The debate "Anyone wants to debate me anything related to military . Debate me" was started by
March 19, 2018, 7:49 am.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
MajorGeneralX posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, ChangeMyMind posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
MajorGeneralX, Nemiroff, Muneej, brontoraptor and 7 visitors agree.
ChangeMyMind and 3 visitors disagree.
MacArthur wanted to use nukes. he was the military man in charge. it was only civilian oversight which prevented them being used. and if they had been used it would have triggered WW 3.
As a matter of fact, the US military will always want to use diplomacy; it won't always be the way that can be taken though. Situation dictates.
were the Chinese ready for diplomatic solution? The Chinese crossed the Yalu river into Korea in thousands and attacked UN positions through man power. UN and US troops were massacered. The Chinese werernt ready for peace either which provoked Mac Arthur to say 'Nuke China'.
Now, Nuking of Chinese was not possible because-
The US wasnt ruled by a dictator or a military person like McArthur himself. although now it is.
and MacArthur saw Chinese cities he wanted to level with nuclear weapons. clearly military men do not always want to use diplomacy.
You must base this "training" off books and movies. Did you know service members receive classes on diplomacy, international relations, history of foreign countries, foreign languages, de-escalation (sc?) of force, do's and don't's of being on foreign soil, among many others? And oh, these classes are mandatory. Did you know, that military forces have spent an equal amount of time performing disaster relief operations as they have "hammering?"
Unfortunately, there's no blockbuster potential for the counterintelligence Marine unit who found the drugs in Guatemala using only computers and not a single bullet was fired; HBO shall not pick up a 7 part miniseries following the naval force which reconstructed schools and churches in Haiti; and as if it wasn't enough, CNN will not dedicate any more than the running captions about the Air force squadron working hand in hand with NASA to develop space exploration aircraft.
You see a hammer sir (ma'am?), but I see a level.
these are men who have trained their entire lives to perform a very specific purpose. how is it a generalisation to assume that a man would do the thing he is trained to do? that is what the training is supposed to accomplish.
Wow. There's a huge disregard for the human factor for "military men" on your behalf. Do you actually belief that everyone who serves in the military is so similar in character that they would arrive to "hammering" as the outcome/solution to every situation?
This goes beyond an oversimplification of what the military does. If you knew anything, you'd understand that hammering is always the last resort. Perhaps you can build up a little more, perhaps I may have misunderstood you (I hope).
military men are, metaphorically speaking, hammers. if you send in a hammer they are going to see the problem as a nail. they will do what they do best.
in the large majority of cases, the best option is not to go to shooting things. diplomacy is usually the best option. if a general starts blowing up civilians that is alot harder.
an excellent example is MacArthur wanting to use nuclear weapons on China during the Korean war.
Tell me more historybuff...
personally, I'd say putting decisions of life and death in the hands of unelected generals with no oversight is a stupendously bad idea. there is a reason why militaries need civilian oversight.
I invite you to point me to a period in time in which humanity was not at war. War will never end. That's a sad crude reality.
I'm the time being, I believe ROEs should be imposed by generals and not politicians, AT the discretion of generals without the input of politicians. But this may be an equally irrational wish as the abolishment of war.
your looking at this from the perspective of the battle, and your not wrong. thinking like you will increase our chances of winning the battle, and suffering less casualties... but you will end up with an endless war you will never win... and many more casualties.
as proof, I use all of combat history since ww2.
I can deduct from your statements that you have never been in such situation. Unfortunately, war is very complex, and there are many more factors than fire at will, or hold fire. The human factor alone would change your mind. If I pinned you in a house with 4 people, your point of view would be different, I promise you.
You would have to take into account your survival, and those around you. There is no greater challenge for a human being than that to survive while respecting the rules WHILE those who are trying to cause you harm do not respect the rules.
If you can manage to put yourself in that situation, then you can understand why rules of engagement are tricky. I wish it was as simple as being a decent human and having respect for life; but war brings with it a fog that no book, nor class can prepare you for.
in my hypothetical situation (idk the actual reason why, but for fun), knowing full well there may be innocent decoys amongst the group, fire at will?
There are consequences to such actions that have nothing to do with any agreements. in an unconventional war, there may be good reason to hold fire, unless you want to lose or go full brutal, and even then...
I could not agree more on that rule being stupid! (I just think we might find it stupid for different reasons) But I didn't make it up. This was a reality back in 2011. And it's a reality during the progression of any war. America plays by the rules, and has cost its service members their lives.
So, should ROEs be something both sides agree upon? If so, your wish comes true Nemeriff and nobody would shoot... We do not live in a Utopia unfortunately.
I'm guessing the enemy was using non combatants as decoys, possibly against their will. it does make sense but they should include exceptions for conventional conflict.
that's a stupid rule if both parties follow the rules neither can shoot first!
I'm not a big defender of war but the rules of war shouldn't stop the possibility of war, just define it.
It is 100 times better to be in compliance with the GC even if the enemy does not. But, ROEs can change all the while complying with international law of war.
Moral dilemma: In 2011, American forces had to different ROEs for Afghanistan. One portion of the year, any combatant with a weapon could be engaged against. The other, Americans had to wait until the combatants fired first to engage. Many Americans lost their lives on the latter.
do you guys think that following the convention is a negative? Even in light of the enemy not doing so, I think it's more advantageous to do so.
All the 196 countries signed the GC ( Geneva Conventions) but it doesnt mean they follow necessarily to be honest. Although they were nations that didnt follow it like Iraq during the Gulf war and DPRK during Korean War .
But as per the GC, all nations who have signed it, have to follow it and failing to follow rules would lead to expulsion and hence negative image of a country gets formed.
No country , therefore tries to disobey the GC except for terrorists who arent nation states. Terrorists are not nations. Terrorists use people as human shields to bypass ROes because they simply dont care about what harsh implications it might have on them.
However , some terrorists, like PKK ( Kurds) do follow certain humanitarian rules to get sympathy and support for their cause.
Oh man, this app is fun!!!!!! Let's talk about your point of view on rules of engagement, from the point of view of our military vs. the point of view of a civilian:
1.) America respects the Geneva convention, but other nations don't have to
2.) Terrorist organizations have used "innocent" civilian to bypass ROEs
to be honest i do agree with you. The guerilla tactics used by poorly trained AK 47 weilding farmers of Vietnam did manage to keep a Super power like the US at a bay. Although it America called out the war herself.
Guerilla tactics costs low and dont require high end technological equipments but reqire tactics.
A better way to understand guerilla tactics is to watch a movie called 'Rambo : First blood 1982' staring Slyvester Stallone as the lead actor. In that movie , he poses as a US war veteran who somehow got into an argument with the local cops. He would take out the cops one after the other trough guerilla tactics. He was one and there were many policemen.
Although that was a movie but had some nice illustrations of guerilla warfare.
guerilla warfare is a valid tactic, and if a hostile, dictatorial power were to invade and dominate our nation, destroying our conventional military, it would be our duty to resist in any way we can (short of targeting civilians). guerilla warfare is no less repulsive than conventional military shelling from a distance.