[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND


i understand it but he is knocking at our ego so somebody has to defend it!  i like britain but i hate europe

No i wasnt.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb
Lt, its not worth it. He's taking the standard obtuse stance where he refuses to see the very clear difference between accidental civilian casualties and those inflicted intentionally. The US spends a gajillion dollars on precision weapons to specifically destroy military targets. Are there mistakes? Yes. The terrorists on the other hand, spend their money trying to kill civilians intentionally. Anyone trying to intentionally _not_ see this critical distinction is kidding themselves and/or ducking the real meat of the argument

Uh Excuse Me, do you mean to tell me that The Red Cross Centre in Kabul wasn't Intentionally bombed (even though it was a food source for the taliban it was still a target)? What about villages in Vietnam that may have been hiding guerillas? Napalmed and to hell with the civilians. Hell, the war wasn't even a just cause.

And as for Israel; there have been thousands of reliable reports of civilains being shot at for whatever reason (breaking curfew, refusing to open doors to Isreali troops wishing to search the premises). Plus the fact that if the Isreali army is whiter than white then why won't it let the UN inspectors into Jenin? What about Ariel Sharon? Anybody remember the Butcher of Beirut? Remember, there's religious Zealots on both sides of this conflict.

 I'm not suggesting for a second that it's anywhere near as bad as what the Terrorists are doing (focusing 100% on causing as many civilian casualties as possible) but it's still worng.

[daveb]

What you're doing is arguing based on subtley false premises. This is sophistry.

You're saying that since US bombs sometimes kill civilians, we have no authority to say a guy like Saddam is irrational because he likes to use his weapons on civilians. The false conclusion : since in the end both sides kill civilians, one shouldn't be judging the other.

This is akin to saying "well, we can't really pass judgement on your tumor sir. There are trillions of healthy living cells around the the area. No matter how precise my scalpel is, blood will be spilled and innocent cells will die needlessly. Thus ignoring the unfortunate fact that the rest of the body will have to deal with this inaction later when the cancer decides it's had enough sitting in one place.

But of course this is extremely wrong. Saddam has no compunctions about intentionally using weapons against civilians to accomplish his goals (read : Kurds). The US uses its weapons against military targets _only_. You will never find a case where the US said "let's blow up civilians". To draw a comparison between them is completely misguided.  You're forgetting that when the US does cause the deaths of civilians it is _always_ while engaged in lawful military activities against an armed opponent - very likely this said fellow has been marked as an opponent because he decided he was going to start killing civilians on his own.  Blowing up school buses, gassing Kurds, flying planes into buildings are all 100% different because they _intentionally_ target the innocent.

You may argue that it doesn't matter what the morals are - if the US attacks, many civilians will be dead regardless. This is true, but it ignores two key points :

- All steps will be taken to minimize these casualties. Reparations in the tens of billions have and will continue to be paid for mistakes. The US is the _only_ country that has such a policy.

- By _not_ acting, we put 10 times as many lives in just as much peril in the future.

But I've seen this argument fought 10,000x. I have no desire to go any further.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb
But of course this is extremely wrong. Saddam has no compunctions about intentionally using weapons against civilians to accomplish his goals (read : Kurds).

Well in that case Turkey should bare some responsibility. Seems as they've been nearly as oppressive towards the Kurds.

Originally posted by daveb
The US uses its weapons against military targets _only_. You will never find a case where the US said "let's blow up civilians".

Maybe not but civilian Targets have been attacked. The Red Cross centre was a target, the Pentagon confirmed it (I'll search for the statement if you want) and I can think of other Civilian Targets that have been deliberately attacked.

Originally posted by daveb
All steps will be taken to minimize these casualties. Reparations in the tens of billions have and will continue to be paid for mistakes. The US is the _only_ country that has such a policy.

 By _not_ acting, we put 10 times as many lives in just as much peril in the future.

Try applying both of those to Vietnam. Since the US failed in its Military objectives we can see quite clearly that the resulting Vietnamese government that so much blood was spilled over to stop was not a major threat to American security neither was it abusive towards its citizens.

[daveb]

Maybe not but civilian Targets have been attacked. The Red Cross centre was a target, the Pentagon confirmed it (I'll search for the statement if you want) and I can think of other Civilian Targets that have been deliberately attacked.

Just because a building has the words "CIVILIAN" painted on the side of it doesn't mean it isn't housing and supporting enemy soldiers. If a "civilian target" is taken over by enemy soldiers and used as a headquarters its no longer a civilian target, regardless of whether the city maps mark it as such. Your vision is totally myopic on this.

[phreak]

wow when did dave get a degree in international studies?

oh and sandwich: wait until that USAF vs IAF event comes up again and we have a squad or two of F22s thrown in.  Then it will get very interesting.  Then again if its -14s and -18s flying, it would be the navy

[CP5670]

I don't have much time right now so I have to cut this short, but here is a link:

Please get me some evidence of that claim, a quotation from Iraqui Authority (an anouncement by Blair, Bush or ashcrofy won't cut it).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551104,00.html (just found this off Google)

I can't believe you have not heard this before.

Moral relativism is the weakest of arguments.

w00t; someone agrees with me!

[LtNarol]

note to self: never argue with dave

[daveb]

Well in that case Turkey should bare some responsibility. Seems as they've been nearly as oppressive towards the Kurds.

Dollars to donuts you'd never draw this comparison with Israel and Jordan towards the Palestinians. Numerically speaking, Jordan is far more "oppressive". But its easy and convenient to forget that 80% of Palestine is in Jordan isn't it?

[Stryke 9]

No, it's just true and irrefutable that the Palestinians aren't getting slaughtered wholesale in Jordan, and that they aren't fighting a war of liberation against jingoistic, racist invaders who have driven them from their land and impoverished their people in Jordan.

Jordan may not want tons of refugees, but all in all it's Israel that's killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, not Jordan. Anything other than that doesn't really matter- Jordanian Palestinians aren't going to give a **** about censorship or lack of rights when their comrades are dying in the cities every day, and they might be next. They have much more important things to deal with than trying to governmentally emulate the nations that are attempting with all their might to do to the Palestinian people what Amerika did to the Indians in her own country.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb


Dollars to donuts you'd never draw this comparison with Israel and Jordan towards the Palestinians. Numerically speaking, Jordan is far more "oppressive". But its easy and convenient to forget that 80% of Palestine is in Jordan isn't it?

...and who gave great support to Jordan and King Hussian? That's really not a very good argument to bring up.





 

Originally posted by daveb

Just because a building has the words "CIVILIAN" painted on the side of it doesn't mean it isn't housing and supporting enemy soldiers. If a "civilian target" is taken over by enemy soldiers and used as a headquarters its no longer a civilian target, regardless of whether the city maps mark it as such. Your vision is totally myopic on this.

2. Definition of civilians and civilian Property
 
Any Person not belonging to the armed forces (see Chapter III, Section I) is considered as a civilian and the same applies in case of doubt as to his status. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.[P. I, 50]
 
Civilian property is anything which is not a military objective, i.e. which by its nature, location, purpose or use does not effectively contribute to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization would not offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Thus, military equipment, a road of strategic importance, a supply column on its way to the army, a civilian building evacuated and reoccupied by combatants are military objectives. In case of doubt, a property which is normally assigned to civilian use should be considered as civilian and must not be attacked.[P. I, 52]
 

Now the red cross centre was not actually ocupied by the Taliban, it was bombed on the Presumption that it could be. Its bombing violates chapter IV of the Geneva Convention which stated that Civilian Targets and the Red Cross/Crecent and Humanitarian facilities should not be attacked. Or doesn't  the American Government Recognise the Geneva Convention Anymore?

[daveb]

::shrug::  We're polarized on this issue. I'm concerned with the long term effects of neglecting a raving madman with a growing arsenal of mass destruction. You're hung up on the technical definition of "civilian" and how playing semantic footsie with it makes the US a horrible evil monster. The meaning of the term in context of this discussion is clear to all those willing to hear.

With that, my agony limit for discussing this issue is done.

Anybody have any cool gun pictures or something?  

[Zeronet]

Meet by 2nd best friend(The AH-64 is my best friend).








One of the Best MBTs

[Kazan]

i have to completely agree with DaveB's comments here - and that's not kissing up - i actually do agree with him

[Styxx]

Originally posted by daveb
Anybody have any cool gun pictures or something?  

Hm, I don't have any cool gun pictures... can it be rocket artillery?

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb
I'm concerned with the long term effects of neglecting a raving madman with a growing arsenal of mass destruction.

Fair enought but remember who trained members of Al Quaeda and the Taliban to fight the Soviets.




And as to show there's no hard feelings

[daveb]

No hard feelings at all. This is a tough issue to approach even glancingly without things getting ugly. This is a thoroughly excellent debate.

Although I admit this thread is in a relative shambles based on its original intent

[Styxx]

Originally posted by daveb
Although I admit this thread is in a relative shambles based on its original intent

Damn, that would make one fine poster.

[phreak]

heh.. this better not be faked






gotta love the MG42 (unless you had to go up against one)

[LtNarol]

Get used to it dave, threads here derail easily after a page or 2...if even that