Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

A classic mistake many people make is thinking because they are reasonable, then everybody else will be to. History is littered with such people and their failures, where they have made this dangerous and in many cases futile / fatal assumption that had lead to the enslavement of the people by such ruthless masters. A few examples of people, governments and organisations that could / cannot be negotiated with are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The same also applies to the Angry Brigade, Red Brigade and violent animal rights and environmentalists.

When evil people have evil aims and are determined to impose their will and enslave or destroy other people and their societies, then their violence has to be met with equal or greater violence or you lose. There is no other answer or way. I heard all of the answers before about how things should be sorted out by the League of Nations or the UN. Well how effective were the UN in Bosnia or Syria? They are toothless donkeys tigers.

Those leaders / countries could and were negotiated with.  In the case of Hitler the big mistake by Chamberlain was he was too much a gentleman, and did not push the negotiations strongly enough. Hitler was a chancer, and if enough tough resistance had been offered from the start, in Munich 1938, then history could have been very different.

Joseph Stalin did negotiate well with especially the Americans, after of course he was fooled by Hitler into a Pact in 1939.

Saddam Hussein should have been left to his own devices, as there was no need for Western involvement in Iraq, so negotiations over so called weapons of mass destruction were never necessary, and led Bush and Blair into a war that many in Britain, then and now, did not want.

Iran is being held back, although not very easily, by negotiation with many sides involved under the banner of the UN.  Iran knows one slip and the USA, let alone Russia and Israel, could well go on the attack. 

North Korea is,  admittedly another story, but again world pressure, including from their old sponsors the Chinese, is holding back on their reigns. Russia as well is having an effect behind the scenes, so again negotiations by UN countries are achieving that retarding on what N.Korea really wants, but will not get.

The other names you state are of course not countries, as the IRA were not. Negotiations may be too late for some, but there is an intention in certainly Afghanistan that working for a peaceful solution is possible.  As I have said before though massive traditional military ground forces are no good in fighting these gorilla groups.  As the British Army found in N.Ireland, what counted was intelligence and actions by specialised security forces.  Then came the need for peace that the people wanted, and political negotiation did the rest, with the old enemies being given political power via the ballot box.  That is how you act in Afghanistan to achieve long lasting peace, and a young democracy.

This is the point I'm making as only tough resistance such people understand and this is almost always fighting and war as they will go the last mile with this as they think they can win. It is a psychopath, testosterone driven thing and the more ruthless a leader is, the more they tend to have of both. This makes them the most successful to ruthlessly make it to the top and the least suited when they are there to be a leader. Most people only go into a fight or war with the reasonable expectation of winning on their terms, be this the terrorist who would lose a conventional war, so will use surprise with a direct attack on an enemy's weakness and then drift away or indirectly using IEDs etc.

Once their is a commitment to war, aggressive skillful attack is normally the best form of defense using blitzkrieg where you bypass the strong points and mop those up later. Ironic that the British invented the tank and theorist Basil Liddell Hart wrote about such concepts, but it was the Germans that perfected it, with radio communications between tanks being one of the keys and in WWII in terms of effective equipment and field craft the British army never caught up with their German counterparts.

In a defensive situation, the Israelis showed in the Six-Day and Yom Kippur wars, how Blitzkrieg as such a flexible system of exploitation can turn around a poor situation very quickly.

Indeed, and the British invented the concept of lighting war during 1918 which led Germany to call a ceasefire.  It was of course Hitler's generals who perfected Blitzkrieg at the start of WW2!

[Sir Tigger KC]

By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement.  I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent.  I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive!  War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so.  What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! 

Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs 

PS

I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie.  I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate.  The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust.  The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.

Drones are shooting at targets without being fired upon, with even a wedding reception being attacked, with heavy casualties, only quite recently.  Other "mistaken" fire has also killed innocents on a fairly regular basis.

The local civilians killed by, I repeat, "mistaken" fire would certainly have relatives and friends who would  use your word "offensive"!  When war is being fought this is indeed what happens, and that is why it is wrong for western forces to be there as it always leads to animosity from those local innocents who have to pick up the pieces.

As for Vietnam, Saigon is not the whole country and is hardly representative of those districts that the main part of the appalling war was fought over.  It is on record that the more the American forces attacked villages towards the North Vietnamese border, the more civilians decided to assist the Viet Cong as they saw them as the best choice in a war that was unnecessary and led to a bad situation for the Yanks. That all led to the Americans admitting defeat and pulling out, as they knew they could not continue what had become a terribly wasteful war that the American public could see no purpose in. Before you ask, I know of ex-American servicemen who are my friends that served in Vietnam and would never talk about what they experienced as they were far from happy with their country's involvement and actions.  In simple terms they were ashamed.

I'm getting the feeling Lizzie that you think that NATO troops in Afghanistan are there on some sort of turkey shoot and fire at anything that moves!   

To be honest I find the drone programme a little sinister, but do you think that they hit targets indiscriminately? rather than acting on intelligence from the ground that a certain target will be at a certain place at a certain time.  I guess that one of the purposes is to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders as people will be afraid to associate with them, and this puts ordinary people between a rock and a hard place.  Offend the local Taliban commander and deal with his wrath?  or run the risk of being blown to pieces by an American missile? 

Going back to Vietnam.

You are quite right that Saigon isn't the whole of Vietnam and I'm sure that there were people in South Vietnam who supported the North Vietnam forces and the Viet Cong, but to assert that a majority of South Vietnamese supported them and hated the Americans would be wrong in my opinion.    And I wouldn't be at all surprised that your American friends are ashamed at the US forces action in Vietnam as they did some terrible things there, Agent Orange for one.  But the communists and Viet Cong were hardly Boy Scouts either and they did some terrible things to their own people! 

One of the most surprising things for me though, was the amount of American people who now live in Vietnam (North and South) and are largely accepted and welcomed by the Vietnamese people as they are seen to be helping to develop Vietnam.  Not from the war as that is ancient history to them, but from the incompetence, corruption and mismanagement of the country by the communist government for 25 years or so after the war ended. 

Incidently, although Vietnam today is peaceful and relatively prosperous (some call it Little China!) it is far from free and is still ruled with an iron fist by the communists.  Despite the economic reforms, if we were having this sort of conversation on a Vietnamese forum, in Vietnam, using a Vietnamese internet provider, we may well have had a knock on the door by now..... 

Anyway what was that about Ankara??? 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

By contrast the western armies operate under strict rules of engagement.  I believe that at the moment the British Army in Afghanistan can only fire when fired upon, which some might say is too stringent.  I believe that your assertions Lizzie that the Western armies are bombing, strafing, maiming and killing civilians not only wrong but offensive!  War is what it is however and the civilian population always suffer as a result, this has always been so and always will be so.  What we have though is one side who try to avoid civilian casualties but yes make mistakes from time to time, and another side who hit targets indiscriminately regardless of who might get killed or injured! 

Anyone who thinks that we can negotiate with such people must have graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Politics and International Affairs 

PS

I find it interesting that you bring up Vietnam Lizzie.  I lived and worked in Saigon for a while and the only animosity I came across from the Vietnamese towards the Americans, were from those angry that the US left South Vietnam to it's fate.  The majority of South Vietnamese saw the Americans as their defenders and protectors and hated the Northern Communists with a passion! To this day, there is a North/South divide and much bitterness and mistrust.  The people of South Vietnam were treated appallingly by the Northern Communists and even now most high ranking public positions in the South, such as police chiefs, mayors etc are held by Northerners.

Drones are shooting at targets without being fired upon, with even a wedding reception being attacked, with heavy casualties, only quite recently.  Other "mistaken" fire has also killed innocents on a fairly regular basis.

The local civilians killed by, I repeat, "mistaken" fire would certainly have relatives and friends who would  use your word "offensive"!  When war is being fought this is indeed what happens, and that is why it is wrong for western forces to be there as it always leads to animosity from those local innocents who have to pick up the pieces.

As for Vietnam, Saigon is not the whole country and is hardly representative of those districts that the main part of the appalling war was fought over.  It is on record that the more the American forces attacked villages towards the North Vietnamese border, the more civilians decided to assist the Viet Cong as they saw them as the best choice in a war that was unnecessary and led to a bad situation for the Yanks. That all led to the Americans admitting defeat and pulling out, as they knew they could not continue what had become a terribly wasteful war that the American public could see no purpose in. Before you ask, I know of ex-American servicemen who are my friends that served in Vietnam and would never talk about what they experienced as they were far from happy with their country's involvement and actions.  In simple terms they were ashamed.

I'm getting the feeling Lizzie that you think that NATO troops in Afghanistan are there on some sort of turkey shoot and fire at anything that moves!  

To be honest I find the drone programme a little sinister, but do you think that they hit targets indiscriminately? rather than acting on intelligence from the ground that a certain target will be at a certain place at a certain time.  I guess that one of the purposes is to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders as people will be afraid to associate with them, and this puts ordinary people between a rock and a hard place.  Offend the local Taliban commander and deal with his wrath?  or run the risk of being blown to pieces by an American missile? 

Going back to Vietnam.

You are quite right that Saigon isn't the whole of Vietnam and I'm sure that there were people in South Vietnam who supported the North Vietnam forces and the Viet Cong, but to assert that a majority of South Vietnamese supported them and hated the Americans would be wrong in my opinion.    And I wouldn't be at all surprised that your American friends are ashamed at the US forces action in Vietnam as they did some terrible things there, Agent Orange for one.  But the communists and Viet Cong were hardly Boy Scouts either and they did some terrible things to their own people! 

One of the most surprising things for me though, was the amount of American people who now live in Vietnam (North and South) and are largely accepted and welcomed by the Vietnamese people as they are seen to be helping to develop Vietnam.  Not from the war as that is ancient history to them, but from the incompetence, corruption and mismanagement of the country by the communist government for 25 years or so after the war ended.

Incidently, although Vietnam today is peaceful and relatively prosperous (some call it Little China!) it is far from free and is still ruled with an iron fist by the communists.  Despite the economic reforms, if we were having this sort of conversation on a Vietnamese forum, in Vietnam, using a Vietnamese internet provider, we may well have had a knock on the door by now..... 

Anyway what was that about Ankara??? 

Due to the troubling 600 word limit I answer below TigerHayes:   

[Lizzie_Zoom]

No, I am not suggesting that at all about NATO forces.  But because of the severe difficulties of using a traditional army, away from a true battlefield, it is unavoidable that there will be the killing of the "innocents".  That is why I am stating that our traditional forces should not be there, and instead diplomacy, along with intelligence and secret service actions, should be totally relied upon.  In fact yesterday Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated that the Helmand province had become more dangerous for Afghans when the British arrived.  It proves the fact that a foreign military force moving into foreign lands becomes a focus for "freedom fighters" or plain terrorists, what ever you may call them.  Innocents then suffer.

As for "they hit targets indiscriminately?" no they do not.  But, again when you fight a war such as this "mistaken" fire will happen and innocent lives will be lost.  That is why our large military forces should not be there.

As for your points on Vietnam; well yes I would accept what you say as things have moved on since 1973, and the mechanics of communism has now had its full affect, which means the place is hardly a democracy.  However, time and world change is counting against their communist masters, as even China moves towards a more enlightened way.

Anakara; well yes, now where were we on that!

[cem_devecioglu]

Ankara is fine.. 18 celicus and sunny..    I had a good walk looking at the cars that I can never buy  , after solving nasty office 2010 having disturbed my .net project

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Ankara is fine.. 18 celicus and sunny..    I had a good walk looking at the cars that I can never buy  , after solving nasty office 2010 having disturbed my .net project

Very nice Cem.  Wish it was here!