Mike Lorrey wrote
<The problem is that, in military tradition, seeking to die in battle is
generally foolish and cowardly. The 'heroes' who die with little
military gain but a battle cry are a waste of resources that could be
spent training someone who uses themselves in ways to benefit victory.
If such lived instead, they would generally be court martialed for the
stupid acts that kill them.>
Seeking to die in battle *for no effect* is generally foolish.
It's not cowardly however. If I storm the bayonet line holding
the regiment's colors and die on the spot from massed fire to
my person, and thus my fellows' stage an attack to retrieve the
colors of the unit (overcoming their cowardice)...and I hoped
this would happen when I staged the one man charge...was I
a coward? What if I attempt to goad the enemy into responding
in a way that my general needs them too?
Isn't this much like what happened on 9-11?
<Furthermore, it is indeed cowardly to shoot or otherwise kill unarmed
civilians. Dying in the act of doing so is doubly cowardly, since one
thereby avoids facing the consequences of their actions (i.e. the war
crimes trials).>
Stuff and nonsense. It's not "cowardly". It's certainly *dishonourable*,
and possibly foolish. You have to remember war is ultimately a game
with no rules.. and the terrorist organizations EXPLICITELY stated
what rules they were playing under. It's our misfortune to have become
entagled in tribalist politics in their home region and thus engendered
their
ire. And war crimes trials are as despicable a concept as has ever
been invented. Substitute "trial by victor"... half of Europe's civilization
arose from the notion of chivalry...that you didn't just casually off
people you just beat on a battlefield, or conduct "show trials"...
<Flicking a switch to launch a cruise missile against a bunch of foaming
at the mouth fanatics only proves the point that 'discretion is the
better part of valor'.>
Cut out that character assasination crap if you want to be listened
too guy!
< When fighting an enemy, you don't let him decide
on the ground and means by which you fight. You pick the time, the
ground, and the means, you do it to him first and hard. Study up on your
Sun Tsu.>
No YOU study up on Sun Zi! By declining to pair off with the
US/Israel Axis in a battle of fighter planes or cruise missiles or
massed infantry the terrorists DIDN'T "let us decide the grounds
and means by which we fight". Have you got some major
cognitive dissonance going on guy? 9-11 may be dishonourable,
it may be despicable, but it was NOT cowardly, and it was
Tactically Brilliant (it remains to be seen whether it's strategic
brilliance will approach it's tactical merits).
It's sad that American's don't read more Sun Zi. If we knew
our enemies and knew ourselves we could often avoid fighting all
together. As it is I will be patching and treating the soldiers of
Tel Aviv's War here in the States for years. And I sorrow
at the damage that will be done to the flower of America,
laid on the horrible "neccessity" of Zion's hate.
This is what happens when you don't choose your "friends"
carefully.
feel free to continue in the military theory vein,
brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT