the leading force in Western Civilization at the moment.

When you refer to civilization i think you actually mean history and this is true we do have a far longer list of Wars and petty disputes between neighbors that have led most europeans to be a little more cautious and sceptical of War.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What a rubbish thread this is. :shame:

I liked Don's post.

So did I. :bow:

Now gentlemen, either everyone gets back to the topic of the thread or the thread sleeps with the fishes tonight.

If someone really wants to have a discussion about casualty rates in WW2, feel free to make a constructive and non-nationalistic thread anew.

The life of this thread hangs by a...erm...thread. :embarassed:

[Slyspy]

If I were you I'd knock it on the head right now.

[Bijo]

i disagree heavily with this - Civilization has nothing to do with wars being fought on your home territory (although war does effect it).
Contradiction.

And civilization has / had a lot to do with war, whether on homeland or not.


We judge civilization on culture not war and the US leads the west on culture - we in Europe respond to clothing, food and political changes spurred on by the US culture - when a change occurs within US culture it normally doesnt take long to cause a change to European culture i would say if anything the US is the leading force in Western Civilization at the moment.
Is the US then civilized? Culture this, culture that: no. It wages war -- there's nothing difficult about that to understand.


When you refer to civilization i think you actually mean history and this is true we do have a far longer list of Wars and petty disputes between neighbors that have led most europeans to be a little more cautious and sceptical of War.
To a great degree it is (a) civilization and its level thereof that influences relations with other civillizations and with that influences history.

And I didn't say we judge civilization on war specifically. Basically a society that has absence of war and prevention of war or any hostile military acts we could call a better society than one that actually wages war, because of this, because of that, imperialism, etc., etc., blah blah, yadda yadda, ding ding.


_____________
Further to add to the thread:
The "War on Terror" is just a spectacular name indeed. More importantly, it's a war against nature. A war against oneself. War / Conflict / Nature IS the enemy.

*yawn* :|

[Sir Moody]

Contradiction.

And civilization has / had a lot to do with war, whether on homeland or not.

Civilisation is a CAUSE of wars war is not a cause of civilisation


Is the US then civilized? Culture this, culture that: no. It wages war -- there's nothing difficult about that to understand.

so any culture that wages war isnt civilised? well thats us Europeans out we have waged more wars than any other culture on the planet


To a great degree it is (a) civilization and its level thereof that influences relations with other civillizations and with that influences history.

And I didn't say we judge civilization on war specifically. Basically a society that has absence of war and prevention of war or any hostile military acts we could call a better society than one that actually wages war, because of this, because of that, imperialism, etc., etc., blah blah, yadda yadda, ding ding.



you make more sense here - yes the western culture places high significance on a countries that maintain the peace and dont start wars but that doesnt make us anymore civilised than anyone else - the strength of a Civilisation is its ability to change other cultures - Rome spread its way of life (through war) to the rest of Europe affecting and changing their cultures, the Roman Civilisation had a Romanising effect on any culture that came into contact with it changeing them to make them more like Rome and that is why they were a strong civilisation for a while - the same is True for the US its culture is so strong it changes the Culture of the othern western nations it infleunces so the US could be considered the strongest civilisation of current times - this is all off topic tho and we are doing what the pissing contest did - derailing the thread :idea2: - if you want to discuss civilisation further make a new thread this was once a long time ago about the British changing our definition of the "war on terror" (bleugh) lets get back to that

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pannonian, Banquo, I liked Don Corleone's post too, that's why I complimented him with it in my second to last post. There have been other good posts too.

Some rambling thoughts now, on topic:

War on Terror. It is neither a war nor is it waged against terror. If it is a war, then are the 9/11 hijackers soldiers? The London bombers, shouldn't they get a soldier's burial?
If it is against terror, then shouldn't we bomb Corsica whenever a prefect gets murdered?
If it is a war, then shouldn't our societies be mobilised, liberties postponed, cumbersome democratic decision making overruled? We should be mobilised until the very tactic of terrorism is eradicated - for terrorism is a tactic, not an physical enemy.

The terminology decides how people classify themselves and their roles. You're against terror, hence pro-war. You are outraged by New York, Madrid, London. This means you feel you must support the effort, a war.

It works for the other side too. If you are dissapointed in the West, if you're a dissafected youth in Iraq, Palestine or Leeds, you'll choose sides. You pick a role for yourself, an identity. In a war. You're clearly not with 'them', so you must be against them. You are against them, so you are a terrorist. This is what you know, your classification of the world.
You can create terrorists by labelling people terrorists.

It's so wrong because it establishes a discours of war in people's mind. 'Britain has surrendered'. 'Turn the ME into a sheet of glass'. 'Wussy, pansy'. It's no coincidence at all that this thread collapsed into a WWII debate, instead of, say, prefered political system.
If that sounds strange, look at it this way: if the WoT had been called 'Struggle for Democracy', and the UK had announced abandoning the terminology, then any derailment of this thread would've been into a pro or con debate about political systems. 'So the UK has ceased being a force for democracy, hey? Well, what to expect from a people who won't even choose their head of state'.
That is, if it would've derailed at all. 'War' discourse is also about machismo, us-against-them, tough talk, jingoism and pissing contests.
[/rambling incoherent thought]

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pannonian, Banquo, I liked Don Corleone's post too, that's why I complimented him with it in my second to last post. There have been other good posts too.

My apologies, Louis, for not making myself clearer. I quoted your comment in agreement that the thread had indeed become rubbish, but had some redeeming contributions that meant I wasn't quite ready to close it. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

I'm touched, really. You all are too kind... :mecry:

All kidding aside, we should look into establishing a 'buzz-word' review committee that's it's own completely independent governmental agency (like the OBC) that reviews these terms.

One thing I would like my American brethren to remember is that we're debating the use of the phrase here in this thread, not the war itself (not that there aren't plenty of those around), possibly our decisions in how to prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As far as the so-called War on Terror goes, we ended up granting amnesty to that Cuban who blew up a flight in Venezuela. Regardless of how lousy I think Chavez and Castro are, we should have extradited him without a pause. :shame:

[Tribesman]

As far as the so-called War on Terror goes, we ended up granting amnesty to that Cuban who blew up a flight in Venezuela. Regardless of how lousy I think Chavez and Castro are, we should have extradited him without a pause.

Well ,its only right that someone shouldn't be deported to somewhere that he might be tortured or abused for his terrorism . Since countries that didn't want him on charges related to terrorism didn't wnat to take him at all the where could they send him ? Cuba and Venezuela want him but appear to be out of the question ....but how about one of the many other countries that want to charge him for murder ?

BTW Don , he didn't get amnesty , he is bailed pending action on the fraudulant immigration declaration charges .

[Don Corleone]

I must have misheard it. I thought I heard on the radio news that he had been released with no charges pending against him.

You're right of course about sending him to Aregentina or Chile or any of a dozen other neutral 3rd parties to be tried. Our sheltering of him is a stain upon us.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Semantics do matter.

By refusing to use the phraseology "war," it directly assists in the re-framing of this conflict as a "police issue" -- bar far the preferred response of most of our NATO allies and friends from Europe.

While Europeans would probably be supportive of a greater degree of effort in addressing terrorism, they very much want the struggle against terrorism pursued in the framework used prior to 2001. That is, aggressive policing in response to terrorist attacks so as to bring such terrorists to trial and jail them coupled with broad efforts at information gathering and basic safety precautions to minimize risk to the population. Military action, in this context, would be very infrequent and only used where excellent information allowed for highly selective targeting. Diplomatically, the goal would be persuading more and more nations to join in these efforts and in sharing any and all information to prevent attacks.

By contrast, current US strategy emphasized the use of force and or the threat of same against those regimes most closely linked to the support of extra-national terrorist efforts. The goal here, of course, is to deny terrorists the ability to develop the infrastructure and resources that make them most effective. Many of our European allies are convinced, however, that such efforts are 90+% likely to backfire and that the aggressive use of military force will only exacerbate terrorism by giving the terrorist leaders the legitimate status of warrior that they crave and by atagonizing whole populations as a byproduct of the resultant chaos and civilian casualties.


I have nothing against good police work, mind you, I just think that the lessons of 1972-2001 are that it doesn't suffice. Perhaps the current US strategy isn't the best choice -- it clearly hasn't come off at desired -- but it is a strategy that seeks victory. The "police model" is, ultimately, a coping strategy that seeks to make it bearable while hoping that they'll come to their senses in some radiant future. I'm too much the Hobbesian to buy into that.


Notes:

Most of the casualty figure argument should be excised and put in the Monastery.

Most of the body part insult stuff should simply be edited out. Besides, if you get right down to it, the entire Western world is a bunch of [insert crass slang term or vagina using the traditional sexist rubric that females are somehow weaker and more subservient than males -- clearly not a term developed by anyone with a successful marriage] in the eyes of the terrorists. We are the weaklings who don't have the will to bleed and die for our beliefs and must inevitably succumb to their inner strength.

[Tribesman]

Military action, in this context, would be very infrequent and only used where excellent information allowed for highly selective targeting. Diplomatically, the goal would be persuading more and more nations to join in these efforts and in sharing any and all information to prevent attacks.

Well there was a good example of that sort of thing , there was this attack where some people on a ship got killed , the nation whose ship it was were not very happy , the nation where the attack happened were not very happy either .
Problems arose because the people who did the attack were holed up in a place where the locals didn't really like their own nations government but as long as the government didn't interfere with them too much they wouldn't cause much trouble .

It left that government in a bit of a fix .

Now the nation that had its ship attacked could have gone in where the other government feared to tread , but the population of that fearful government that wasn't too friendly with those in the hills where the terrorists were hiding were for a number of reasons not too enamoured with the nation who had been attacked and if that nation came into their country to attack their countrymen they would have been not very happy at all even though they didn't like their fellow countrymen.


definately a bit of a fix .
There just happened to be another nation nearby , that had a deal with another nation and that nation used its deal to allow the country that was attacked to exploit its deal with the nearby nation therby avoiding trouble for the country where the terrorists were hiding .
They all got together and worked to get the naughty terrorists without stirring up a hornets nest , when they got a good oppertunity to do so they blew the hell out of the terrorists , and just the terrorists .:2thumbsup:

Happy endings ....well until they discovered that if you torture someone for long enough he will tell you that it was really him that was the terrorist who did it all and not those who were the terrorists who did it all .

[Don Corleone]

Criminy, Tribesman, when you get like this, I swear I can't remember my own name, and I haven't even had my first pint yet.

Translation (I think): The fellahs who blew up the Cole were ours for the taking. Except we were afraid to go into Sudan after them. Doesn't matter anyway, though, because at the end of the day, being the USA, we just wind up torturing prisoners to say whatever we want them to say anyways.

Did I get all that right?

[Blodrast]

Criminy, Tribesman, when you get like this, I swear I can't remember my own name, and I haven't even had my first pint yet.
It must be something in the Irish beer, 'cause one of our Irish fellas speaks in riddles, and the other one in daisies. ~D

[Tribesman]

Did I get all that right?
Nope , Except we were afraid to go into Sudan after them. it was Yemen , it was the Yemeni government who were afraid of the consequences of action they took and more afraid of the actions that they didn't take , and very very afraid of the consequences of allowing US troops openly on the ground in a volatile area .

Doesn't matter anyway, though, because at the end of the day, being the USA, we just wind up torturing prisoners to say whatever we want them to say anyways.
Where did you get that from ?
The USA had a sensible approach , with co-operation it got results (the subsequent jail break was a bit of a bugger though but that had nothing to do with the approach taken by the US) at the end of the day , the current approach is completely the opposite of sensible .

[Don Corleone]

Doesn't matter anyway, though, because at the end of the day, being the USA, we just wind up torturing prisoners to say whatever we want them to say anyways.
Where did you get that from ?
The USA had a sensible approach , with co-operation it got results (the subsequent jail break was a bit of a bugger though but that had nothing to do with the approach taken by the US) at the end of the day , the current approach is completely the opposite of sensible .

I have to confess, when you write in that indirect, obfuscated past present point of view, I try to read but usually wind up skimming by the end. I read something you wrote about somebody being tortured into admitting that they themselves had performed all the nefarious acts.....

Here's the problem with the Cole bombing. For all the cooperation with Yemeni authorities and agreement to check our stance, it emboldened BinLaden to actually carry out 9/11. I think he was downright shocked when we invaded Afghanistan because everything until then, the Cole especially, told him no matter what he did to us, we'd only put on a show at worst, most likely not do anything at all.

It may have looked great to disinterested 3rd parties, such as yourself, but one could argue that if we had gone up into the hills of Yemen after Al Queda with enough force to bring them to justice, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

[Adrian II]

The USA had a sensible approach , with co-operation it got results (the subsequent jail break was a bit of a bugger though but that had nothing to do with the approach taken by the US) at the end of the day , the current approach is completely the opposite of sensible .I think we can't emphasize this point enough: those of us who are against the WoT and Guantanamo do not necessarily advocate a policy of hanging back and waving through every boomski with a smile. For me, the way the U.S. tackled the 1993 WTC bombing was a shining example of the right way to fight terrorism: excellent police work, good international cooperation, and very good results in that all perpetrators were eventually caught, given fair trials and put away for life. The U.S. is very good at this, or was..

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have nothing against good police work, mind you, I just think that the lessons of 1972-2001 are that it doesn't suffice. Perhaps the current US strategy isn't the best choice -- it clearly hasn't come off at desired -- but it is a strategy that seeks victory. The "police model" is, ultimately, a coping strategy that seeks to make it bearable while hoping that they'll come to their senses in some radiant future. I'm too much the Hobbesian to buy into that.I accept that 9/11 raised the stakes. Bombing marines in Lebanon is of an entirely different scale than what we witnessed in NY. A pro-active approach, an urgent need to eradicate the problem is understandable.

But what problem to eradicate? Not terrorism itself, but the threat of Islamicism, fundamentalism, wahibism - whatever the mot du jour - at large. Maybe it's true that we are in a struggle for dominance between open societies and one of it's enemies, fundamentalism, and maybe even to the death of either one.
But it's not a war. America is not a war zone. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that you can not defeat the root causes with military might. The wars in both countries, if they are even deserving of that name, lasted about twenty minutes. Four years on, frustratingly little has been achieved, and the net effect may even be negative.

Regardless, I would not exclude nor a priori condemn the use of violence or military means in the struggle. 'Struggle', because war is both too broad and too narrow a term.

The term WoT was an advertising slogan to give meaning to the presidency and the policy of the Bush administration. It has been a sort of pandora's box: unleashing death and destruction upon those deemed enemies, isolating an America that was no longer understood abroad, an unrealistic classification of the world that undermined American values at home and clouded it's judgement in many respects.

A pandora's box, unless it is all more sinister, and the term was chosen because they really were in the process of creating a new reality, in which case some of the effects were not unintentional at all.

[Tribesman]

For all the cooperation with Yemeni authorities and agreement to check our stance, it emboldened BinLaden to actually carry out 9/11.
How do you reach that conclusion ?


I think he was downright shocked when we invaded Afghanistan
Most people were shocked , considering the history of the country and the choice of allies, I don't think Al-qaida really gave a damn , its a very fluid grouping .

the Cole especially, told him no matter what he did to us, we'd only put on a show at worst, most likely not do anything at all.

I beg to differ there ,what it showed him was that the US could take a pragmatic approach , avoiding a threat to an ally and the prospect of turning a nation into two lawless semi states where terrorists like himself could prosper and expand . The action taken in Yemen was exactly what he didn't want .
Terrorism thrives on stirring up a big reaction . He probably pulls his plonker every night over the effect the invasion has had on Afghanistans neighbouring states , and only has to think of Iraq to climax .


It may have looked great to disinterested 3rd parties, such as yourself
Thats a very strange statement to make , would you like to think about it and perhaps clarify what you mean ?


one could argue that if we had gone up into the hills of Yemen after Al Queda with enough force to bring them to justice, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
You could argue that , but how do you muster enough force to bring to justice an ever moving ever changing entity like Al-qaida or as it is now after it got the reaction it wanted ....the widely franchised McAl-qaida .

[Louis VI the Fat]

I said in my previous post that the term WoT resulted in an unrealistic classification of the world.

I suddenly remember that I gave a specific example two weeks (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82790&page=2) ago:


I think all this reeks of anti-Islamicism and paranoia about terrorism.

Shootings at American schools have been the work of schoolkids, acting as individuals. Preventing it should not be considered counter-terrorism - the phrase War on Terror has clouded judgement. This is the paranoia about terrorism part. This paranoia is concerned with Muslims. PC prevented them from naming this fictional group the Muslim Jihadis or the like - so they chose 'New Crusaders'. This name clearly reflects a mindset concerned with terrorism as a function of a religious clash of civilisations.
It's useless in this respect, and counter-productive for the safety of America's schools.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and very good results in that all perpetrators were eventually caught,

They were? I doubt it. How can you possibly know this?

[Don Corleone]

You've got to be kidding me Tribesman. Perhaps referring to you as a disinterested third party was a bit strong, and if so, I apologize. But you have to understand, Al-Queda wasn't attacking Irish interests, they were attacking American ones. And if you're honestly going to tell me that you cannot see a pattern of escalation in the level of coordination, the ferocity and the frequency of their attacks between 1993 and 2001, we have nothing further to discuss. I can't argue that the sky is blue, sooner or later if you choose to acknowledge the obvoius, the discussion is over.

[Tribesman]

And if you're honestly going to tell me that you cannot see a pattern of escalation in the level of coordination, the ferocity and the frequency of their attacks between 1993 and 2001, we have nothing further to discuss.
Now then Don , there was no cryptic stuff in there , no socrawhateverstuff , just plain simple language...read what was written and try and understand what was written

Thanks for the apoplogy , if you can stretch your mind back you might remember why it was a rather silly thing for you to say .
When you remember you will realise that another part of your last post doesn't make sense either .


if you're honestly going to tell me that you cannot see a pattern of escalation in the level of coordination, the ferocity and the frequency of their attacks between 1993 and 2001, we have nothing further to discuss.
Read what was written Don , the difference seems to be that you think the escalation was about some sort of lack of reaction , while I see it as being an ongoing provacation to get a silly reaction .
To open it a bit further for you (in a style you find frustrating:beam: ).
Can you recall a terrorist you mentioned the other day in a topic here ?
Could you possibly think of some statements he made ?
Specificly statements about not getting the reactions he desired from either his "supporters" or his opponents over the acts of terrorism ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now then Don , there was no cryptic stuff in there , no socrawhateverstuff , just plain simple language...read what was written and try and understand what was written

Thanks for the apoplogy , if you can stretch your mind back you might remember why it was a rather silly thing for you to say .
When you remember you will realise that another part of your last post doesn't make sense either .


Read what was written Don , the difference seems to be that you think the escalation was about some sort of lack of reaction , while I see it as being an ongoing provacation to get a silly reaction .
To open it a bit further for you (in a style you find frustrating:beam: ).
Can you recall a terrorist you mentioned the other day in a topic here ?
Could you possibly think of some statements he made ?
Specificly statements about not getting the reactions he desired from either his "supporters" or his opponents over the acts of terrorism ?

Just state your counter point please. If I wanted to read annoying (and implicitly offensive) interrogation I have any number of venues to try.

[Tribesman]

Just state your counter point please.
I did , twice . and offered a parallel scenario that supports the point


If I wanted to read annoying (and implicitly offensive) interrogation I have any number of venues to try.
You are under no obligation to read what I write , if you don't want to read it then there is a simple solution .:shrug:

[Adrian II]

My favourite American foreign policy analyst, Anthony Cordesman from CSIS, has put up a power-point style document (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/0703_longwar_selfinflict.pdf)on what he calls 'self-inflicted wounds' in the U.S. War on Terror. This document contains a hundred different items for reflection. Most of them refer to his extensive writings that can be found elsewhere on the CSIS website. Some self-inflected wounds:
Fight the war we want, rather than the war we face
Confuse counterinsurgency with stability operations and nation building
Deny the seriousness of the situation as it develops to Congress, American people, and ourselves
It also has many recommendations, among which this one stands out in my view:
Only local allies can win hearts and minds

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@ Tribesy:

I don't choose to put you on ignore because -- however galling your tendency to be "quick with your verbal fists" -- you do cause me to think and evaluate things that I might otherwise automatically accept as "givens." Such re-evaluation is mentally healthy.

@ Adrian:

Useful post. While I am among those who feel that a more "war" response to terror is justified as opposed to a "police" response, the author makes some nice points. Even given my frame of reference for the endeavor, there is clearly room for quite a lot of improvement.

[Tribesman]

I don't choose to put you on ignore because -- however galling your tendency to be "quick with your verbal fists" -- you do cause me to think and evaluate things that I might otherwise automatically accept as "givens." Such re-evaluation is mentally healthy.

So Seamus , have you given any thought to what I wrote , is there any merit in what I wrote compared to the "givens" that Don put forward ?
The main thrust being ....the difference seems to be that you think the escalation was about some sort of lack of reaction , while I see it as being an ongoing provacation to get a silly reaction .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I'm still thinking about that Tribes. I understand that you are disagreeing with the "we didn't take it seriously enough so it got worse" theme and instead suggesting that "we have been acting in a fashion that has prompted it to get worse." Correct?

Do you believe that the "silly reaction" to which you refer is being enacted --"ongoing provocation" -- by happenstance, by specific action resulting in unintended consequences, or by specific action designed to generate that action? A couple of quick examples (just referants, no details needed)?

[Tribesman]

I understand that you are disagreeing with the "we didn't take it seriously enough so it got worse" theme and instead suggesting that "we have been acting in a fashion that has prompted it to get worse." Correct?

Nope .
It was being taken seriously enough , but sensible options for dealing with it are long term/time consuming and like an onion ~;) .
It got worse (the escalating terrorist attacks) because it got worse and it was always going to get worse .

Understand terrorists , they thrive in provocing a reaction , the bigger the reaction the more they thrive (within limits) hence the reference to the terrorist Don mentioned in another post Luis Posanda Carriles and his stated dissapointment that his actions didn't get the reaction in either Cuba or America that he wanted...but he had to continue the actions until he gets the reaction he wants .


Do you believe that the "silly reaction" to which you refer is being enacted --"ongoing provocation" -- by happenstance, by specific action resulting in unintended consequences, or by specific action designed to generate that action?
Thats where it gets complicated , the silly reaction has more than one player pulling the strings , infact the main silly reaction had nothing to do with the "intended" target at all .
Ask yourself , does Al-qaida really give a damn if the Taliban are the government in Kabul ? But are they happy if Western governments are in a dodgy situation in difficult territory with very fractious and ever shifting groupings that they have to try and work with ?
Look at where they always set up , always somewhere with serious local divisions always somewhere with dodgy neighbouring regimes where there are factions with varying levels of support to the fundy nuts .
It could have been Sudan , Chad , Mali , Somalia , Pakistan, Yemen ....it just happened to be Afghanistan which is probably the worse for the west that it could be (well apart from pakistan , but thats teetering on the brink as it is now)
Now for the other player , Al-Qaida got their reaction , they kept pushing till they got their big hit that tipped the US admin over the edge , it was just bad timing for the world at large that they tipped them over the edge when there was a bunch of complete muppets in power...soooooo...in steps Iran feeding the US all the stuff it wants to hear about an oldtime bogeyman , and flowing with the surge of reaction the admin laps it up and jumps in .
Now Iraq wouldbe an unintended consequence for Osama , but you can bet (if he is even alive) that he has wet dreams about that consequence .


A couple of quick examples (just referants, no details needed)?
How many do you want ?Last years war in Leb would be a good one , Dublin/monaghan, '16 , any number of sundays , Lavon .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, Tribes, you worked in plenty of supporting examples throughout. You make a nice argument. I will have to think a bit before replying -- always a good sign.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nope .
It was being taken seriously enough , but sensible options for dealing with it are long term/time consuming and like an onion ~;) .
It got worse (the escalating terrorist attacks) because it got worse and it was always going to get worse .

Understand terrorists , they thrive in provocing a reaction , the bigger the reaction the more they thrive (within limits) hence the reference to the terrorist Don mentioned in another post Luis Posanda Carriles and his stated dissapointment that his actions didn't get the reaction in either Cuba or America that he wanted...but he had to continue the actions until he gets the reaction he wants.

Okay, reasonable point. Once embarked upon a career as a terrorist, continued escalation until some kind of sweeping reaction occurs seems plausible. After all, they're not doing it to impress the girls. There is a bit of the adrenaline-junkie effect here -- the next crazy act has to be bigger/faster/better. Clearly internal motivation is central to this.


Thats where it gets complicated , the silly reaction has more than one player pulling the strings , infact the main silly reaction had nothing to do with the "intended" target at all.
Ask yourself , does Al-qaida really give a damn if the Taliban are the government in Kabul ? But are they happy if Western governments are in a dodgy situation in difficult territory with very fractious and ever shifting groupings that they have to try and work with ?
Look at where they always set up , always somewhere with serious local divisions always somewhere with dodgy neighbouring regimes where there are factions with varying levels of support to the fundy nuts .
It could have been Sudan , Chad , Mali , Somalia , Pakistan, Yemen ....it just happened to be Afghanistan which is probably the worse for the west that it could be (well apart from pakistan , but thats teetering on the brink as it is now)

You imply they choose such centers of operation actively, seeking these locales for their "defensive" qualities. I'd argue that the appeal of such locales is simply the lack of some centralized authority capable of getting in the terror group's way. All of the areas mentioned are prone to warlordism and have demonstrated a chronic lack of firm institutions or empowered central government. However, regardless of whether they actively choose such locales for tactical/strategic (chicken) or whether such locales simply afford them fewer barriers and they gravitate in that direction (egg), it is in such locales that extra-national terrorism has shown itself to flourish. I agree that You are correctly assessing the nature of the "terrain."


Now for the other player , Al-Qaida got their reaction , they kept pushing till they got their big hit that tipped the US admin over the edge , it was just bad timing for the world at large that they tipped them over the edge when there was a bunch of complete muppets in power...

I am not at all sure that any U.S. administration could have avoided the campaign in Afghanistan after that level of provocation. Even were every item of logic to line up in favor of "don't respond, it'll just make it worse in the long run" -- a point I might stipulate for argument's sake but with which I do not agree -- it would have been politically impossible for any administration not to have counter-attacked.


soooooo...in steps Iran feeding the US all the stuff it wants to hear about an oldtime bogeyman , and flowing with the surge of reaction the admin laps it up and jumps in. Now Iraq wouldbe an unintended consequence for Osama , but you can bet (if he is even alive) that he has wet dreams about that consequence.

Well, he certainly is happy with things now (assuming he isn't room temperature in a cave somewhere).

Actually, taking out Iraq could have been good strategy and might even have accomplished some of the ambitious goals sought by the neo-cons.

Our leaders screwed up the intelligence again. Despite the lessons of 1989, we let our biases allow us to give credence to Saddam's official pronouncements and to put faith in intelligence from questionable (and sometimes dubious sources). We made that mistake in 1988-1989, believing that the Soviet colossus was still a jugernaught. We had intelligence confirming what the politburo said...and never thought to consider whether their own people were lying to the politburo as a CYA -- we assumed it was all true. Then, with that lesson not a generation past, we did the same stupid thing with Saddam and his WMD's -- believing the crap they were feeding him just to keep him happy and not truly questioning/checking the flawed sources we were working with. :wall: :wall: Were we "played" by Iran into the bargain? Quite possibly. There are sure to be elements in the Iranian governing authorities who bore little love for Saddam and his regime.

The reason for the Iraq campaign -- if one was to be waged at all -- should have been to put Iran in a vise between a U.S.-dominated Afghanistan and a U.S.-dominated Iraq. Of course, selling such a practical reason for military action would have been unpalatable to many.

Then, after taking apart the formal armed forces and power structure of Saddam's regime, we managed to assume that it would be the liberation of Holland all over again -- despite the fact that we had effectively cut off at the knees back in 1991 the very people we hoped would greet us with flowers and their full support. In retrospect, the fact that we were greeted with a cynical wait-and-see by most, and active disdain by some, should have been pretty obvious.

The Bush administration has tried to wage war on terror -- a "theme" with which I agree -- but they have tried to do so without fighting a war. War "on the cheap" always seems to malf up. Invading Iraq and then failing to bring sufficient boots to truly suppress any local silliness before it became another festival of warlordism -- such as you allude to above -- was stupid. Fighting a war on terror without mobilizing all of your resources is stupid.

Perhaps this will all be better if the Dems take control of all three branches of government. At least I know they don't want to fight and will go the "police" route in confronting terrorism. It can't win, but it doesn't cost as much and the current strategy of trying to wage war "on the cheap" will end up costing more and achieving very little more for it.

[Tribesman]

I am not at all sure that any U.S. administration could have avoided the campaign in Afghanistan after that level of provocation. Even were every item of logic to line up in favor of "don't respond, it'll just make it worse in the long run" -- a point I might stipulate for argument's sake but with which I do not agree -- it would have been politically impossible for any administration not to have counter-attacked.

possibly , however there is to consider .
The nature of the attack (the offers were there why was a wider coilition not formed) , the diplomatic/legal options (why were the talibans offers rejected , and more importantly in the bigger picture Pakistans refusal to take custody of and put on trial Osama and Omar) , the local and regional "allies" that were used , and most importantly the level of commitment and the scaling back of that commitment to facilitate the Iraq fiasco .
BTW you are still using the "don't respond" line and saying that you don't agree with it , that isn't what I am saying at all . I am saying respond in a planned measured manner looking at both short and long term implications , don't respond with a silly headline grabbing "hey looky we is hitting back" manner .


The reason for the Iraq campaign -- if one was to be waged at all -- should have been to put Iran in a vise between a U.S.-dominated Afghanistan and a U.S.-dominated Iraq. Of course, selling such a practical reason for military action would have been unpalatable to many.

It wouldn't be selling it that was the problem so much , it would be achieving it that is the problem , it would take a massive commitment of forces, that the US doesn't have . And stable regional allies that would play ball in the long term, which the US doesn't have .


The Bush administration has tried to wage war on terror -- a "theme" with which I agree -- but they have tried to do so without fighting a war. War "on the cheap" always seems to malf up. Invading Iraq and then failing to bring sufficient boots to truly suppress any local silliness before it became another festival of warlordism -- such as you allude to above -- was stupid. Fighting a war on terror without mobilizing all of your resources is stupid.

:2thumbsup:


Perhaps this will all be better if the Dems take control of all three branches of government.
Hold on there , the Dems are are bunch of muppets too , not as bad as the current people in the admin (it would be a hell of an achievement to out muppet the current idiots), but the problem is that the damage has been done . The manner of the action practicaly guaranteed defeat , the defeat is going to have global repercussions , and very very serious ones in the middle-east for lots of countries .


At least I know they don't want to fight and will go the "police" route in confronting terrorism. It can't win, but it doesn't cost as much and the current strategy of trying to wage war "on the cheap" will end up costing more and achieving very little more for it.
It will take a combintion of both policing and well planned measured military action plus lots and lots of diplomacy . It can win , but it is going to be very long term and cannot be done on the cheap . Though in the long term it will be expensive , currently they are just throwing money away for little result (or even negative result) .

I agree with Bush:fainting: defeat is not an option . It is just a pity that he took a path that just about guaranteed it .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. When all is said and done, you and I are far closer together in view than I would've thought at the outset.

Several insightful and valuable posts, Tribes...thanks.