Author Topic: Total War/Totale Krieg (Read 2981 times)

rio grande · « **on:** August 08, 2012, 05:47:30 AM »

Many persons who post here call for 'all out' war against perceived enemies.
No holds barred. Any means necessary.
Including indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children through use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Some here even attempt to justify torture of prisoners.
They think this will bring peace, and certainly graveyards are peaceful places.

To me, that kind of war is demonic. I will not participate in it, or support it.
How does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

There is an alternative. It's called the Just War theory.
This link is to a Catholic site, simply because it is an excellent overview of the principles.
But good men and women of all faiths, or none, support the concept.

http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

jimster · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2012, 07:42:59 AM »

I don't think we should ever go to war unless absolutely necessary, and if we do, we should go with the intention of destroying it all, very quickly, as far as nukes...we can destroy most anything with conventional bombs from the air. No police action...no half ass ed wars that keep you there for years killing our soldiers at a slow but steady rate. We have lost enough soldiers in the last 12 years to equal the worst of wars...just took longer. No wins. No gains. Just playing around wasting lives and money.
Best if we just stay home...if there is a real threat, then we best get it over with, and if you start worrying about innocents too much...you won't win at all. That's just the way it is. They will hide in schools and behind the innocents...so best not go there at all I guess. They know your weakness. They will use it against you if you go there. This might sound really rough to some, but I have already stated that I think we should stay home in the first place. If you always have the attitude you will win fast, hit hard, and destroy it all...you likely won't ever go to war very often, they will leave you alone after they see what your all about. If I were the leader in this country first thing I would do is bring everyone home, apologize to many countries for trying to force our way of life on them, protect our own borders. Next thing would be to make the world realize that I don't play around if there is a real threat to the U.S. Don't make me go there...won't be nothing left when I'm done, and I won't be rebuilding anything I destroy. Once they realize your serious...they will walk around you. That's life...it's just the way it is and always will be.
Good link by the way...I do agree with much of it...kind of like trying your best to stay out of a fight...but if you have to, you best win, not many rules in a fight, just win or lose is all there is.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #2 on:** August 08, 2012, 07:52:18 AM »

Well, I looked at the link you provided and find it interesting. It was written with just enough "weasel words" to allow it to be used to justify almost anything...pro or con. $:-\$

It has some other fascinating aspects too. For instance, justifying war based on whether or not it cause more/or less casualties than just allowing the aggressor to proceed without interference......not gonna fly in most peoples book, and not in most Christian theologies either.

Along with claiming that Old Testiment wars were done with peace as the objective. Yeah right....."peace" by total destruction of entire peoples?

Someone played fast and loose to create that document. But it is interesting.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2012, 09:23:15 AM »

It seems to me this coward warfare is the rason for all the strife in the world today.

gypsyman · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2012, 09:59:17 AM »

Watch some of the film from WWll. Japanese women throwing their baby's off of cliff's, and them right behind. They were told Marine's would kill them and eat their baby's. (My dad spent 3 1/2 years in the S.Pacific) That's the way you win a war. gypsyman

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2012, 11:34:17 AM »

Quote from: rio grande on August 08, 2012, 05:47:30 AM

Many persons who post here call for 'all out' war against perceived enemies. No holds barred. Any means necessary. Including indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children through use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Some here even attempt to justify torture of prisoners.
They think this will bring peace, and certainly graveyards are peaceful places.

Yes, lot of that here... esp if those to be killed are Muslims or non-whites, non-Christians.

Quote

To me, that kind of war is demonic. I will not participate in it, or support it.
How does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

I agree.

Quote

There is an alternative. It's called the Just War theory.

Not popular, esp upon those with power, who want something.

Quote

This link is to a Catholic site, simply because it is an excellent overview of the principles.
But good men and women of all faiths, or none, support the concept.

Appeals to me, and I'm not even Catholic (though I've gotten closer to Rome last decade or so)
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

Quote from: Cuts Crooked on August 08, 2012, 07:52:18 AM

Well, I looked at the link you provided and find it interesting. It was written with just enough "weasel words" to allow it to be used to justify almost anything...

Could you please give some example of weasel words you're referring to in the document in question, and how they're used - disingenuously? - to justify almost anything?

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2012, 03:42:50 PM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on August 08, 2012, 11:34:17 AM

doctrine
Quote from: Cuts Crooked on August 08, 2012, 07:52:18 AM
Well, I looked at the link you provided and find it interesting. It was written with just enough "weasel words" to allow it to be used to justify almost anything...
Could you please give some example of weasel words you're referring to in the document in question, and how they're used - disingenuously? - to justify almost anything?

Ah my friend, if you are not erudite enough to figure them out, then I cannot help you. Others seem to have no problem understanding it. Read it again with particular attention to comments about the old testament and war. LOL!!!!!!! (the funny things is, YOU would have a hay day with that stuff if the "argument" were reversed)

Gary G · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2012, 04:27:09 PM »

Governments cause wars. They must lie to gain support. Then, they are never involved in the shooting and bombing. Only the people suffer and pay the price. The only justifiable aggression is self defense.

rio grande · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:04:57 AM »

As far as 'weasel words' all-out pacifists don't care for the Just War idea any more than all-out warmongers. But, you know what, it is a start.

Such things as avoiding targeting civilians, humane treatment of prisoners, etc. are simple and merciful. In addition, you win the respect of other nations and hold the moral high ground.

As far as the Old Testament goes, when I receive a direct order from God to wage aggressive war I would consider it. But I don't think God will ask me to strike down more Canaanites any time soon.
Huckleberry Finn thought by refusing to return the runaway slave Jim he was breaking God's law and was certain he would go to hell. But he decided to help Jim and just 'go to hell then'. That wasn't God's law, that was man's law. I think he made the right decision.
The fictional Huckleberry was being duped, just like many today who think the Old Testament justifies their dirty little wars.

IMHO God has not ordered or approved of any war for a few thousand years now. And certainly not since the arrival of the Prince of Peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers" he said, and he wasn't talking about Colt single-actions!

Did God speak to Roosevelt and Truman and tell them to firebomb the civilian babies, girls and boys of Dresden or Japan? More likely Satan was whispering in their ears.
You go on and open that box o' 'any means necessary' and you'll find in it all of Satan's tools, all kinds of perversions and tortures including sadistic rape, disfigurement, targeting innocent family members of your opponents,and genocide.

Y'all make whatever decision you think best. Those who believe in God say 'God will judge'...

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2012, 06:13:17 AM »

If you don't destory your enemy you still have an enemy . It's that simple . In the Bible and history they destoried their enemy so they could not rise up again. Like most things in the Bible when we try to change them we suffer. We have spared the rod and God knows the children are spoiled. With war all we are doing is adding to the size of the army that hates us. One day we will pay a price.

BBF · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2012, 07:22:11 AM »

IMO That day isn't all that far down the road.

Gary G · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2012, 07:53:47 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on August 09, 2012, 06:13:17 AM

If you don't destory your enemy you still have an enemy . It's that simple . In the Bible and history they destoried their enemy so they could not rise up again. Like most things in the Bible when we try to change them we suffer. We have spared the rod and God knows the children are spoiled. With war all we are doing is adding to the size of the army that hates us. One day we will pay a price.

Nah, kings learned along time ago to let the defeated nation live and it would be more profitable. You can't collect tribute from dead people.

God tried to keep Israel from idolatrous neighbors. It was through Israel that Christ would come. Well, guess what, Christ came and gave us a new covenant.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:27:39 AM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on August 08, 2012, 11:34:17 AM

[]Yes, lot of that here... esp if those to be killed are Muslims or non-whites, non-Christians.

Doesn't matter what religion, race sex or age they are.
Being the enemy is the only excuse needed to treat them as the enemy.
btw- enemy= (1)anyone that means harm to me or mine (2) anyone who gives aid to my enemy is also my enemy.
And the only way to WIN a war is to kill the enemy and instill enough fear in them that they cease all hostilities.

Gary G · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:05:30 AM »

Quote from: m-g Willy on August 09, 2012, 09:27:39 AM

Quote from: yellowtail3 on August 08, 2012, 11:34:17 AM
[]Yes, lot of that here... esp if those to be killed are Muslims or non-whites, non-Christians.

Doesn't matter what religion, race sex or age they are.
Being the enemy is the only excuse needed to treat them as the enemy.
btw- enemy= (1)anyone that means harm to me or mine (2) anyone who gives aid to my enemy is also my enemy.
And the only way to WIN a war is to kill the enemy and instill enough fear in them that they cease all hostilities.

Who defines your enemy?
The government? The news media?
Do you have that much trust in them?

To the Germans, Poland was the enemy......because Hitler said so.
The Jews were the enemy, because Hitler said so.

Do you mean Hitler lied, but Bush or Obama would not?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #14 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:28:15 AM »

Hitler was the enemy to both they knew it by counting the bodies
. It should not be so hard to see evil is the enemy . You chose to note the view from the evil side.
Now was it not clear who attacked us on either 12/7 or 9/11 ?

scotsman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 09, 2012, 10:49:50 AM »

War is a horrible, horrible thing. It may at times be unavoidable but it is no less horrible. Equating war with anything holy and or pleasing to God is to me beyond comprehension.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2012, 11:02:40 AM »

Me to scotsman ! but God did protect his people and war was one of the tools used. Self defense is a right be it a man or a nation.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2012, 11:29:33 AM »

Myself I see attacking the "civilians" of a country as te fastest way to defeat them. After all an army is only as good as its supply line. Cut off the food, fuel and armaments and the greatest army in the world will stop dead in its tracks.

teamnelson · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2012, 12:27:11 PM »

There is jus ad bellum ... the determination of whether or not going to war in a specific instance is just (i.e. Just Cause vs. just because);

and then there is jus in bello ... the determination of whether of not a war was fought justly (i.e. means of war, rules of engagement).

Just War theory is bellum iustum, and is simply a discussion of whether "war" as a concept is "right" or "good". And if so, how does one limit war, if one should.

The goal of war is never annihilation, its neutralization of a threat to one's ability to obtain an objective. War is a means to an end, not an end in itself, therefore the end determines the rightness of the war, and the limits of the war. On its smallest scale, consider your baby child. It wants to crawl over to the outlet and put its finger in there ... but that violates your objective to raise a healthy child. So you begin by saying no; doesn't work. You escalate force, and say no and pick the baby up and carry it across the room. It promptly crab walks over the same socket, hell bent on poking its digit into the socket. This time you say no, and smack its little claw. It cries, gets mad, and reaches for that socket again .... so you snatch up your axe, and lop its hand off. That'll teach 'em, they can't stick their finger in the hole!

Probably not ... you have a reason bigger than the violence that limits the violence itself. In a defensive war, the lines get blurred, the individual feels personally threatened, the baby is going to stick your finger in the light socket. The desire is to stop the agression, and it becomes a battle of wills. This is where many feel like there are no rules, my life is at stake - I must defend it any cost.

But at what cost to the soul? For many the thought of violating a moral code, even when faced with death, is horrific - death before dishonor. This then limits what a man will do even when threatened with death. Jus In Bello is that conversation in the defense - how far am I willing to go before I cross the line of good, just to protect my own worthless neck.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2012, 01:06:58 PM »

Quote from: Gary G on August 09, 2012, 10:05:30 AM

[

Who defines your enemy?
The government? The news media?
Do you have that much trust in them?

I'm an American ,,so when USA goes to war, my enemy is whoever we are at war with.
I protested the Vietnam war while I was in high school.
As soon as I was out of school I enlisted.
Not because I changed my views but because WE were fighting!

nw_hunter · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2012, 01:33:51 PM »

As I age, I tend to think more like this old white haired man of yesterday

“There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”―

[/font][/size][/color]

Mark Twain

,

The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories[/font][/size]

magooch · « **Reply #21 on:** August 10, 2012, 03:41:31 AM »

The real immorality of war is sending your warriors into battle without the total commitment to winning with no holds barred. Willy and Shootall and maybe a couple of others have it right. The rest seem to be conflicted and unsure of the concept of self preservation.

Measured reaction only brings pain that can be measured in our own casualties and treasure. If you're going to land a blow, make it a knockout.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 10, 2012, 04:13:08 AM »

when countries are at war with each other there really are no innocent civilians. Only the military who is doing the actual fighting. And the producers who are making the food, fuel and munitions. WW2 was won because the factories of the USA and USSR were safely beyond the reaches of the axis bombers. If I were to plan a war I would target the factories, refineries and fields of my enemy and if I wanted to eliminate this threat for a long time I would irradiate their fields so they could not come back to power for centuries.

Gary G · « **Reply #23 on:** August 10, 2012, 05:15:53 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on August 10, 2012, 04:13:08 AM

when countries are at war with each other there really are no innocent civilians.

What is a country? It is the sum total of individuals living within a government determined boundary. Every individual is different from every other individual. There are no two exactly alike. Some are good people and some are bad people. Most just want to be left alone and provide for themselves and their families.

What is war? It is when a few individuals of one country decide to attack most of the individuals of another country. The few send many of their own individuals to do the fighting. Why do the many obey the few? Are all of the many of the other country bad people because a few in their government have done or said bad things?

What is imperialism?

billy_56081 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 10, 2012, 09:04:01 AM »

Ah yes the "world without borders" socialist paradise utopia which has and will never exist. Until man is gone from the earth there will be no peace. I live in reality when in war kill em all. These "civilians" are feeding, fueling and arming the army.

Gary G · « **Reply #25 on:** August 10, 2012, 12:23:03 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on August 10, 2012, 09:04:01 AM

Ah yes the "world without borders" socialist paradise utopia which has and will never exist. Until man is gone from the earth there will be no peace. I live in reality when in war kill em all. These "civilians" are feeding, fueling and arming the army.

Imperialism is a feature of Fascism, which is one form of socialism. Individual liberty is far from such. We once fought a war against imperialism.

Gary G · « **Reply #26 on:** August 10, 2012, 01:17:14 PM »

What is the origin of borders? Let's use AL and GA as an example. The state of AL will tax the individuals of AL, but cannot tax the individuals of GA and vice versa. Therefore, borders define the desire of states to extract the wealth of those within the declared border. Before modern states there were no borders.

What is imperialism? It is when nations extract all the possible wealth feasible of those citizens within their borders, they expand to other territories. This is what Rome did until they ran out of realistic territories worth conquering. Then, as the debt of expansion exceeded the extractions, they imploded in debt.

SwampThing762 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 10, 2012, 01:54:16 PM »

Total war is the only way to win a war. You must destroy the enemy's military structure and industrial complex. We did these things to Germany and Japan, and the civilian population survived largely intact. Germany and Japan are now industrial and financial powerhouses.

If the SHTF in the United States, individuals must adopt a total war mindset or you will not survive.

ST762

teamnelson · « **Reply #28 on:** August 10, 2012, 03:06:51 PM »

Quote from: SwampThing762 on August 10, 2012, 01:54:16 PM

Total war is the only way to win a war. You must destroy the enemy's military structure and industrial complex. We did these things to Germany and Japan, and the civilian population survived largely intact. Germany and Japan are now industrial and financial powerhouses.

If the SHTF in the United States, individuals must adopt a total war mindset or you will not survive.

ST762

What you describe is not total war ... what we did to Germany and Japan was limited to the enemy's military structure and industrial complex. "Total war" is annihilationism, every man, woman and child is a target until the enemy stops fighting. Even our atomic attack on Japan was limited - we selected 2 targets, very strategically ... and none of the leadership involved at the time claimed moral superiority. It was purely pragmatic. That it worked is fortunate, because had the Japanese responded in outrage as we did to 911, the world map might look differently today, and we would have committed ourselves to become a monstrous nation. Ironically we have demonized a tribe of religious zealots in our nation for killing several thousand. Before anyone says anything, I volunteered, I went twice to combat, and will go again, and was wounded so my commitment to this nation isn't in question. I've seen first hand the cost of war, what it means when the "justness" is fuzzy, and when the "rules" are wonky, and lost a lot of good friends as a result.

The OP is discussing the morality of war, not what works. Its clear that there are many here that believe the only way to victory is immorality. Perhaps they will be allowed the opportunity to see that in action; perhaps they will be on the receiving end. Most likely they will die first "fighting" unorganized but very ardent, leaving their families to suffer "total war" in their absence. Its a form of hypocrisy to advocate total war, and yet talk about liberty ... the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... as an unalienable right, endowed by a Creator. One would have to say that the Creator did not endow one's enemies with the same unalienable rights.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #29 on:** August 10, 2012, 03:22:04 PM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on August 10, 2012, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: SwampThing762 on August 10, 2012, 01:54:16 PM
Total war is the only way to win a war. You must destroy the enemy's military structure and industrial complex. We did these things to Germany and Japan, and the civilian population survived largely intact. Germany and Japan are now industrial and financial powerhouses.

If the SHTF in the United States, individuals must adopt a total war mindset or you will not survive.

ST762
**********************

TN said!
The OP is discussing the morality of war, not what works. Its clear that there are many here that believe the only way to victory is immorality. Perhaps they will be allowed the opportunity to see that in action; perhaps they will be on the receiving end. Most likely they will die first "fighting" unorganized but very ardent, leaving their families to suffer "total war" in their absence. Its a form of hypocrisy to advocate total war, and yet talk about liberty ... the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... as an unalienable right, endowed by a Creator. One would have to say that the Creator did not endow one's enemies with the same unalienable rights.

Very well stated TN!