Hear me out...

[tombogan03884]

 The casting of military foes as evil is a needed mind game for most troops, it's a lot easier to shoot "an evil Nazi" than it is "some poor shmuck that got drafted just like me " (WWII troops were a far higher percentage of draftee's than in Vietnam )
It's far easier to shoot an "evil Taliban" than it is to shoot "some Afghan hillbilly who was looking for an adventure"
The result in both cases is the same, if you hesitate to shoot him, he will kill you.
Very few modern Americans have the mindset to kill people just because the Government decided that troops of X country need the crap shot out of them.

[JdePietro]

But we should not, we should not needlessly and recklessly run into moral abandanment. We should not engage in evil if evil is not necessary to the survival of life or at the very least the way of. If congress or society must make his fellow man look like the boogey to attack under the false flag fo danger the situation should be reassesed.

[tombogan03884]

Some philosopher came up with a concept of "Just wars", this was basically the Idea the some wars are Self Defense shootings on a national scale while others are more akin to a Mafia hit.
During the 20th century the US engaged in 5 Major wars, (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf war I ) of those only 2 1/2 can be called "Just wars" WWI, WWII (in Europe ) and Vietnam were not just wars defending US territory, or vital interests abroad, they were politically motivated maneuvers aimed at gaining influence on the world political stage while under cutting our competitors. Neither Imperial or Nazi Germany posed any threat to the US, if they couldn't invade England how the devil are they going to invade US ? in 1939 / 1940 a large portion of the population, including such notable as Charles Lindbergh supported Germany and APPROVED of the Nazi regimes actions, (Google "American Bund" ) "Suffering of the Jews" ? Not likely when large numbers of Americans thought the same treatment appropriate for our own Jews and Blacks. The reason Nazi Germany had to resort to death camps was because none of the "goody 2 shoes" Democracies would accept them or allow them to emigrate to Palestine. ( from 45-49 the British waged open warfare against Jews in Palestine ) The Nazi's didn't care if the Jews lived or not as long as they were not in German Territory, when the SS Einsatz Gruppen performed mass executions of Jews in Eastern Europe the Locals watched and cheered, they willing turned in Jews for execution.
Morality and self defense played no part in our involvement, it was done so European investors would owe us
Under these circumstances it is necessary to convince your troops that the foe is evil incarnate, starting in WWI with the image of the "Hun" bayoneting babies and raping nuns, through the WWII image of Nazi world conquest, (Remember, Nazi Germany had no effective "fleet" only a few Commerce Raiders and "Pocket Battleships", the last German "Fleet action" was when they got clobbered at the 1916 battle of Jutland .Also they did not have the air power  to attack us, the German air force could not even stage effective raids against Northern or Eastern England )
Yes it was pretty much BS, but without it Wilson and Roosevelt could not have raised the troops needed to make the difference in these wars which changed America from a nation where rich Europeans invested their money into a nation that invested billions of dollars in rebuilding Europe, as a side note it is interesting to note that the money that paid for the Marshal plan was the money European Countries owed us for war material. America paid for rebuilding Europe with European money.
We are not done with the Idea of fighting wars solely to gain influence in Europe either, the reason for US involvement in Vietnam initially was because the French threatened to quit the newly formed NATO (considering their record,the fact that their intelligence agencies were thoroughly penetrated by the Soviets and the fact that when they later did drop out NATO got along quite nicely I don't know why Ike cared, but he did) When the French finally had to admit defeat a combination of the Red scare and Arrogance convinced Our Generals that we could do better and save a 3rd world shithole "for democracy" over the next dozen years they found out that you can not defeat some one who refuses to give up. The only way we could have won against the North Vietnamese would have been to exterminate every person North of the DMZ, no other action would have broken their spirit of resistance. The Politicians and the public did not have the stomach for that because the foe had not been sufficiently demonized.
The 2 1/2 "Just" wars did not have a place in making my point but for the record they were,
 The War against Japan in answer to Pearl Harbor and their flagrant attempt to drive us from the Pacific and the Asian markets was purely a self defensive war.
Korea, where we gained no markets that we did not already have but repelled an aggressive invasion of a peaceful nation
and Gulf War I, where again we did not gain but stood up for the little guy against the bully.

[fightingquaker13]

But we should not, we should not needlessly and recklessly run into moral abandanment. We should not engage in evil if evil is not necessary to the survival of life or at the very least the way of. If congress or society must make his fellow man look like the boogey to attack under the false flag fo danger the situation should be reassesed.

Jdepietro
I'm going to make an academic out of you yet! Insisting on a clear defintion of terms, terrorist=what preicisly? Not accepting that the moral ideals are negotiable? Go Team! Now that I have forever tarnished your record, I will say this. Terrorism is as stupid a word as liberal or conservative. They are positional, not substantive categories. Liberal compared to who? Ted Kennedy, Karl Marx, Harry Reid? Conservative compared to who? Pinochet, Reagan, McCain? We all fill in our own meaning, the word just denotes our opinion in a given set of circumstances.The same is true of terrorism, it has become  a word for folks we don't like. The Israelis and Palestinians accuse each other of this all the time and with some justification on both sides. Likewise in the '80s the Contras and the Sandinistas did the same. To me, the way out of this tower of Babel, where debate becomes a question of who yells the loudest, is this. Define your terms empirically, regardless of who gets hurt (yourself included). In my view it is this. Terrorism is the use, or credible threat of force against a civilian poulation to achieve a political goal.
Morally I divide war into three categories. From best to worst:
1) Trying to engage military assets while avoiding civilian damage as best you can, but knowing it will happen. This seems to be our approach today, though not historically. Actions must be judged in context..
2) Trying to engage military assets while not much giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.
Just my .02
FQ13

 

[twyacht]

2) Trying to engage military assets while not mch giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.


The USA employed this strategy on the European Front, and the Pacific front. Hell we firebombed Japan, specifically targeting civilians to send a message, knowing their shacks, and residential dwellings would burn easily.

Than of course, we bombed leaflets warning them to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the firebombing came first, and over 100,000 (mainly civilians) died.

The "Memphis Bell" missions in Europe targeted military and industrial targets, but they were located in cities and if civilian residences were around the target, well, 150 B-17's, dropping dozens of bombs each, starting at point "A" running the length of a mile, leveled everything.

Did Roosevelt state he was going to bring Hirohito, Hitler, to a tribunal? Hell NO! He said (we) were going to bring them to their knees. Unconditionally. 

Those were the "noble" wars. Now, or since Vietnam, we fight a PC war/conflict/police action,,,, and our track record is not so good.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Agreed, TW, but remember the technology. We didn't have smart bombs and when you aimed at a factory or railyard under fire you hoped for the best. There was no ill intent. I do think we and the Brits have some 'slainin to do over Dresden and the firebombings of Japan. These can be put into the context of "we were playing by their rules in a war they chose". I think that is an effective defense, but it doesn't make it right either. A more contemporary example is us blowing up the occasional Afghan wedding party because folks ride to these in pickups with AKs. We didn't do it deliberately, like the Taliban who TARGET these things. I do think that context and technology matter in making judgements.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, again you college fails you, the Brits only get HALF the blame for Dresden, WE carried out half of the "round the clock" bombing that killed 60,000 civilians.
As a side note an Air Force study after the war concluded that the strategic bombing campaign had been pretty much a waste of resources, while it inconvenienced German industry it never shut them down, there was still civilian manufacturing in May 1945, unlike the US and England, Germany never went to a total war economy, (Albert Speer, "Inside the Third Reich" )
Tactical air attacks against shipping, road, and rail traffic had far more effect in relation to resources employed than the strategic campaign.

[fightingquaker13]

FQ, again you college fails you, the Brits only get HALF the blame for Dresden, WE carried out half of the "round the clock" bombing that killed 60,000 civilians.
As a side note an Air Force study after the war concluded that the strategic bombing campaign had been pretty much a waste of resources, while it inconvenienced German industry it never shut them down, there was still civilian manufacturing in May 1945, unlike the US and England, Germany never went to a total war economy, (Albert Speer, "Inside the Third Reich" )
Tactical air attacks against shipping, road, and rail traffic had far more effect in relation to resources employed than the strategic campaign.

As to your point about Dresden, I think I said that. They had night shift, we had day shift (how we let that happen I'll never understand). As far as bombing Germany, post war records show that had we ignored oil fields and factories, and just hit power grids and rail ways, we would have been far more effective at shutting their industry down.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

As to your point about Dresden, I think I said that. They had night shift, we had day shift (how we let that happen I'll never understand).

Simple - we wanted it that way, FQ. Spaatz and the other air commanders wanted to use the Norden to best advantage. The Brits learned the hard way the dangers - and costs - associated with daylight bombing. The US was eager to get into the fight and were blind to the lessons the Brits paid for. Read your damn history.

As far as bombing Germany, post war records show that had we ignored oil fields and factories, and just hit power grids and rail ways, we would have been far more effective at shutting their industry down.

More Monday morning quarterbacking, FQ? I've seen nothing that indicated that we or the Brits had any idea that the bombing campaign was not as effective as they thought. For that matter, the Brit's raid on the Eber dams was a huge success - but the Brits had no idea how successful and using the initial post-raid reports - as well as the cost in lost planes and crews - ceased the effort after the initial pass. The reports were wrong, and post-war comments from various high-ranking German generals indicated that a couple more raids would have shut the entire Ruhr valley down, primarily due to the loss of hydroelectric.

Post-war data gathering helped us understand and fine tune an air campaign to the point it is today with precision guided weapons. But it is still 20-20 hindsight.

[fightingquaker13]

Post-war data gathering helped us understand and fine tune an air campaign to the point it is today with precision guided weapons. But it is still 20-20 hindsight.

We're not disagreeing, just only one of us is being a jerk about it. I am well aware of the history. I merely mentioned the results (discovered post war) as a defense of our actions when we didn't know any better. Now we do. The point of this thread was "what is terrorism"? My point was saying that while we bombed the hell out of German cities, it was the result of imprecise tech and lack of knowledge rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned. I'm not Monday morning QBing here, just trying to provide context to my answer to the OP's question.
FQ13
PS Seriously, Happy New Year, and I do mean that