BS: depleted uranium

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM

"or at least maim sufficiently as to take the victim out of effective combat"

The purpose of combat--and the ONLY purpose of combat, IMO--is to cause the enemy as much damage as possible. I have always thought it best to wound as opposed to kill, because it then takes a few people to carry the casualty from the field. However, I know that's not nice. But then neither is war.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM

Peace, that's why they don't release 'prisoners of war' - by definition combatants - until it's finished: which is causing some hassles both in the Middle East and with Bush's Fantasy...

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:13 AM

The implication from a poster above was that DU is relatively benign stuff. (Brucie)

No, it wasn't. You did not react to what was actually said.

able to find detectable levels of depleted uranium in the urine of both soldiers and residents

Have you any idea what "detectable levels" are with modern methods?

You're out of your league in this discussion, Peace.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:20 PM

Peace,

"The purpose of combat--and the ONLY purpose of combat, IMO--is to cause the enemy as much damage as possible."

The purpose of combt, and war in general, is to force your enemy to do what you want them to do. If you do so more effectively than the other side, you win.

IMO, but witth refernce to most authorities on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM

So might makes right, does it? If that's the case, then I guess anything is permissible. Anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:53 PM

Dear BB,

Go follow someone else around.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:56 PM

PS,

I am versed in Clausewitz, and your remark is sophistry disguised as scholarship. Be as pedantic as you want, but the purpose of war is to bring destruction to your enemy. Now, kindly fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:59 PM

CarolC,

I did not notice any reference to right or wrong. Or do you think Peace was saying that " Destruction makes right?"

If you define war as "right".


When there is no negative reaction to an action, then that action is permissible. NOT maral, but permissible






"What's moral is what I feel good after: What's immoral is what I feel bad after." (F Scott Fitzgerald)

Civilization is measured by how long the time "after" is considered.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:08 PM

According to the stated philosophy (and rules) about war used by most Western countries, including the US, the purpose of war is, and is to be, defensive only. And only those tactics that support a defensive posture are permitted. This definition is very different in its fundamentals from some of the definitions given in previous posts in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

Very well, CarolC.

The purpose of combat, and war in general, is to keep your enemy from forcing you to do what they want you to do. If you do so more effectively than the other side, you win.


Better?

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:20 PM

Yes, that looks about right.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:30 PM

So, in the case of, say. Iraq, the coalition is "right" in opposing the insurectionists trying to get them to leave, rather than "right" in trying to get the insurectionists to stop killing civilians? ( defensive as opposed to offensive)

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:42 PM

The US is not defending it's borders nor its sovereignty by having its troops in Iraq. Iraq is an illegal war by all Western standards and treaties.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:49 PM

We have had this discussion before- and I agree that we disagree about the war.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:36 PM

"The purpose of combat, and war in general, is to force your enemy to do what you want them to do."

War is a process of economic attrition. The result of the attrition is that the side suffering the most attrition eventually gives in and does what the other side wants. One variable often not given sufficient weight is the morale of the other side. As the Battles of Britain & Germany (Bomber Harris' "Bomb the crap out of Germany") and Stalingrad testify, the side that blinks first loses.

And as was proved by Bomber Harris' failure, no war has ever been won by 'bombing the crap out of them' - it can only be won by boots on the ground, for as long as you keep the boots there. People left to the 'freedom' of their own devices (Freedom for Irag! Ha!) will tend to do just as they damn well please, as Ireland shows...

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:08 PM

Peace (Someone versed in Clausewitz)

What he (Clausewitz) actually said was that:

"War is the continuation of policy by other means"

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:16 PM

I said versed, not that I had it memorized, as in read "On War" a few times.

"war is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means."

That is likely more accurate, but then you know that. Here's a good link for you:


Have a good read.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:44 PM

As translated by someone other than the good Baron, one assumes.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM

. . . but of course.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:14 AM

Foulestroupe you quoted some 'common' wisdom when you wrote:

And as was proved by Bomber Harris' failure, no war has ever been won by 'bombing the crap out of them' - it can only be won by boots on the ground, for as long as you keep the boots there. ...

I submit that relatively recently this was disproved by President Clinton's bombing campaign against Serbia in which he indeed made them submit to his will and the will of NATO. No boots on the ground and relatively well occupied since.

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:21 AM

Ah! for every generalisation, there are always exceptions! But there were obviously other reasons why Serbia crumbled.

Don't ask me 'what other reasons'! I'm no expert, just a cynic about generalisations and 'exceptions to them'. Every time I hear someone trumpeting about 'this exception disproves the generalisation', I like to wait for a bit of time and more history to pass by when we discover what those 'other reasons' that cause the exception.

robomatic - "one swallow does not make a Spring!" - Monica found that one out...

Subject: RE: BS: depleted uranium
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:29 AM

Ooop! - hit return.

I won;t get to hear about what the 'real reasons' were for 30-50 years, and I expect I won't be around by then!

For years after WWII, we had the bullshit about how Monty trashed Rommel 'cause the British are better warriors'! Crap - Kept 'Top Secret' was the fact that Monty was being fed decrypts of the German signals, and also that he captured Rommel's local top man on the ground doing decrypt for him.

As I said - 'other reasons' - not the BS fed us gullible little nobodies!!!