US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist
I would disagree about WWII. The "behind the lines" activity was intensive and energetic throughout the war. For instance, the landings in Southern France, Operation Anvil/Dragoon would possibly not have been successful without the insurgent prepatory and execution activities. The German forces were unable to function effectively largely due to the efforts of the insurgent network. This in turn prevented the German's from bringing their reserve Panzer Division into the fight, which also happened to be the Operational Center of Gravity for them. I say this was one of the most effective ever uses of Operational Fires, which in fact was the Resistance.Skipjack wrote:Ok, then it is very subtle. I think that it would certainly not hurt to make some promises and letting the general population know about. "Sugarbread and whipp", is what we say here.And who is to say that this is not happening already, and from multiple angles.
You guys certainly did not do it for the resistance in Germany during WW2. That was huge mistake that cost millions of lives.
Anyway, talking about the now, I am sure that the Iranian people would appreciate the idea of things actually improving for them with their current government gone. Where is the propaganda? Where are the movies/videos/songs that promise a future of friendship and prosperity to the Iranian people if only the free themselves from their oppressive and manipulative government. I mean their government is feeding them manipulated news all the time and we cant even counter with something that could even be the honest truth? I think that this whole effort is half assed, yes half assed and I also think that certain people would rather see a real war, because that means cashflow for certain people. And I think that this is the reason why no real effort is being made. Same with NK, btw. And dont tell me that this is not possible! It was possible in fracking WW2!
ladajo, I was referring to the fact that the unconditional surrender and Morgenthau plan was going to stay in place, even if the German resistance had gotten rif of Hitler. "Quote, even if the German Councelor was a priest, there would be no peace".
It is the fear of this and the consequences that cost the resistance support within the higher ranks of the military. Even the SS was at least in some units realizing that Hitler was an idiot and they would have joined the resistance hadnt the been affraid of getting hanged by the allies as a revard afterwards.
It is the fear of this and the consequences that cost the resistance support within the higher ranks of the military. Even the SS was at least in some units realizing that Hitler was an idiot and they would have joined the resistance hadnt the been affraid of getting hanged by the allies as a revard afterwards.
Far enough. I would also hazard to say that part of the issue was the question of amnesty. Just how much are you willing to forgive someone of if they join your side? This was a key question that was wrestled with then, and still.
Personally, I think that it is better to try and stick to ground principles as laid out in the road to war. We are going to fight because you guys are doing a., b., c. We are fighting beacuse you guys did a., b., c. and continue to want to do it. Now we have finished fighting, you are still accountable for what you did before and during the fight. As long as the principles are clearly articulated and remain constant, I do not see issue with accountability after the fact. In a more direct manner, "Would you trust a known child rapist with your children or anyone else's?" or "Would you trust a re-formed child rapist who is now a police detective that specialized in ferreting out child rapists with your children or anyone else's?"
Not easy to answer I imagine. But for me, after continued consideration that never really ends, I find that for some things the answer is going to remain no.
Personally, I think that it is better to try and stick to ground principles as laid out in the road to war. We are going to fight because you guys are doing a., b., c. We are fighting beacuse you guys did a., b., c. and continue to want to do it. Now we have finished fighting, you are still accountable for what you did before and during the fight. As long as the principles are clearly articulated and remain constant, I do not see issue with accountability after the fact. In a more direct manner, "Would you trust a known child rapist with your children or anyone else's?" or "Would you trust a re-formed child rapist who is now a police detective that specialized in ferreting out child rapists with your children or anyone else's?"
Not easy to answer I imagine. But for me, after continued consideration that never really ends, I find that for some things the answer is going to remain no.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
There lays the rub.
It is not so easy to maintain black and white in the real world.
I think at some levels the war needed to run its course. It made for a better peace. I think there is value in Clauswitz' base thoughts arguing the utility of fighting a war with clear objectives regarding the peace afterwards. The Japanese-Russo war is a great example. The Japanese were well prepared going into the fight. They had already lined up the peace negotiation site, the objectives, and even had identified the US mediator they wanted as well as layed the ground work to have him available. All before launching any hostilities. The Russians on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever what they were getting into, nor really why. The just knew that Japan was picking a fight and honor dictated they respond. Then they proceeded to do everything possible to lose brutally much to the surprise of the Japanese planners and operators. in the end, Japan got every item it had on its entry objectives list, as well as a few bonuses. Of course the Russians have still not forgotten, but that is another discussion.
It is not so easy to maintain black and white in the real world.
I think at some levels the war needed to run its course. It made for a better peace. I think there is value in Clauswitz' base thoughts arguing the utility of fighting a war with clear objectives regarding the peace afterwards. The Japanese-Russo war is a great example. The Japanese were well prepared going into the fight. They had already lined up the peace negotiation site, the objectives, and even had identified the US mediator they wanted as well as layed the ground work to have him available. All before launching any hostilities. The Russians on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever what they were getting into, nor really why. The just knew that Japan was picking a fight and honor dictated they respond. Then they proceeded to do everything possible to lose brutally much to the surprise of the Japanese planners and operators. in the end, Japan got every item it had on its entry objectives list, as well as a few bonuses. Of course the Russians have still not forgotten, but that is another discussion.
Well, we can all argue what could have been. Personally, I would have much favored the idea of Hitler being done away in 1943 with millions of lives saved and Germany not in ruins and much worse in a self destructive shame for all eternity. Oh and lets not forget that the Soviets would have not gotten their hands on German technology, which would have made them a lot less serious opponents in the cold war that followed. Much of eastern Europe would have probably stayed with the west, etc. Of course much of that is speculation... But it is a possibility that I think few can argue would have been a nicer outcome than what actually happened. Oh and England would have not been quite as broke and quite as deeply in debt with the US...
But how much would that have allowed the root issues that allowed it to get to that point be addressed in a manner such that post-Hitler things went well?
This is my point with Iran (and other recent countries). If you don't pick objectives that can co-exist with the root issues used to justify the "fight", then you better be sure to have objectives that will fully and completely remove those issues or the "fight" will not end when the war is over.
This is the trouble with most recent conflicts. Root issues not being addressed.
So this then begs; What are the root issues with Iran? Who are the root issues between? When you begin to de-construct using these two questions things get complicated fast with Iran. You find out that the issue lay between many competing and cooperative parties. The lines of linkage cross many ways.
One of the reasons the US and others (probably without full understanding) have pursued an isolation strategy is an attempt to whittle away some of the linkage complexity. This in turn makes it easier to come up with objectives that at least address the external issues linkages, but does not address well the internal to internal and internal to external ones well.
Lately, the US has pursued additional initiatives that in my opinion have begun to address the internal to externals, and reduce them to something more manageable. The internal to internal has yet to be dug into, and that means in the coming fight, the war termination phase will be another stage setter for a national meltdown. not that we haven't seen that elsewhere.
This is the part the I think more than a few at the national strategy level need to think on and go do some remedial Clauswitz. He was very clear about sorting the after from ALL angles prior to the start button, and doing so in a way that established useful objectives.
Regime change can be a noble goal, but it means that you need something viable to change it with. This was the great failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places that I could easily fill up a paragraph rattling off.
We did not do well with the internal and internal to external root issues and linkages.
This is my point with Iran (and other recent countries). If you don't pick objectives that can co-exist with the root issues used to justify the "fight", then you better be sure to have objectives that will fully and completely remove those issues or the "fight" will not end when the war is over.
This is the trouble with most recent conflicts. Root issues not being addressed.
So this then begs; What are the root issues with Iran? Who are the root issues between? When you begin to de-construct using these two questions things get complicated fast with Iran. You find out that the issue lay between many competing and cooperative parties. The lines of linkage cross many ways.
One of the reasons the US and others (probably without full understanding) have pursued an isolation strategy is an attempt to whittle away some of the linkage complexity. This in turn makes it easier to come up with objectives that at least address the external issues linkages, but does not address well the internal to internal and internal to external ones well.
Lately, the US has pursued additional initiatives that in my opinion have begun to address the internal to externals, and reduce them to something more manageable. The internal to internal has yet to be dug into, and that means in the coming fight, the war termination phase will be another stage setter for a national meltdown. not that we haven't seen that elsewhere.
This is the part the I think more than a few at the national strategy level need to think on and go do some remedial Clauswitz. He was very clear about sorting the after from ALL angles prior to the start button, and doing so in a way that established useful objectives.
Regime change can be a noble goal, but it means that you need something viable to change it with. This was the great failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places that I could easily fill up a paragraph rattling off.
We did not do well with the internal and internal to external root issues and linkages.
Skipjack wrote:Actually exploding cars are quite Mossad...
One of the cleverest Mossad hits of which I have heard was the one where they put some C-4 with a DTMF decoder trigger in the handset of a public telephone known to be used by one of the terrorist ringleaders they wanted to kill.
They occupied a room nearby with a view overlooking the public phone, and from time to time they would call the number. Whenever an innocent bystander answered it, they would hang up.
One day, their man answered it. They then pushed one of the buttons on their own telephone, and the DTMF decoder triggered the C4 blowing half his head off. Simple, Neat, Clean and deadly.
I salute them.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
I'm so sorry for myself and the world in which I live.
Unfortunately, understanding and the intelligence of community, even scientists, have been reduced so that the very evils such as terror, are accepted.
Punishment of nations that still have not committed a crime, is far from the nobility.
Unfortunately, understanding and the intelligence of community, even scientists, have been reduced so that the very evils such as terror, are accepted.
Punishment of nations that still have not committed a crime, is far from the nobility.
[(All of Western News Agencies)+(www.presstv.ir)]=Perfect Conclusion.
ladajo wrote:But how much would that have allowed the root issues that allowed it to get to that point be addressed in a manner such that post-Hitler things went well?
This is my point with Iran (and other recent countries). If you don't pick objectives that can co-exist with the root issues used to justify the "fight", then you better be sure to have objectives that will fully and completely remove those issues or the "fight" will not end when the war is over.
This is the trouble with most recent conflicts. Root issues not being addressed.
So this then begs; What are the root issues with Iran? Who are the root issues between? When you begin to de-construct using these two questions things get complicated fast with Iran. You find out that the issue lay between many competing and cooperative parties. The lines of linkage cross many ways.
One of the reasons the US and others (probably without full understanding) have pursued an isolation strategy is an attempt to whittle away some of the linkage complexity. This in turn makes it easier to come up with objectives that at least address the external issues linkages, but does not address well the internal to internal and internal to external ones well.
Lately, the US has pursued additional initiatives that in my opinion have begun to address the internal to externals, and reduce them to something more manageable. The internal to internal has yet to be dug into, and that means in the coming fight, the war termination phase will be another stage setter for a national meltdown. not that we haven't seen that elsewhere.
This is the part the I think more than a few at the national strategy level need to think on and go do some remedial Clauswitz. He was very clear about sorting the after from ALL angles prior to the start button, and doing so in a way that established useful objectives.
Regime change can be a noble goal, but it means that you need something viable to change it with. This was the great failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places that I could easily fill up a paragraph rattling off.
We did not do well with the internal and internal to external root issues and linkages.
In the first Gulf War, I was very much in Favor of going into Baghdad and Killing Saddam Hussein. A lot of people pointed out that it would cause chaos as an aftermath, and a power struggle would ensue, and it just wasn't worth it.
I argued that it didn't matter. Whoever came to power in Iraq wouldn't mess with US. You kill the bad guy, Declare Victory and go home. Whatever the subsequent disposition of it's government, neither it, nor any of the other two bit dictator countries (and Iran I am looking at you.) Would want to rattle our cage again.
George H.W. Bush's wishywashyness simply emboldened our enemies.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:Well, we can all argue what could have been. Personally, I would have much favored the idea of Hitler being done away in 1943 with millions of lives saved and Germany not in ruins and much worse in a self destructive shame for all eternity. Oh and lets not forget that the Soviets would have not gotten their hands on German technology, which would have made them a lot less serious opponents in the cold war that followed. Much of eastern Europe would have probably stayed with the west, etc. Of course much of that is speculation... But it is a possibility that I think few can argue would have been a nicer outcome than what actually happened. Oh and England would have not been quite as broke and quite as deeply in debt with the US...
Now track that all back to Woodrow Wilson. Had Wilson (Democrat) kept his promise of keeping the United States out of World War I, it would have ended in a stalemate, and quite likely the Treaty of Versailles would not have occurred, or if it had, it would have excluded the catastrophic reparations, and subsequent building blocks of Hitler's political career.
I keep trying to tell people that Democrat Presidents are often responsible for HORRIBLE catastrophes which are the indirect result of their Ideas and actions. Had Wilson kept his word, World War II and the Atomic bomb would likely have never happened.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:ladajo, I was referring to the fact that the unconditional surrender and Morgenthau plan was going to stay in place, even if the German resistance had gotten rif of Hitler. "Quote, even if the German Councelor was a priest, there would be no peace".
It is the fear of this and the consequences that cost the resistance support within the higher ranks of the military. Even the SS was at least in some units realizing that Hitler was an idiot and they would have joined the resistance hadnt the been affraid of getting hanged by the allies as a revard afterwards.
I don't think he was an idiot, too many of the things he did could not have been done by an idiot. From what I have learned, the biggest problem with Hitler's competence was his addiction to methamphetamines.
Of course there are some people who think that taking drugs is a matter of personal preference and contain no ill consequences for others. I still wonder from time to time, how to get through to them.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Not nation but regime.Aslan wrote:Punishment of nations that still have not committed a crime, is far from the nobility.
What nobility do you request? That is only business (inerests).
Still not committed a crime yet?
What is crime? All nations do crime from time to time. Here has been mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden by US and UK. Iran in my country two, three, four centures ago. Mongols 10 centures ago. Etc.
Humanity's history is very bloody with lack of nobility. And your today's regime is not the sample of nobility too. At least Israel has not borderline with Iran. But threats in hiss address are constantly heard. Naturally, question of preventive pre-emptive strike also is considered. But I do not think that this is the murder of the person whose death changes nothing (nuclear program as well as missile development programs go on).
And it is assured that Iran won't win remote war. Technological levels of Iran on the one hand and the western alliance with another too differ each other. Iran only can kill several hundreds and may be thousands peace citizens. Not a crime?