From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:02:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Sep28.144405.1261@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
)In article <1992Sep27.194150.11380@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@monarch.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
)>In article <1992Sep25.200750.23511@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
)>>
)>>I understand what you are saying, but let's be honest: if we bulldozed
)>>Iraqi solders off the front lines when it was just as easy to capture them
)>>as prisoners of war, then are we really deserving of the moral high ground
)>>in the war?  Is it the kind of behavior that merits praise and ticker tape
)>>parades?  
)>
)>Have you ever been in combat!?  If not, then let me tell you key
)>observation that I came away with after two years of combat.  If the
)>sucker on the other side is shooting at you, shoot back, bomb him,
)>strafe him, in short, do everything you can to take him out!!
)
)No, I thankfully have never been in combat, and I doubt I'd make a very good
)soldier.  I understand why we might have bulldozed soldiers, as it is part
)of war.  It happens, it is ugly, and somethimes it is necessary.  What I'm
)trying to understand is how do we judge a person's actions during combat?  
)What were the alternatives that he/she faced?  And, what can we say about a 
)person's character based on the decision that was made?
Unless you were there, you cannot really judge what that person did. This is 
especially true if you have information that the person who fought in combat
may or may not have known. If a soldier shoots up a helpless village and 
gleefully brags about it afterwards, hang him since he damn well knew that
place was not defended. Unfortunately, the fog of war is very thick when you're
inside it and things may not be completely clear until long after you take
actions. 
)
)In general, I do believe that in war "anything goes" and that you do what you
)must.  But when the war is over, I feel that it *is* appropriate to look back
)and try to assess the decisions that were made, and try to determine if they
)were in fact the best ones to make.  If they weren't (from a tactical or from
)a humane end) then I feel it is appropriate to criticize.  I certainly do not
)think that just *any* act of war is worthy of glorification and depiction as
)heroism merely because it was an act of war.
Sure, watch over every soldier's back and nitpick his actions as you sit back
in your easy chair thousands of miles away from danger. You're wrong about
not being soldier material. You are PERFECT soldier material...... working in   
the Pentagon and playing soldier without actually fighting. Only war crimes 
should be criticized (if you can prove it, to some people everytime the
military farts is a war crime :).) Trying to judge a decision when you were
not there with fragments flying around you and facing the general confusion
that surrounds even modern combat is impossible to do fairly. No, only truly 
heroic efforts in war should be celebrated. Like Leonidas and the Three Hundred
at Thermopylae; the defenders of Bastogne; the injured captain of a submarine
who orders his ship to crash dive to avoid a Japanese destroyer, despite the
fact that he is stuck on the tower and won't make it below; the countless acts
of heroism by common soldiers who keep their comrades alive but go unnoticed 
when medals go out; O'Hare launching his lone fighter against a Japanese
bomber force attacking his carrier group; the SAR people in Vietnam who pulled
out pilots who were heartbeats away from becoming POWs. Do any of these acts
of war qualify as heroism to you? 
)
)When we ultimately won Desert Storm, could we really look at ourselve and 
)say that we were better people?  Were we less brutal?  Did we have more
)riteous claims to be involved?  Did we really have cause to celebrate?  I'm
)not so sure...
No we didn't look at ourselves but I'll try right now.
1)Racially? No, we're both Human. Government-wise? Yes. Ours is preferable
to theirs. (No Bush isn't a dictator despite the popular claim. A slimy  
manipulative politician definitely but not enough power to be a dictator.)
Culturally? Unable to quantify into a solid answer.
2)Slightly. What is necessary for victory should be done.
3)That is a question for philosophers.
4)We got most of our people back alive. I'd say that's something to celebrate.
Should not have used tanks in the parades, though. Also should have limited the
flybys to Missing Man formations only. Otherwise it would seem too gaudy; and
did at those parades.
)
)>Nice and civilized isn't what it is about.  Killing is what it is about.
)>As long as our troops were at risk, then the actions taken to bury the
)>defenders of the trenches in said trenches is certainly a viable option.
)>Further, if the burial of these soldiers (don't forget that that is what
)>we are talking about -- soldiers), resulted in fewer losses on our side
)>that is all the more reason to do it.
)>
)
)Then why didn't we nuke them and get it over with?  What a bonus, 100% Iraqi
)casulties and 0% American casulties.  That's what it is about, right?  right?
)
NOT! Nuclear weapons were not necessary for victory in that war. Note I use
the same qualifier that I did when I answered your second question above. To
win a war you do NOT try and wipe out the entire population of your attacker.
To win a war you do whatever is necessary to force your enemy to back down
and/or surrender. It may require simply mobilizing your forces, or engaging 
in snap raids across the border, or even invade their territory to drive them
away while your air units destroy their air force and other important targets.
This is very simple, but in war the simple things are always very hard.

Another thing about nukes. IMHO they serve no useful purpose in battles within
the biosphere of a planet. It leaves too big a mess to clean up. As my bias
indicates I see no problem with using them in space (DEEP space) since there
is no biosphere to muck up while using them to advance your goals up there. Not
that I think wars should be started in space, I just think it will inevitably
happen when two groups start fighting over property rights for some moon or
asteroid full of valuable materials. Or over politics as usual. No, nuclear
weapons serve no useful purpose here on Earth, save for making people nervous,
and giving Bob here stupid ideas he can use as flame bait. :>
)-Bob
Oh it's YOU Bob. Prepare to fire! :>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism