Pacifiers Guide to War - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Pacifier · 06-16-2003, 04:29 AM

part one: How to end a war

Yeah, i know it is quite odd to begin with the end. but like a famous German soccer trainer said "after the game is before the game". If you like to start a war you must have a plan for the time after the war, you must have a goal you wish to reach otherwise you are in danger to enter a never ending war, a war that gets out of hand.

So before you start a war you should ask yourself a couple of questions, including the one I think is pretty importand:

- Is it possible to establish a a "after war" government that is stable and provides better conditions for the people? And do we have the necessary forces to reach this goal?

Now if you look at the last 2 wars that got some international attention, and if you look at the upcoming conflict in Congo you will see that those questions weren't answered. In fact the governments were busy to make up the reasons for those wars they didn't cared for "after war".

The war in Afghanistan destroyed the Taliban, now thats good. But what now? Karsei is hardly able to rule Kabul, the situation in the outlands is chaotic at best. Even in Kabul the situation is getting worse, a couple of weeks ago 4 German soldiers were killed by a bomb. The US troops are also under attack very often. It seem that there is no real solution, the fact that the Warlords were used to defeat the Taliban strengthen them and now the situation is almost the same as before the Taliban regime.

In Iraq the governments are still busy to find reasons why this war was fought, no trace of the WMDs. The mobile Labors that were found are not able to produce WMDs (<a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html">Observer article I</a> <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,973012,00.html">Observer article II</a>) So no one seems to care what to do with post-war Iraq. The US administration Team in the Iraq is changed on some sort of regular basis. The Iraq groups that were supposed to build up a democratic leadership are completely ignored and consulted only a as some sort of advisor, if they are lucky. This has let to more aggression against the US troops resulting in a couple of attacks in which one Apache was shot down.

But I dont want to bash to US alone here, France and Germany (yes, the axis of weasels) are planning a mission to restore peace in Congo. The conflict in Congo is the most violent war since WW2 and is ignored by most other nations. But heroic as we are Germany send some troops. For what? Do we have some sort of plan? Nope, we think that sending a couple of soldiers into that region will end all violence there and will restore peace in no-time. But this is a dangerous error, the first french troops were already involved in a firefight. What we try to do here is to show that we are able to fight for peace also, but also without a real goal, without a chance to reach anything, I'm afraid.
The conflict in Congo is, just like the war in Afghanistan, is far too complicated to be solved by couple of bombs alone.

What do you think? should the world keep this "lets go to war" attitude or should we start thinking more about how to end a war before we begin it and stop this "all will turn out good" thinking.

And finally what do you think of this "checklist" for going to war:

- Are there conclusive, backed up by the UN, proofs that a nation or a government is a serious thread to global security?

- Are human rights violated in a scale that you can talk about genocide?

- Is it possible to establish a a "after war" government that is stable and provides better conditions for the people?

- Are the resources of the coalition forces sufficient to reach the specified goal?

- Is it warranted , by the UN or/and local governments, that the post-war duties are followed as hard as the war policy?

<hr>
<i>if you find any spelling errors, you can keep them

</i>

John Henry · 06-22-2003, 01:41 AM

These are good policies, pacifier, but the real problem is that humans are a bunch of mutant monkey scumbags and there will always be people who want to fuck other people up. These sort of people will always find loopholes in any rules like these, however robust the system is in theory. Bush is a prime example of this. The USA, for example, has a very good constitution on paper, but it's just a bunch of words. Bush cheated his way into power and everyone was too scared to say boo, then he completely ignored the UN and the same happened.

The problem is not with people's decision-making processes, but with their character and this can never be changed by words.

Phaenx · 06-22-2003, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Henry
These are good policies, pacifier, but the real problem is that humans are a bunch of mutant monkey scumbags and there will always be people who want to fuck other people up. These sort of people will always find loopholes in any rules like these, however robust the system is in theory. Bush is a prime example of this. The USA, for example, has a very good constitution on paper, but it's just a bunch of words. Bush cheated his way into power and everyone was too scared to say boo, then he completely ignored the UN and the same happened.

The problem is not with people's decision-making processes, but with their character and this can never be changed by words.

Haaaaaaaaaaaah!!

Cheated his way into power? Are you guys still saying that? Oh boy, is the electorial college cheating now, because the supreme court fixed this up a few years ago, stop saying boo and take their word for it.

Also, SO DID CLINTON.

The Bolshevist · 06-22-2003, 11:57 PM

Pacifier: A VERY good post. You do raise some interesting questions. Right now 1800 of Canadian boys are stomping off to Afghanistan to participate in our little tour of UN peacekeeping; here in Canada we seem to take the view that peacekeeping is Canada's gift to the world (albeit, our old PM Lester Pearson did come up with it after Suez and got the Nobel Prize for it). But look at Cyprus; they STILL can't get that sorted out. Bosnia is still a mess, Afghanistan is still a mess, and I find it hilarious that the US now expects Iraq to a) suddenly become a happy, democratic nation and b) that the UN should take over.

Uh, no dice, Mr. President. You snubbed the UN, now its time to pay the piper. You started the war, you finish the peace.

As for the Congo, isn't it interesting to note that the US isn't in there? Things that make you go hmmm...

Pacifier, I think you Germans had a good saying during the final Battle of Berlin back in WW2. "Enjoy the war, for the peace will be terrible."

Hope your boys and girls make it back to Germany in one piece.

Pax Vobiscum.

06-16-2003, 04:29 AM	#1 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	Pacifiers Guide to War part one: How to end a war Yeah, i know it is quite odd to begin with the end. but like a famous German soccer trainer said "after the game is before the game". If you like to start a war you must have a plan for the time after the war, you must have a goal you wish to reach otherwise you are in danger to enter a never ending war, a war that gets out of hand. So before you start a war you should ask yourself a couple of questions, including the one I think is pretty importand: - Is it possible to establish a a "after war" government that is stable and provides better conditions for the people? And do we have the necessary forces to reach this goal? Now if you look at the last 2 wars that got some international attention, and if you look at the upcoming conflict in Congo you will see that those questions weren't answered. In fact the governments were busy to make up the reasons for those wars they didn't cared for "after war". The war in Afghanistan destroyed the Taliban, now thats good. But what now? Karsei is hardly able to rule Kabul, the situation in the outlands is chaotic at best. Even in Kabul the situation is getting worse, a couple of weeks ago 4 German soldiers were killed by a bomb. The US troops are also under attack very often. It seem that there is no real solution, the fact that the Warlords were used to defeat the Taliban strengthen them and now the situation is almost the same as before the Taliban regime. In Iraq the governments are still busy to find reasons why this war was fought, no trace of the WMDs. The mobile Labors that were found are not able to produce WMDs (<a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html">Observer article I</a> <a href="http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,973012,00.html">Observer article II</a>) So no one seems to care what to do with post-war Iraq. The US administration Team in the Iraq is changed on some sort of regular basis. The Iraq groups that were supposed to build up a democratic leadership are completely ignored and consulted only a as some sort of advisor, if they are lucky. This has let to more aggression against the US troops resulting in a couple of attacks in which one Apache was shot down. But I dont want to bash to US alone here, France and Germany (yes, the axis of weasels) are planning a mission to restore peace in Congo. The conflict in Congo is the most violent war since WW2 and is ignored by most other nations. But heroic as we are Germany send some troops. For what? Do we have some sort of plan? Nope, we think that sending a couple of soldiers into that region will end all violence there and will restore peace in no-time. But this is a dangerous error, the first french troops were already involved in a firefight. What we try to do here is to show that we are able to fight for peace also, but also without a real goal, without a chance to reach anything, I'm afraid. The conflict in Congo is, just like the war in Afghanistan, is far too complicated to be solved by couple of bombs alone. What do you think? should the world keep this "lets go to war" attitude or should we start thinking more about how to end a war before we begin it and stop this "all will turn out good" thinking. And finally what do you think of this "checklist" for going to war: - Are there conclusive, backed up by the UN, proofs that a nation or a government is a serious thread to global security? - Are human rights violated in a scale that you can talk about genocide? - Is it possible to establish a a "after war" government that is stable and provides better conditions for the people? - Are the resources of the coalition forces sufficient to reach the specified goal? - Is it warranted , by the UN or/and local governments, that the post-war duties are followed as hard as the war policy? <hr> <i>if you find any spelling errors, you can keep them </i> __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein Last edited by Pacifier; 06-16-2003 at 04:35 AM..

06-22-2003, 01:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	These are good policies, pacifier, but the real problem is that humans are a bunch of mutant monkey scumbags and there will always be people who want to fuck other people up. These sort of people will always find loopholes in any rules like these, however robust the system is in theory. Bush is a prime example of this. The USA, for example, has a very good constitution on paper, but it's just a bunch of words. Bush cheated his way into power and everyone was too scared to say boo, then he completely ignored the UN and the same happened. The problem is not with people's decision-making processes, but with their character and this can never be changed by words. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

06-22-2003, 11:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
The Bolshevist Insane Location: Vancouver, Canada	Pacifier: A VERY good post. You do raise some interesting questions. Right now 1800 of Canadian boys are stomping off to Afghanistan to participate in our little tour of UN peacekeeping; here in Canada we seem to take the view that peacekeeping is Canada's gift to the world (albeit, our old PM Lester Pearson did come up with it after Suez and got the Nobel Prize for it). But look at Cyprus; they STILL can't get that sorted out. Bosnia is still a mess, Afghanistan is still a mess, and I find it hilarious that the US now expects Iraq to a) suddenly become a happy, democratic nation and b) that the UN should take over. Uh, no dice, Mr. President. You snubbed the UN, now its time to pay the piper. You started the war, you finish the peace. As for the Congo, isn't it interesting to note that the US isn't in there? Things that make you go hmmm... Pacifier, I think you Germans had a good saying during the final Battle of Berlin back in WW2. "Enjoy the war, for the peace will be terrible." Hope your boys and girls make it back to Germany in one piece. Pax Vobiscum. __________________ Workers of the world, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your silly uniforms and paper hats!!