|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 27, 2011 5:44:42 GMT -5
There is no counterinsurgency done on Libyan ground, which is usually considered the most traumatic form of military deployment, on account of the constant need for alertness and unexpectedness of attacks, while operating in an environment similar to home, and the inability to distinguish civilians from enemy combatants. Combat pilots fly their sortie, and then return to a secure base. Air combat and bombardment are highly impersonal. I'd say that the traumatic potential is low, to say the least. Especially if you compare it to the enemy grunt on the ground who is suffering helplessly through the rain of steel and fire coming from above NATO is training rebel Libyan troops. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say it's not a traumatic experience. Which leaves us special forces as the only ones are engaging in ground combat. Still, if you were saying that you (exclusively) pity the spec-op soldier for the trauma he suffers while assaulting and killing enemy soldiers, I would laugh at you. Bottom line, you're gonna be able to count the NATO soldiers suffering PTSD from the LCW on one hand. On the other hand, there have been 15000 dead Libyans as of June. Shall I try to appraise the number of PTSD cases? Fighters, soldiers, paramedics, civilians(!), we're gonna need a few more hands resp. digits for that. And a last bit about the nonhuman resources: while NATO is spending money and ammunition, it's also housing and infrastructure being destroyed in Libya. Before I cry for one NATO soldier, I would have to cry a lot more for the Libyan people(s). NATO is employing human resources in Libya. However, these assets are at a rather low risk of loss (average-to-low probability of loss, low quantity). The term 'blood' implies loss or expectation of loss (and a lot of pathos on top of it). 'Manpower' would be more appropriate. (This applies to NATO as a whole, not necessarily to an individual soldier) *blink blink* so its about numbers for you? How many mental health casualties does it take before you consider these combatants worthy of your compassion? Whenever someone makes this 'argument', I am reminded of Stalin's famous statement to the effect that people care less when more people die. That line struck me as particularly obscene because it's the opposite of what is moral- it's worse when lots of people die than when only a few die. In other words, clearly this is about numbers. It is worse when many people die than when only a few die. It is far worse for a bunch of kids and civilians to be killed by a crazy dictator than for a couple of pilots to get PTSD. I'd say that mental illness becomes a problem when a large number get it. I think you can turn it into a formula; if we deem 100 people killed to be of serious importance, then 1,000 with PTSD is of equal importance. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 27, 2011 7:12:22 GMT -5
*blink blink* so its about numbers for you? How many mental health casualties does it take before you consider these combatants worthy of your compassion? I don't consider them unworthy of my compassion. I, however, consider them less worthy of my compassion than the Libyan civilians - Hundreds of traumas as opposed to thousands of deaths plus myriads of heavier traumas. Also, what ltfred said. To answer your point, I support/supported the intervention because it prevented a genocide. An insurrection alone may not necessarily demand an intervention, be it neutral or for one side. However, when the HoS makes 'Kill-em-all' rhetorics, is widely considered a total nutjob and seems to follow his word, then damn straight should there be an intervention. The international community has watched too many times when a dictator slaughtered his own population. In Libya, for one time, they did the right thing. The war crimes perpetrated by the rebels need to be investigated and justice be dealt. The NATO should not get too intimate with the rebels. Hindsight's 20/20. But the intervention was, and still is, the better alternative to doing nothing. And yes, the situation in Syria is similar, and similar conclusions apply. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 7:25:51 GMT -5
*blink blink* so its about numbers for you? How many mental health casualties does it take before you consider these combatants worthy of your compassion? Whenever someone makes this 'argument', I am reminded of Stalin's famous statement to the effect that people care less when more people die. That line struck me as particularly obscene because it's the opposite of what is moral- it's worse when lots of people die than when only a few die. In other words, clearly this is about numbers. It is worse when many people die than when only a few die. It is far worse for a bunch of kids and civilians to be killed by a crazy dictator than for a couple of pilots to get PTSD. I'd say that mental illness becomes a problem when a large number get it. I think you can turn it into a formula; if we deem 100 people killed to be of serious importance, then 1,000 with PTSD is of equal importance. Uh huh. Alternatively, you don't have to look at it as a zero sum game. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 7:28:36 GMT -5
*blink blink* so its about numbers for you? How many mental health casualties does it take before you consider these combatants worthy of your compassion? I don't consider them unworthy of my compassion. I, however, consider them less worthy of my compassion than the Libyan civilians - Hundreds of traumas as opposed to thousands of deaths plus myriads of heavier traumas. Also, what ltfred said. To answer your point, I support/supported the intervention because it prevented a genocide. An insurrection alone may not necessarily demand an intervention, be it neutral or for one side. However, when the HoS makes 'Kill-em-all' rhetorics, is widely considered a total nutjob and seems to follow his word, then damn straight should there be an intervention. The international community has watched too many times when a dictator slaughtered his own population. In Libya, for one time, they did the right thing. The war crimes perpetrated by the rebels need to be investigated and justice be dealt. The NATO should not get too intimate with the rebels. Hindsight's 20/20. But the intervention was, and still is, the better alternative to doing nothing. And yes, the situation in Syria is similar, and similar conclusions apply. Which leads me to the second question I always ask in this discussion... if its ok to militarily intervene in Syria and Libia to "stop a genocide" or for other humanitarian reasons, why aren't you demanding that we get involved other places, where arguably worse attrocities are occuring? Sudan, China, Cote de Ivoire, off the top of my head? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 27, 2011 7:43:39 GMT -5
"We" should have intervened in Sudan in the past, but right now it's comparatively peaceful there. The UN, especially France did intervene in Cote d'Ivoire. "We" should indeed intervene in Somalia.
Your mention of China demands a longer answer, and I have to leave right now. I will modify this post in the evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 27, 2011 14:04:35 GMT -5
Context. Learn to use it if you want people to understand you. When you fail at including context to say what you mean, then the fault lies with you, not with the person who responded to your statement exactly how it was stated. I don't actually have a problem with what you're saying (in fact, with context, you actually bring up a good point) but when you talk down to someone for something that was your fault, then we have a problem. EDIT: Also, Modify Post, learn to use it instead of spamming up the thread. "blood and treasure" is a perfectly appropriate phrase in this context, and its meanings are generally understood. Human cost was my meaning. If you think I bring up a good point, maybe it would be more constructive for all concerned if we discussed that, rather than getting into yet another waaahmbulance calling context over who said what and how they said one thing and really meant another and blah blah blah when its all utterly irrelevent to the actual issue? Whaddya say? Or how about we work on improving your attitude? I think that's a worthwhile pursuit. THEN we can debate. See, when I think of "blood and treasure" being spent on a war, I generally think of "lives and money". And when I think of lives being spent on a war, or as you put it "human cost", I think of deaths. So, please, explain to me what exactly in your post was about psychological casualties. Within the context of your original post, point to any word that indicates that "blood" means "psychological casualities". Any word. In the original post. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 27, 2011 16:03:35 GMT -5
Okay, I lied. I'm posting anew. I think a intervention(hereby defined as measures ranging from a strongly worded letter from the UNO, to embargoes, to military action) is in order if: - a significant part of the population is unwilling to stay under the rule of the current government, which doesn't want to let them go and - these people feel strongly enough about that to take on arms - government troops or militias start attacking these people - another significant part of the population starts attacking these people Point 3 and 4 usually provoke 1 and 2. I'm trying to define my requirements as best as I can, but in case someone manages to bring up a counterexample, I reserve the right to amend that definition. A intervention should aim to keep the two fractions apart and prepare a separation of the country, where those loyal to the government live in a downsized version of the old country and those who want to are able to declare independence. (If the two factions aren't separated along geographical lines, the matter gets hairy.) Practically, this means making them stop shooting and get them on the negotiation table. This doesn't need to be a military intervention, but let's be realistic, a dictator who starts committing genocide isn't going to care much about UN resolutions and most embargoes. It's a question of what's likely to work. Darfur/South Sudan: The international community should have intervened, in an efficient way. Cote d'Ivoire: An intervention happened by UN and France, rightfully so. Syria: The Syrian people should be protected from Assad's goons. Assad is smarter than Ghaddafi and didn't have his rhetorics, but I think we've reached the point where a military intervention would be appropriate. Turkey should get involved in Syria instead of bombing Kurds in Iraq. And on that point: Turkey: Leave the Kurds alone! Maybe they can be convinced through the EU membership talks(if they still want to. Maybe not). Libya: An intervention happened. Tibet: 'Only' cultural genocide for the most part, so military intervention may be excessive, and given we're talking about China, suicidal. Maybe embargos could work. Yeah, unless you can show me that they would somehow worsen the Tibetan situation, I support an embargo against China. Oh, and South Ossetia: Shows that NATO isn't the only one who can launch a military intervention. Edit: If you think I bring up a good point, maybe it would be more constructive for all concerned if we discussed that, rather than getting into yet another waaahmbulance calling context over who said what and how they said one thing and really meant another and blah blah blah when its all utterly irrelevent to the actual issue? Whaddya say? Or how about we work on improving your attitude? I think that's a worthwhile pursuit. THEN we can debate. LHM: Protesting against people missing your point and latching onto an issue of word choice? Legitimate. 'Waaahmbulance blah blah blah'? Not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 27, 2011 16:17:36 GMT -5
I love it when you focus on the tiny minutiae of someone's turn of phrase while refusing to address the actual issue at hand. Again... who the fuck is Mahmoud Jibril and why are we spending so much of our TIME and ENERGY (happy?) making him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? (Let me guess... now we have to have a semantic pissing contest over what constitutes "powerful"? Or "man" perhaps?) Context. Learn to use it if you want people to understand you. The context seemed pretty clear to me. And how about instead of fucking about with semantics you argue about what he's saying. So there was a misunderstanding? Big fucking deal, it was clarified. Move on. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 27, 2011 17:42:00 GMT -5
Okay, I lied. I'm posting anew. I think a intervention(hereby defined as measures ranging from a strongly worded letter from the UNO, to embargoes, to military action) is in order if: - a significant part of the population is unwilling to stay under the rule of the current government, which doesn't want to let them go I think you can an addendum here- "and the government is non-democratic or the people in question have legitimate dispute with it." People do not have the right of secession, just democracy/non-discrimination. Or effective non-violent means. Sometimes non-violence can be more effective than violence, particularly in stable societies. Quite. Or they'll just continue the genocide, knowing that the US will continue to provide guns and veto. Just like in Iraq. Is a freak case. The Russians had a peacekeeping force in the region (to prevent the Georgians continuing to levy war against SO, because they were shit scared of the Big Northern Bear). In 2008 Georgia decided to start shit anyway and started shelling Russian troops. Guess what happened next. I think the real counter-cases are Cambodia and Congo. Congo had the bloodiest conflict since WW2 (or Second Indonchina war, if you accept the high casualty estimates for that conflict). Nobody did anything for 6 years, Western nations continued to arm and fund the conflict. Then, finally, a peace agreement was reached in 2004 and a UN force was sent in- a UN force mostly made up of poorly-paid 2nd and 3rd world soldiers. Who promptly joined in the black market. They've been manifestly unable to end the conflict. What good did that intervention do? The other counter-case is Cambodia. Obviously, the Cambodian genocide killed millions of people needlessly. Vietnam, pissed off at the Khmer violation of their territorial integrity (not to mention murder of Vietnamese citizens) sent in tanks, infantry and artillery, who promptly crushed the evil, murderous regieme. That massive, sweeping victory annoyed virtually the entire world community- China invaded Vietnam, supported by the US. The US and Britain helped Khmer Rouge terrorists in Thailand restart a civil war*. And no country, not one, sent even the tinies bit of aid to the multi-millions of starving children. So that's an effective intervention defeated by world opinion. *Which ended in the 1990s, after an Australian-negotiated ceasefire. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 18:16:05 GMT -5
"blood and treasure" is a perfectly appropriate phrase in this context, and its meanings are generally understood. Human cost was my meaning. If you think I bring up a good point, maybe it would be more constructive for all concerned if we discussed that, rather than getting into yet another waaahmbulance calling context over who said what and how they said one thing and really meant another and blah blah blah when its all utterly irrelevent to the actual issue? Whaddya say? Or how about we work on improving your attitude? I think that's a worthwhile pursuit. THEN we can debate. See, when I think of "blood and treasure" being spent on a war, I generally think of "lives and money". And when I think of lives being spent on a war, or as you put it "human cost", I think of deaths. So, please, explain to me what exactly in your post was about psychological casualties. Within the context of your original post, point to any word that indicates that "blood" means "psychological casualities". Any word. In the original post. Um, "blood" in context, meaning "human costs" including psychiatric casualties. Why are you so much more interested in arguing semantics than addressing the actual issue I was trying to raise? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 18:17:42 GMT -5
Okay, I lied. I'm posting anew. I think a intervention(hereby defined as measures ranging from a strongly worded letter from the UNO, to embargoes, to military action) is in order if: - a significant part of the population is unwilling to stay under the rule of the current government, which doesn't want to let them go and - these people feel strongly enough about that to take on arms - government troops or militias start attacking these people - another significant part of the population starts attacking these people Point 3 and 4 usually provoke 1 and 2. I'm trying to define my requirements as best as I can, but in case someone manages to bring up a counterexample, I reserve the right to amend that definition. A intervention should aim to keep the two fractions apart and prepare a separation of the country, where those loyal to the government live in a downsized version of the old country and those who want to are able to declare independence. (If the two factions aren't separated along geographical lines, the matter gets hairy.) Practically, this means making them stop shooting and get them on the negotiation table. This doesn't need to be a military intervention, but let's be realistic, a dictator who starts committing genocide isn't going to care much about UN resolutions and most embargoes. It's a question of what's likely to work. Darfur/South Sudan: The international community should have intervened, in an efficient way. Cote d'Ivoire: An intervention happened by UN and France, rightfully so. Syria: The Syrian people should be protected from Assad's goons. Assad is smarter than Ghaddafi and didn't have his rhetorics, but I think we've reached the point where a military intervention would be appropriate. Turkey should get involved in Syria instead of bombing Kurds in Iraq. And on that point: Turkey: Leave the Kurds alone! Maybe they can be convinced through the EU membership talks(if they still want to. Maybe not). Libya: An intervention happened. Tibet: 'Only' cultural genocide for the most part, so military intervention may be excessive, and given we're talking about China, suicidal. Maybe embargos could work. Yeah, unless you can show me that they would somehow worsen the Tibetan situation, I support an embargo against China. Oh, and South Ossetia: Shows that NATO isn't the only one who can launch a military intervention. OK... so I'm a little confused... do you support Western intervention in Libya, or not? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 28, 2011 6:29:35 GMT -5
I think a intervention(hereby defined as measures ranging from a strongly worded letter from the UNO, to embargoes, to military action) is in order if: - a significant part of the population is unwilling to stay under the rule of the current government, which doesn't want to let them go I think you can an addendum here- "and the government is non-democratic or the people in question have legitimate dispute with it." People do not have the right of secession, just democracy/non-discrimination. Yes. In Congo and Cambodia, the world did the wrong thing. Too late and too ineffective in Congo. Cambodia... wow. This was a travesty. OK... so I'm a little confused... do you support Western intervention in Libya, or not? Yes. To answer your point, I support/supported the intervention because it prevented a genocide. An insurrection alone may not necessarily demand an intervention, be it neutral or for one side. However, when the HoS makes 'Kill-em-all' rhetorics, is widely considered a total nutjob and seems to follow his word, then damn straight should there be an intervention. The international community has watched too many times when a dictator slaughtered his own population. In Libya, for one time, they did the right thing. The war crimes perpetrated by the rebels need to be investigated and justice be dealt. The NATO should not get too intimate with the rebels. Hindsight's 20/20. But the intervention was, and still is, the better alternative to doing nothing. If you want to quote multiple posts, press quote, copy it, go back, quote the next one, and Ctrl-V it in next to it. |
|
