.com.unity Forums - [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=8669)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I wonder if friendly fire could be a feature of se5.

As long as is not as bad as in Fallout Tactics, where you could easily shot someone next to your target than your target....
One of my tactics was to get one of my guys to sneak behind 2 or 3 enemies and then I would target my own guy from maximum range with a .50 caliber and I would take out all the bad guys with one spray. It never failed.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

And to think that I came to Shrapnel Forums to get away from this mess... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I haven't had the chance to skim over all 45+ back pages of this thread, but what I have seen is pretty close to a lot of other discussions on this topic - lengthy exercises in missing the point.

I have given a lot of thought to what the real significance of this war is, for America and the world in general. Several articles I have read have greatly influenced me in this regard. For those interesed, here are the links...

Our World-Historical Gamble

The Pentagon's New Map

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology

The Clash of Civilizations (The article that started it all. Before you agree or disagree with Huntington's thesis, read it.)

For the more adventurous, I would recommend two hardcopy books that relate to the subject...

The Ends of the Earth - A reporter's travelogue through various failed third-world "nations". Definitely not recommended bedtime reading.

The Next Christendom - examines, among other things, the coming clash between Third-World Christianity and Islam.

I don't agree with everything in these articles, but they all provide sobering food for thought. The twenty-first century looks to be "interesting times", as the old Chinese curse goes...

(If these articles have already been referenced or discussed, I apologise. Like I said, I haven't had the time to start at page 1 of this thread...)

[ March 31, 2003, 21:54: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Geo:
I agree fully with your statement. And I always try to save my patronizing answers to to the more moronic Posts, not those which there are logic and knowledge behind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
Your wellcome to nitpick as much as you want. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I only complain when different standards are applied to the different sides.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

General Woundwort: welcome on board!

I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

Quote:

But it would be a terrible mistake to conclude that such gambles are reckless ventures. In fact, the whole point of a world-historical gamble is that it offers the only possible escape from the kind of historical impasse or deadlock in which the human race presently finds itself. It emerges out of a situation where mankind cannot simply stay put, where the counsels of caution and conservatism are no longer of any value, and where to do nothing at all is in fact to take an even greater risk than that contemplated by the world-historical gamble.
It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it.

I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).

[ April 01, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Quote:

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)

As the attack on the Pentagon was not in time of war, it was unannounced, and it was done via hijacking civilian aircraft, I would call that terrorism. If war came here, I would expect the Pentagon to be shelled/bombed.

Quote:

It's all a matter of perspective.

Indeed. Now, if we could only find an unbiased perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I know, there is no such thing.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy.

I am sure they would like to attack them with Apache's and Abrams but that is not the weapons they currently process...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
But it would be a terrible mistake to conclude that such gambles are reckless ventures. In fact, the whole point of a world-historical gamble is that it offers the only possible escape from the kind of historical impasse or deadlock in which the human race presently finds itself. It emerges out of a situation where mankind cannot simply stay put, where the counsels of caution and conservatism are no longer of any value, and where to do nothing at all is in fact to take an even greater risk than that contemplated by the world-historical gamble.
It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it.

I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!
<hr /></blockquote>I think that Harris' reply would be that during the Cold War, you had two "national" entities in opposition who both stood to lose, from their strategic viewpoint, if such an exchange occured. The "deadlock" then was one of balanced power. That situation no longer applies, as you have "nations" now that are little more than fronts for local strongmen - or ideological fanatics. Such folk as these cannot be counted on to view the use of WMD in the same 'balance of power' light that the old US/USSR framework did. Harris' other article, on the mindset of al Qaeda and other such Islamic Groups, illustrates this rather chillingly. These articles should be read in tandem to get the full gut-wrenching effect.

Quote:

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.

Point well taken. I will repeat, I do not agree 100% with everything in the articles. As things stand now, South America has a lot in common with its old European "home countries". But, how long will that Last? Just suppose - if Europe continues down the path of secularization, while Latin America becomes a center of a new form of vigorous Christianity (see Jenkin's book), what effect might that have on their relations? Their common cultural links? Just suppose - what if, through immigration and/or cultural accomodation, Europe becomes radically "islamicized"? What if France becomes the next Pakistan? What happens to Euro-Latin American relations then?

My point in posting these articles is to get people to look at the events that are unfolding not just in the old "nation state/liberal rational democracy" model, but in a developing model of regional cultures, diffusion of mass-casualty weaponry, and the role religious conflict may play. I think that the 21st century will be as different from the 20th in how things play out as the 20th was from the 19th.

Quote:

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).

Now there's a loaded comment... :-}

[ April 01, 2003, 10:28: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1:

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)
R.

No way no how can you possibly tell me hijacking a civilian aircraft and crashing it is not terrorism. I'm stunned you could even suggest it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

If one wanted to stretch the definitions a bit I could almost see some logic that the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was an act of war and not terrorism. And if the 9/11 terrorists had taken a private plane loaded with explosives or something and flown it into the Pentagon you could make the same case. You can have a war that is undeclared afterall. But calling the innocents on the airliners collateral damage is ridiculous. Collateral damage is not intentional by definition. The 9/11 terrorists purposly murdered those pasengers. They made no effort to prevent their deaths. Their deaths were in fact part of the objective.

Geoschmo