TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[LMNO]

So, uh... explain to my why I have to kill any of them?

So far, I don't see it.

[Triple Zero]

Actually, the strategic advance of the now is working towards mass wounding of enemies forces as a way to fight wars.

Think about it.

You have to pay a lot more to look after a trooper than a corpse.

ah check.

now i understand it, RP said in the puppy thread that some soldiers were trying to put a dog out of its misery, but found out that their guns were only good for wounding, not killing.

[Random Probability]

So, uh... explain to my why I have to kill any of them?

So far, I don't see it.

Ah.  I see where you're coming from, now.

[Chairman Risus]

You will never really have to kill anyone in this day and age, but there probably are some people that are better off dead, on both sides of the spectrum.

[hooplala]

Some people SHOULD die . . . that's just unconscious knowledge.

[Verbal Mike]

Killing terrorists is horribly ineffective. It makes it much easier for the recruiters behind them to replace them.
"Never give your enemy a martyr" - isn't that basic strategic doctrine or something? And yet it seem the War on Terror operates by always making sure to ignore that maxim.

[Pope Lecherous]

So, uh... explain to my why I have to kill any of them?

So far, I don't see it.

The guy with the knife that really wants your shoes followed you into an alley with a dead end.  You tried to run from him so you didnt have to kill him, but now you have nowhere left to run and you are facing him.  You or him? Who will die?  If you have to make a choice you're attributing a higher value to one person's life, Your own life or his life.

People's lives have different levels of value, that is a given.  When i was talking to PNN in our PMs i was hoping a value would come out.  Living for the sake of life is pointless.  Having a mission, goal, or anything... any value makes life worth living.  Whether your mission is getting to heaven or protecting others.

I put myself in a position where i have to kill them, because it is my duty #1 and because they are coming at me and my people or important things that should not get blown up.  I'm fine with it and I can justify killing people in that situation on those clauses alone.  I don't need to say they are sub-human to be okay with killing them.  They are upstanding people in their nations fighting for just causes-maybe...

[Pope Lecherous]

Killing terrorists is horribly ineffective. It makes it much easier for the recruiters behind them to replace them.
"Never give your enemy a martyr" - isn't that basic strategic doctrine or something? And yet it seem the War on Terror operates by always making sure to ignore that maxim.

That's like saying it's pointless to engage a foreign military because more soldiers will enlist, or that each military will keep recruiting.  The terrorists, extremists, insurgents or whatever label just have a more appealing righteous/religious sales pitch to enlist its fighters. 

You are right though about not creating martyrs, but everyone that dies thinks he is sacrificing himself for the greater good so that cannot be avoided.  Each individual fighter on each side may be dying for a worthy cause, but that is a matter of grids.

[Payne]

One of the major problems that the western powers face in the middle east is a complete ignorance of the history of our foreign policies.

Our cack-handed treatment of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire has engendered deep distrust in our abilities to actually DO any good for the muslim world.

This has led to extremism.

Our cack-handed treatment of the extremists has engendered hatred.

And so forth.

This isn't about "Grids" this is about trying to create some kind of dialogue, something that is notoriously hard to do down the barrel of a gun.

The last 20 years have dug us ever deeper into ideological trenches, and the more we try to do our talking with the military, the greater that problem is going to get.

This isn't about it being pointless killing "terrorists" (I refuse to label Muslim Extremists as terrorists), it's about the western powers realising that the old imperialist style foreign policies will NOT work in the middle east.

[Mourning Star]

it's about the western powers realising that the old imperialist style foreign policies will NOT work in the middle east.

Hear hear!

[Pope Lecherous]

One of the major problems that the western powers face in the middle east is a complete ignorance of the history of our foreign policies. Our cack-handed treatment of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire has engendered deep distrust in our abilities to actually DO any good for the muslim world. This has led to extremism. Our cack-handed treatment of the extremists has engendered hatred. And so forth.

This isn't about "Grids" this is about trying to create some kind of dialogue, something that is notoriously hard to do down the barrel of a gun.  The last 20 years have dug us ever deeper into ideological trenches, and the more we try to do our talking with the military, the greater that problem is going to get.

This isn't about it being pointless killing "terrorists" (I refuse to label Muslim Extremists as terrorists), it's about the western powers realising that the old imperialist style foreign policies will NOT work in the middle east.

You are absolutely right when you say it's not about "grids." It was about bridging these very different realities/grids together through Diplomacy and Talks and Treaties.  Diplomacy had failed, however, because as you mentioned the groups we have been trying to negotiate with have entrenched themselves far deep into their positions with their egos and cultural identity and religious views.  When it was made a White Man VS. Muslim/Islam thing of course they could never back down, because the leaders on their side of the table made themselves the victim and they had been.  That's the moment when diplomacy was doomed for the time being.  Each side had to save face and those White VS. Brown hostilities became the issue, instead of the real issues at hand... like, avoiding war.  

With diplomacy "exhausted" the military was the only answer the negotiators saw left.  It was their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, because negotiations could not make any progress when the underlying SAVE FACE MODE came on.  'Don't let the White man fuck our people over'  and, ' We can't let the dirty so-and-so's get away with this'  That type of conflict can never be resolved through negotiation because the goal of a negotiation is for both sides to reach agreement that is mutually beneficial... like not having a war and being able to trade openly.

No NO.  Conceding in a negotiation where racial/theological pride is at stake IS defeat, so losing with these stakes was unthinkable.  There had to be a victor and there can only be a victor in war.

FIGHT, FLIGHT, SUBMIT, or POSTURE. These are the possible reactions to a conflict.  Each side fanned out their feathers and puffed up their chests during the talks, thus introducing the ego and pride.  With pride in the game submission was therefore ruled out and FLIGHT was never a fucking choice, cuz running from the problem would never resolve it.  War is the only thing that remained and these fuckers caused it because of shitty negotiating skills and PRIDE.

[Nast]

gotta agree with that, PNN, quoting PMs without permission is kinda bad form.

i'd rather have had that PL dug the "not quite Human" hole here publicly so we could all make fun of him for it.

In hindsight, I agree. I was being pissy the day that I posted that (I had a bunch of medical tests, and was stressed), and at the time I didn't realize what I was doing was underhanded.

So, I apologize for taking things where they shouldn't and abusing trust. I won't do it again in the future.

[Payne]

You are absolutely right when you say it's not about "grids." It was about bridging these very different realities/grids together through Diplomacy and Talks and Treaties.  Diplomacy had failed, however, because as you mentioned the groups we have been trying to negotiate with have entrenched themselves far deep into their positions with their egos and cultural identity and religious views.  When it was made a White Man VS. Muslim/Islam thing of course they could never back down, because the leaders on their side of the table made themselves the victim and they had been.  That's the moment when diplomacy was doomed for the time being.  Each side had to save face and those White VS. Brown hostilities became the issue, instead of the real issues at hand... like, avoiding war.

It has NEVER been about bridging gaps. It has been about political capital and expediency at home and, in the light of first the cold war, then the reconsolidation afterwards, in international relations.

Diplomacy never took place. We have treated the middle east as a defeated enemy since the end of WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Diplomacy has never taken place in the middle east and never will so long as all that lovely oil and trade routes and (militarily) strategically important land is there.

It's not about race or history or ideology for us, it's about money and power. For them it's self defense of  culture; their own money and their own power. Let us not forget that Islamic countries, particularly in that area, have a long and proud tradition of wealth, prestige, knowledge and military might. Why should they NOT want to protect that?

With diplomacy "exhausted" the military was the only answer the negotiators saw left.  It was their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, because negotiations could not make any progress when the underlying SAVE FACE MODE came on.  'Don't let the White man fuck our people over'  and, ' We can't let the dirty so-and-so's get away with this'  That type of conflict can never be resolved through negotiation because the goal of a negotiation is for both sides to reach agreement that is mutually beneficial... like not having a war and being able to trade openly.

I don't recall any middle eastern nation declaring war on "the white man" or any western government. Sure they don't like us, but they're ALLOWED to not like us, and they have good reason too.

Ostensibly war was forced on them because of the actions (apparently) of an Ex-Pat Saud, living in Afghanistan. Who acted as he did because American (and British) foreign policies have denigrated his culture for decades. While many Muslims, let alone Westerners, cannot agree with his interpretation of his Gods word, he has some sympathy if only because he took the fight to the Great Satan itself. This says more about us than it does Islam.

What I can see looking at the recent history of the area is that war was forced on the middle east because  it is expedient for us to do so (see above). You know the phrase "Once bitten, twice shy"? Try living in an area that gets mauled every 10 years or so.

No NO.  Conceding in a negotiation where racial/theological pride is at stake IS defeat, so losing with these stakes was unthinkable.  There had to be a victor and there can only be a victor in war.

FIGHT, FLIGHT, SUBMIT, or POSTURE. These are the possible reactions to a conflict.  Each side fanned out their feathers and puffed up their chests during the talks, thus introducing the ego and pride.  With pride in the game submission was therefore ruled out and FLIGHT was never a fucking choice, cuz running from the problem would never resolve it.  War is the only thing that remained and these fuckers caused it because of shitty negotiating skills and PRIDE.

There had to be a PROFIT. Not a victor. Not neccesarily monetary profit, political or military capital would do nicely too.

I saw little posturing in the run up to war in the Middle East. All I saw was political manuvering to make the inevitable military invasion less of a jagged, bitter, pill to swallow. A military timetable was aleady in place before ANY resolution was put in place by the U.N. prior to the Iraq war.

Flight was never an option for the Western Powers because of that timetable, and because of the political capital expended terrorising the populations of our respective countries, and flight was never an option for the Iraqis or any other Middle Easterners because they knew their lands were about to be invaded,

War was the only option that remained on the table because that was the only option that our administrations thought was there, same as it ever was, same as it will ever be.

One day, someone may actually try negotiating with the Middle Easterners, in a fair and balanced manner, and with full awareness of the effect the history of our foreign policies has had on the region. Some day we may begin to realise that war in that region, either home grown, or brought there by us, will never resolve ANYthing (this is a lesson we should have learned scores of times over since the Crusades). And until we realise this, we are doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over and over.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Thing is - it's not a mistake. War is our natural way of behaving. Doesn't matter what the circumstances we'll find a reason to go to war over it. This problem will nevar be solved so instead of trying to work out why, why don't you just turn on cnn and enjoy it. There's people dying out there ffs

[LMNO]

So, uh... explain to my why I have to kill any of them?

So far, I don't see it.

The guy with the knife that really wants your shoes followed you into an alley with a dead end.  You tried to run from him so you didnt have to kill him, but now you have nowhere left to run and you are facing him.  You or him? Who will die? 

For fuck's sake, man... they're shoes.  I've got 8 more pairs at home.  If he wants them so badly, he can have them.