'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2013, 05:47 PM
'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
'-you defeat a country by killing more of its women and children.'

I heard a quote something along those lines. 1. does anyone know what the actual quote might be? 2. and who said it? With proper references of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
What an odd quote.

But true-ish none the less... at least it would have been kinda true a couple millennia back. A quick browse and I found a few quasi related bibal references...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 06:05 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
Knowing who said it (and what the actual quote was) might explain the quote better.

I'm thinking that it means either

1. Soldiers can always be replenished in the next generation, and so another war could be possible. If you kill women and children, you not only destroy the next generation, you also prevent the ability to create another generation. Another war would be impossible.

-or-

2. Soldiers are disposable. They're entities that signed away their lives, capable of killing and being killed with not too much protest. But if you target women and children, people who are "incapable" of even signing away their lives and killing and being killed without protest, and are around us in the center of society, people are much more resolved to end the war at any cost (doesn't matter who wins, just as long as it ends).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
Because wars are won by targeting civilians. Nobody likes to accept this because everyone likes to think of their country as not the ones who target civilians. Look at the drone strike victims, most are not alqaeda at all and most are not even affiliated with terrorists. Going into joe blows house and fucking his shit up, makes joe blows neighbors scared shitless and think twice about rising up against you. Every country employs these methods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
Wars are technically won by destroying the other side's ability and/or will to continue fighting. But there are two other achievements necessary for true, long-term victory: 1) dismantling any national myth that may have led a nation to initiate hostilities, and 2) enabling them to recover as a viable nation post-conflict.

Sure, you can temporarily defeat an opponent and cease hostilities by accomplishing the technical point, but if the victor neglects achievements 1 and 2 they'll probably end up fighting the same foe again down the line. Example: Germany was defeated after WW1, but not only did it still have an intact army that led many of them to believe they might have won if they had just hung in there a little longer, they were slammed so hard by humiliating economic penalties that the stage was set for the rise of Hitler and WW2.

WW2, however, was decisively won by accomplishing not only the technical point, but also successfully arriving at the two necessary achievements. The Allies dismantled the belligerent mythology of each Axis nation: Italy's "Roman Empire" resurgence, Germany's "Master Race" ideology, and Japan's Bushido Code/God-Emperor cult. After that, each nation was rebuilt with a viable government and eventually allowed to rejoin the world community as full-fledged members.

One might ask, which point is the most important? While I believe they are all crucial and interdependent, the myth-busting achievement might be the most critical. Why? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We technically beat them on the field and then poured time, work, and treasure into rebuilding these countries, but failed to break the myth of Islamic jihad. Until that is accomplished, the conflict will never end because they still believe jihad is a viable, albeit delayed, strategy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atheist_pilgrim's post
26-05-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
(20-05-2013 05:47 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  '-you defeat a country by killing more of its women and children.'

I heard a quote something along those lines. 1. does anyone know what the actual quote might be? 2. and who said it? With proper references of course.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
George S Patton.

Germany lost WWII because they ran out of people, supplies, will to fight. In the end they were arming 12 year olds and old men with sticks to defend Berlin against the Russians. The act of targeting civilians has usually been the aftermath. An army will fight to the end to protect their civilians. Targeting civilians just makes armies want to fight harder if they are able.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: 'You don't defeat a country by killing more of its soldiers-'
Depends on the war and the war aim.

Most wars in history were not "total wars".

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: