1
   

AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 12:56 pm
Wars are never clean; civilians will be killed when the enemy hides within the civilian population. That fact will never change.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 12:57 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
T Therefore, I repeat my request to back up the statement that the US targets civilains.


This is from the same AP artile I linked above

Sixteen children and eight women were reported killed when warplanes struck four houses late Tuesday, said Hatem Samir, a Fallujah Hospital official.

Well, well, you have demonstrated very well what I granted from the outset, that civilians die in wars. Now if you'll just give some evidence that the houses were the intended target, and the US knew that they were not, say, enemy heaquarters, etc., then I will freely agree that the US targets civilians.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 12:58 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Wars are never clean; civilians will be killed when the enemy hides within the civilian population. That fact will never change.

Undoubtedly, but this is a characteristic of all wars, no? The debate was over whether the US targets civilians.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:00 pm
Well actually...the Fedayeen were technically civilians, since they weren't part of the Iraqi military. So are these "insurgents" hiding behind a wall firing guns at the Marines. Maybe a better question would be whether the US military targets noncombatants. I think we can all agree that they don't.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:01 pm
Perhaps not in this conflict. But the US has participated in the worst attacks that targetted non-combatants in history so we definitely do not have a halo in this regard.
0 Replies
 
safecracker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:02 pm
We target those who threaten our lives end of story.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:02 pm
Brandon, It doesn't make any difference. Whether civilians are targeted or not, if the enemy exists within their environment, they become the targets too. Understand?
0 Replies
 
safecracker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:03 pm
no they become casualties of war this does not mean they were the target, I know what I'm engauging.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, It doesn't make any difference. Whether civilians are targeted or not, if the enemy exists within their environment, they become the targets too. Understand?


He willfully WILL NOT understand....that is my entire point of continuing these pointless posts...sounded like Harry Nillson didn't I?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:08 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Perhaps not in this conflict. But the US has participated in the worst attacks that targetted non-combatants in history so we definitely do not have a halo in this regard.

Actually, I agree with this, if you're referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I agree and I will say nothing contradictory to your point.

What I would argue, though, is that the US is not presently in the habit of sending people into marketplaces with bombs strapped to their waists, and, in particular, has not done this in the current wars in the middle east.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:10 pm
In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.
0 Replies
 
safecracker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:12 pm
Quote:
n that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.


The military does take on such responsability but one must remember it is part of war....is it better to let them kill our men then kill the civi's themselves?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:13 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, It doesn't make any difference. Whether civilians are targeted or not, if the enemy exists within their environment, they become the targets too. Understand?

My point is pretty simple. Civilians die in wars, but the US does not target them. Now, if we aim at a guy shooting at us with a machine gun, and a bystander is hit, you can say that we targetted him, but this certainly isn't what the verb to target means to me.
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:13 pm
Bi-Polar Bear:

I understand you perfectly.

Playing this tit-for-tat with the likes of a lobotomized Bush loyalist like Brandon is a sheer waste of time and energy.

It's akin to telling your kid on a weeknight it's 9PM, time to go to bed, only to be met with "Why?" No amount of explaining can break through.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:13 pm
Safecracker, please make that a coherent sentence.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:14 pm
Titus,

I'm no fan of Bush and I do not support the war. But I disagree both with elements of your position as well as your penchant for calling Brandon names when the discussion is not to your liking.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:15 pm
Titus wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear:

I understand you perfectly.

Playing this tit-for-tat with the likes of a lobotomized Bush loyalist like Brandon is a sheer waste of time and energy.

It's akin to telling your kid on a weeknight it's 9PM, time to go to bed, only to be met with "Why?" No amount of explaining can break through.

Not an appropriate response to a request that you provide a citation to back up your claim.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:39 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
In that case we are in agreement Brandon. Though I will say that even when not targetting civilians, taking action that will knowlingly kill them as collateral damage indicates a degree of responsibility for when said deaths occur.


And what is hard to understand about that coherent, on target (no pun intended) statement I'd like to know?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:45 pm
Do you agree that the US takes drastic steps to reduce the deaths of civilians? Far greater steps than any other nation has?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2004 01:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Do you agree that the US takes drastic steps to reduce the deaths of civilians? Far greater steps than any other nation has?


absolutely not......we are good at kicking the **** out of people AFTER we've suffered casualties or if there's money in it.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:16:32
▲ ▼