[fluff]

Apologies for the provocative looking title, it is simply the subject matter of a question.

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for civilians to be killed in a war?

The possibilities run from deliberate and pre-meditated execution at close range to a stray missile launched many miles away. Where is the line that defines a war crime?

As a side observation I have heard worst-case failure rates of 7% for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Given that approximately 1000 of these have been launched and it appears that a maximum of 3 have gone astray the failure rates so far is very low. Nevertheless it is acknowledged that failures will occur and therefore that civilian lives may be lost. Acceptance of this is implies a certain level of civilian casualties will is OK.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Apologies for the provocative looking title, it is simply the subject matter of a question.

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for civilians to be killed in a war?

The possibilities run from deliberate and pre-meditated execution at close range to a stray missile launched many miles away. Where is the line that defines a war crime?

As a side observation I have heard worst-case failure rates of 7% for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Given that approximately 1000 of these have been launched and it appears that a maximum of 3 have gone astray the failure rates so far is very low. Nevertheless it is acknowledged that failures will occur and therefore that civilian lives may be lost. Acceptance of this is implies a certain level of civilian casualties will is OK.

In its most basic form, I think that intent is probably the best defining factor. If you intend to kill civilians then that would classify as a war crime. Accidental deaths for the most part would not be considered war crimes. BUT if there was some sort of gross negligence involved in the accident then that could head you towards war crimes.

As for civilian causalities, I do believe they are inevitable, which is sad sad sad. Most of the advances in weapons technology have led us to less and less unintended results but they are still a factor. The use of civilians and civilian clothing by enemy forces makes it even more difficult for troops to make a distinction.

 

[Damn True]

The fact is that in the history of warfare, more accurately of aireal bombardment, this is by far the cleanest operation ever. Witness the bombardment of Dresden by comparison. This is war, and sadly in war innocents will come to grief. This has been exacerbated by Husseins cowardly insistance on placing military targets amongst civilian populations and his troops use of civilians as cover.
Hussein knows he cannot achieve a tactical victory. He is attempting, and will fail, to achieve political victory by painting us as ruthless killers of innocents.
Any thinking person knows this is simply untrue.
Alarmingly few innocents have been hurt in comparison to the amount of ordinance that has been deployed.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Damn True
The fact is that in the history of warfare, more accurately of aireal bombardment, this is by far the cleanest operation ever. Witness the bombardment of Dresden by comparison. This is war, and sadly in war innocents will come to grief. This has been exacerbated by Husseins cowardly insistance on placing military targets amongst civilian populations and his troops use of civilians as cover.
Hussein knows he cannot achieve a tactical victory. He is attempting, and will fail, to achieve political victory by painting us as ruthless killers of innocents.
Any thinking person knows this is simply untrue.
Alarmingly few innocents have been hurt in comparison to the amount of ordinance that has been deployed.

good point DT. to add to that; the civilian casualties of WWII were exponentially higher due to the weapons at the time, but you don't hear the countries we saved complaining. now that we have a better ability to hit only military targets it doesn't mean that no civilians will be killed. THUS IS WAR

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by manimal
good point DT. to add to that; the civilian casualties of WWII were exponentially higher due to the weapons at the time, but you don't hear the countries we saved complaining. now that we have a better ability to hit only military targets it doesn't mean that no civilians will be killed. THUS IS WAR

I would think that civilian casualties of the WWII where higher because civilians where bombed on purpose.

I am sure the military way up the cost of innocents agaist the potential military gains. I would think that the line between war crime and acceptable is never drawn for the winning side as only the loosers are going to be put on trial.

 

[N8 v2.0]

We bombed German and Japanese civilians intentionally in WWII because it was an effective means of bringing the war to an end.

Total War is the sometimes the only way to bring peace.

This is what bothers me about the current war in Iraq. We are traveling down that road of "OFF LIMITS" areas like we did in Hanoi. Can't to that and win.... well... win quickly and decisivly.

 

[Serial Midget]

Well Fluff, I suppose we are lucky that our success rate is somewhat better than the V2... I can assure you we will not indescriminately bomb Baghdad in a manner that was quite common in previous wars.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
We bombed German and Japanese civilians intentionally in WWII because it was an effective means of bringing the war to an end.

Total War is the sometimes the only way to bring peace.

This is what bothers me about the current war in Iraq. We are traveling down that road of "OFF LIMITS" areas like we did in Hanoi. Can't to that and win.... well... win quickly and decisivly.

Bombing civilians in Germany did nothing to assist in ending the war. In Japan in was only the devastating power of nuclear bombs dropped at a time when many in the Japanese regime were aready seeking a way out of a war they knew was lost that tipped the balance.

I don't remember the US ever being subjected to intensive bombing in civilian areas but you may have heard of the blitz mentality. In Britain and in Germany during WWII, civilian resolve was hardened against the enemy due to bombs dropping out of the sky ad nauseam, it was not an effective way to wage war, in fact most historical opinion sees Hitler's decision to quit bombing only military targets and to start bombing London as a turning point in the battle for air supremacy over Britain (it allowed Britain to rebuild an almost spent air force and gain control of its skies).

Even German civilians who were opposed to Hitler became more united with the rest of the population (and remember Hitler was democratically elected) as a result of the intense bombing.

US & UK forces must tread very carefully in Iraq if they want to be seen as freeing the people. Because the regime is hideous to some does not make it hideous to all, or even a majority. There may be many families who have not suffered at Saddam's hands who could now be losing loved ones. There is a very fine line here between liberation and invasion and once it is crossed it will be very hard to turn back.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
The fact is that in the history of warfare, more accurately of aireal bombardment, this is by far the cleanest operation ever. Witness the bombardment of Dresden by comparison. This is war, and sadly in war innocents will come to grief. This has been exacerbated by Husseins cowardly insistance on placing military targets amongst civilian populations and his troops use of civilians as cover.
Hussein knows he cannot achieve a tactical victory. He is attempting, and will fail, to achieve political victory by painting us as ruthless killers of innocents.
Any thinking person knows this is simply untrue.
Alarmingly few innocents have been hurt in comparison to the amount of ordinance that has been deployed.

Since when have power stations, telephone exchanges, TV stations, etc. been military installations? These are being bombed and surprisingly they are close to civilian areas. How underhand of the Iraqi's to build such things in civilian areas.

Alarmingly few innocents? How many were you hoping to see? I am sure this is simply bad wording but it is an alarmingly poor choice of words.

Would you prefer the Iraqi's to make themselves easy targets to ease our road to Baghdad?

We are ruthless killers of innocents, we are lobbing bombs into Baghdad in the full knowledge that some of them will kill innocent people. Innocent people died in the Gulf War and more will die in this war. This does not make us any worse than Saddam who lobs cruder (though far fewer) bombs around (though not so many this time) but it sure as hell does not put us on any high moral ground.

Can you remember what percentage of bombs dropped during the Gulf War were of the 'smart' variety? I will check the figures but it was below 10%.

Are the B52's dropping smart bombs?

The best way of avoiding innocent civilian casualties is not the use of smart bombs, but the avoidance of aerial bombardment of civilian areas altogether. How many lives is this war worth? How much does one Iraqi life equate to when measured against one of our own?

There are choices here, stop kidding yourself about inevitability.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by N8
We bombed German and Japanese civilians intentionally in WWII because it was an effective means of bringing the war to an end.

Total War is the sometimes the only way to bring peace.

This is what bothers me about the current war in Iraq. We are traveling down that road of "OFF LIMITS" areas like we did in Hanoi. Can't to that and win.... well... win quickly and decisivly.

Gee Genghis must be fun to play hard and fast with other peoples lives. I like the line about total war bringing peace, is that anything like f*cking for virginity? I mean our old mate Osama and his minions target civilians too, so I guess in your twisted world that's OK? Really, explain to me the difference. Seems to me you're saying "whatever it takes". Am I wrong?
We really must get together sometime and pull the wings off some flies........

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Since when have power stations, telephone exchanges, TV stations, etc. been military installations? These are being bombed and surprisingly they are close to civilian areas. How underhand of the Iraqi's to build such things in civilian areas.

Alarmingly few innocents? How many were you hoping to see? I am sure this is simply bad wording but it is an alarmingly poor choice of words.

Would you prefer the Iraqi's to make themselves easy targets to ease our road to Baghdad?

We are ruthless killers of innocents, we are lobbing bombs into Baghdad in the full knowledge that some of them will kill innocent people. Innocent people died in the Gulf War and more will die in this war. This does not make us any worse than Saddam who lobs cruder (though far fewer) bombs around (though not so many this time) but it sure as hell does not put us on any high moral ground.

Can you remember what percentage of bombs dropped during the Gulf War were of the 'smart' variety? I will check the figures but it was below 10%.

Are the B52's dropping smart bombs?

The best way of avoiding innocent civilian casualties is not the use of smart bombs, but the avoidance of aerial bombardment of civilian areas altogether. How many lives is this war worth? How much does one Iraqi life equate to when measured against one of our own?

There are choices here, stop kidding yourself about inevitability.

Then simply every pocket dictator builds his military bases in the midst of civilian populations and he is completely protected from the outside world. I guess that's the answer then. He can put prisons where he performs horrible acts of torture and murder and be completely free from reprisal. He could put a chemical weapons factory (ones that he uses against others) in an elementary school and it be completely safe. Combine a biological weapons lab with a baby milk factory and he can produce anthrax at a rate to kill the entire planet and there isn't jack anyone can do about it.

 

[Stellite]

I guess the fact that Saddam has murdered over 1.5 million Iraqis and Iraqi-Kurds is of no concern to you?

A war will kill innocents, but the lives saved will outweigh the lives killed by a huge margin.

 

[fluff]

Didn't really answer the question about power stations and telephone exchanges did it?

Where do the US build theirs?

If you were to bomb the same type of thing in the UK you'd kill plenty of civilians.

And on the dead Iraqi question, I have seen UN figures estimating 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions.

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Didn't really answer the question about power stations and telephone exchanges did it?

Where do the US build theirs?

If you were to bomb the same type of thing in the UK you'd kill plenty of civilians.

And on the dead Iraqi question, I have seen UN figures estimating 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions.

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

Power plants here are in the middle of nowhere here. Telephone exchanges are in civilian populations, typically in the middle of downtowns. And yes if you bombed one you would kill civilians. As for them being military targets, they are definately strategic targets. Strategic targets being those destruction would hamper the enemies ability to command and control his troops, provide material support for the same troops, and those that keep the enemy from producing and diseeminating propaganda.

Okay so you can't bomb them and you can't employ sanctions. What exactly do you do? Pray that they stop doing bad things? Bury your head in the sand and hope?

I guess you just let anyone do anything they want. Develop chemcial weapons and use, them no big deal. Crash planes into buildings, forget it.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by fluff
Didn't really answer the question about power stations and telephone exchanges did it?

Where do the US build theirs?

If you were to bomb the same type of thing in the UK you'd kill plenty of civilians.

And on the dead Iraqi question, I have seen UN figures estimating 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions.

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

You are forgetting that they have had plenty of prewarning. So to answer the question, which is something that you have repeatedly failed to do in other threads, no americans would be killed if an enemy were to bomb our power stations and exchanges. You wonder why? Simple, we gave iraq over a months warning and then another 48 hours warning to tell them we were comming. Given that kind of warning, I would think that anyone that is a Free citizen would be able to leave and not die in the bombing. We all know that many probably have died since Saddam probably forced those poor civilians to stay at their posts or be shot in the head by his thugs.

I guess statistics are only good when they favor your point

There is no doubt that most of the Iraqis that have died in the last 10 years could have been saved if Saddam had been removed. Are we to watch more die?

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by Stellite
You are forgetting that they have had plenty of prewarning. So to answer the question, which is something that you have repeatedly failed to do in other threads, no americans would be killed if an enemy were to bomb our power stations and exchanges. You wonder why? Simple, we gave iraq over a months warning and then another 48 hours warning to tell them we were comming. Given that kind of warning, I would think that anyone that is a Free citizen would be able to leave and not die in the bombing. We all know that many probably have died since Saddam probably forced those poor civilians to stay at their posts or be shot in the head by his thugs.

Do you know what the climate is like in Iraq?

You can't just leave your home for a month or two when you have nowhere to go.

A lot of people stayed in their houses during WW2 when they knew they would be a target and houses around them wouldn't be there in the morning. It was proberly a lot easier for them to move out of the way than for people in Iraq.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by D_D
Do you know what the climate is like in Iraq?

You can't just leave your home for a month or two when you have nowhere to go.

A lot of people stayed in their houses during WW2 when they knew they would be a target and houses around them wouldn't be there in the morning. It was proberly a lot easier for them to move out of the way than for people in Iraq.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Damn True]

blah blah blah innocent blah blah blah tv blah blah blah phone.

Ok genius. Tell me then in your best pacifist blather how to knock out Husseins command and control architechture (yes, phones, TV and radio is a part of that), radar, anti-aircraft, and missile launching infrastructure without using bombs or cruise missiles.

The relatively tiny numbers of civilian deaths (and there are very very few) are on Hussein's head. He knows those things will be targeted. He places them in civilian populations knowing we will bomb them.

Save your snively semantic BS. I meant every word of the phrase "Alarmingly few innocents have been hurt in comparison to the amount of ordinance that has been deployed." I expected more. In fact I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Hussein begins to bomb civilian area's on his own (if he hasn't already-the market explosion looks dubious. There was at least 4 different craters.) then try to play it off as coalition weapons targeting civilians.

Remember, this is a job for men.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by fluff

Can you remember what percentage of bombs dropped during the Gulf War were of the 'smart' variety? I will check the figures but it was below 10%.

Are the B52's dropping smart bombs?

By the way, the B52's are dropping smart bombs and sending cruise missiles. They just indicated today that B-52's were carpet bombing somewhere in north IRaq.

Fluff, DN, the two of you are part of the reason why man is doomed to repeat past mistakes. Because you haven't learned from these past mistakes. This also applies to RBX and some others. You have no clue the sacrificed that were made to create independence and the deaths that it required. You act like the French have and let the enemy walk all over you and then when you realize that you made a mistake, hope that there is a US still around to save your sorry azz.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Damn True

Remember, this is a job for men.

well said!!


war sucks for everyone involved, but it is a necessary evil in some instances. i guess that's why we rely on those that have the intestinal fortitude to take care of business and realize that war = death on both sides and the sooner it's overwith the better.

war sucks
people die
get over it!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by fluff
"...In Britain and in Germany during WWII, civilian resolve was hardened against the enemy due to bombs dropping out of the sky ad nauseam, it was not an effective way to wage war, in fact most historical opinion sees Hitler's decision to quit bombing only military targets and to start bombing London as a turning point in the battle for air supremacy over Britain...

Actually, I maintain the UK was only about 90 days or so away from surrender due to the Luftwaffe's continued bombing campaign only to be saved by Hitler's decision to invade Russia.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Actually, I maintain the UK was only about 90 days or so away from surrender due to the Luftwaffe's continued bombing campaign only to be saved by Hitler's decision to invade Russia.

And your experience and knowledge of blitz mentality comes from where?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
And your experience and knowledge of blitz mentality comes from where?

He was Winston Churchill in a former life apparently.

 

[llkoolkeg]

...illustrate the fact that most "men" these days are distinguishable only by the presence of a johnson. For the most part, vanished into the annuls of time are bravery, decisiveness, leadership, chivalry, strength, responsibility, duty and the other ideals once pursued by men. What passes for a man these days is weak, sniveling, spineless, bare-chested, whiny-assed wimp more in love with himself than anything of enduring value. Sadder yet is the fact that this problem will only get worse as real men bleed and die on the battlefield while cake-boys back at home use the lack of competition as an opportunity to get laid, thereby creating more of their own sorry kind. Ya know, I always loved that VMI bumper sticker, "Save the Males". It really summed it up. The average woman of the 21st century is far more "manly" now than the average man, and it has nothing to do with physical strength or a loss of femininity.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by fluff
And your experience and knowledge of blitz mentality comes from where?

I don't think my statement is all that shocking... It is pretty well known that Hitler shifted his attention to the Russian front which saved the UK.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...illustrate the fact that most "men" these days are distinguishable only by the presence of a johnson. For the most part, vanished into the annuls of time are bravery, decisiveness, leadership, chivalry, strength, responsibility, duty and the other ideals once pursued by men. What passes for a man these days is weak, sniveling, spineless, bare-chested, whiny-assed wimp more in love with himself than anything of enduring value. Sadder yet is the fact that this problem will only get worse as real men bleed and die on the battlefield while cake-boys back at home use the lack of competition as an opportunity to get laid, thereby creating more of their own sorry kind. Ya know, I always loved that VMI bumper sticker, "Save the Males". It really summed it up. The average woman of the 21st century is far more "manly" now than the average man, and it has nothing to do with physical strength or a loss of femininity.

That's pathetic in my opinion. Because I think there is not enough justification to invade Iraq I am a 'weak, sniveling, spineless, bare-chested, whiny-assed wimp more in love with himself than anything of enduring value'?

Hell, I could sit here quite safely and say 'Yee-hah, let's give those pesky Iraqi's hell, they not like us after all' but that's just a bit too easy.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about your opinion of my manliness and it's a sad reflection on your abilities to put forward any decent justifcation for a war than causes you to sink to insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[fluff]

Death toll so far (1st April) as reported on the BBC website, sources are the respective governments:

Iraq: At least 589 civilian deaths, military deaths unknown
US: 43 dead (including 11 in accidents, 2 under investigation), 17 missing
UK: 26 dead (including 15 in accidents, 5 to 'friendly fire')

Some of us clearly feel that attacking TV stations, telephone exchanges, power stations, military headquarters is fair game, even if these are sited in cities (and therefore close to civilian population). In fact some are prepared to lay the blame for these civilian deaths directly at Saddam's door as he allowed these buildings to be build there (the implication being that he had the foresight to surround such obviously strategic military targets with civilian shields to prevent attack).

Power stations possibly could have been built elsewhere but given Iraq's climate and geography (and level of development) it's unlikely to have happened. Telephone and TV stuff will always be built in urban areas (a phone exchange 10 miles from its subscribers is pretty damn useless).

My point? The choice to bomb these does not lay with Iraq, it lays with the coalition forces. Therefore the responsibility for civilian deaths as a result of bombing is also the coalition's.

I am astounded that anyone would argue differently.

What difference would it make to the coalition forces to not bomb targets in civilian areas? (I'm looking for a realistic justification here.)

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
That's pathetic in my opinion. Because I think there is not enough justification to invade Iraq I am a 'weak, sniveling, spineless, bare-chested, whiny-assed wimp more in love with himself than anything of enduring value'?

Hell, I could sit here quite safely and say 'Yee-hah, let's give those pesky Iraqi's hell, they not like us after all' but that's just a bit too easy.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about your opinion of my manliness and it's a sad reflection on your abilities to put forward any decent justifcation for a war than causes you to sink to insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

...name in my post, but my words appear to have unsettled your stomach. I made no attack on your manliness and have already made countless arguments for our invasion of Iraq that continue to fall on ears made deaf by fixed resolve. I was making a general observation that what passes for a man these days is a dick-tucking weakling with undescended balls. I still feel that way. Can I help it if you relate? I frankly know neither you nor the condition of your package(and could care less). I'm sure you're a nice enough chap in person, and there is nothing wrong with men being sensitive to the suffering of others and expressing emotion. My beef is with those contrarians who enjoy all the benefits of a free society built on the sacrifices of those same men they term "neanderthal" or "unevolved" war-mongers. It just makes me ill to see soup-bowl-chested, sandal-wearing protesters second-guessing the extremely difficult decision to attack a sovereign nation w/o UN approval after it has already been taken. Protest all you want until the war begins, but when your country goes to war, you should get on board or seethe quietly. Lord knows I despised President Clinton and thought that his firing of cruise missiles was but a cheap diversionary tactic to draw media attention away from his shady business dealings and oval office blowjobs, but I certainly didn't run out into the streets to protest it out of respect for the men who were tasked with carrying out his orders. It's called loyalty- one of the other outmoded concepts that I neglected to mention in my previous post.

 

[N8 v2.0]

What He said!

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Death toll so far (1st April) as reported on the BBC website, sources are the respective governments:

Iraq: At least 589 civilian deaths, military deaths unknown
US: 43 dead (including 11 in accidents, 2 under investigation), 17 missing
UK: 26 dead (including 15 in accidents, 5 to 'friendly fire')

Some of us clearly feel that attacking TV stations, telephone exchanges, power stations, military headquarters is fair game, even if these are sited in cities (and therefore close to civilian population). In fact some are prepared to lay the blame for these civilian deaths directly at Saddam's door as he allowed these buildings to be build there (the implication being that he had the foresight to surround such obviously strategic military targets with civilian shields to prevent attack).

Power stations possibly could have been built elsewhere but given Iraq's climate and geography (and level of development) it's unlikely to have happened. Telephone and TV stuff will always be built in urban areas (a phone exchange 10 miles from its subscribers is pretty damn useless).

My point? The choice to bomb these does not lay with Iraq, it lays with the coalition forces. Therefore the responsibility for civilian deaths as a result of bombing is also the coalition's.

I am astounded that anyone would argue differently.

What difference would it make to the coalition forces to not bomb targets in civilian areas? (I'm looking for a realistic justification here.)

Okay its the coalition's responsibility. Saddam is completely innocent of all of it. He holds no culpability in any of it. None of his actions or inactions have led us to the place we are at today. Dressing the military in civilian clothing and sending them out to do bad acts certainly has not lead to civilians being killed accidentally.

BUT the fact of the matter is that each of the targets you mentioned is a strategically significant target regardless of location or what sits around them. Leaving the power on and his communication structure intact allows him control over his troops. It stops the ability to delivery timely orders to perform particular tasks in quick fashion. Or be able to coordinate activities amongest units across wide areas. It also cuts off his ability to spread propaganda. It is a great blow to morale when you aren't getting communications from the "boss". Military command centers and headquarters are obvious. Killing the jack legs pushing the buttons rather than the poor slob in the field is better.

On top of those are the tactical targets of anti aircraft weapons. The majority of those have been placed within civilian areas. Next to hospitals, schools and neighborhoods. Those are easily moved and even Iraq admitted that they had recently put them there. Again it is obvious why those are legitimate targets regardless of location.

 

[ohio]

This whole thread is making me nauseous.

Fluff, civilian deaths are the inevitable result of war. This has been discussed before. It was something that needed to be considered before invasion (and IMO, wasn't considered enough) but at this point, strategy is strategy and the sooner the war is over, the fewer civilian deaths will result (within reason). It would be nice if the news media actually recognized Iraqi civilians, rather than spending an hour on a stupid human interest story about Private Gordo who got the first boo-boo on his finger, only to briefly mention that "some" iraqi women and children were also killed (almost a direct quote). However, it seems silly to me to argue about war strategy when you're entirely opposed to the war itself.

And LL, if that post wasn't directed at fluff and other "peaceniks" who was it directed at? How about you "be a man" and just come out say what you think about other posters rather than beating around the bush and playing wordgames? "Oooooooh, I'm oh-so clever. I wasn't talking about YOU. I was speaking about men in general these days... you just happen to fit the description." Yes. I'm totally fooled. Hilarious how fluff fell into your genius trap. Ha ha. He must lack a penis and body hair. /sarcasm. I don't really take direct offense at anything that was written, but it was a pretty pathetic attempt of a jab at those that might seek to save lives without ending others. I have been on the front lines, so to speak, and I didn't need a gun to be there. The answer is not always to wave your dick around just because you have it. Some men have figured out how to prove they have one, without whipping it out and beating others over the head with it.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by ohio

And LL, if that post wasn't directed at fluff and other "peaceniks" who was it directed at? How about you "be a man" and just come out say what you think about other posters rather than beating around the bush and playing wordgames? "Oooooooh, I'm oh-so clever. I wasn't talking about YOU. I was speaking about men in general these days... you just happen to fit the description." Yes. I'm totally fooled. Hilarious how fluff fell into your genius trap. Ha ha. He must lack a penis and body hair. /sarcasm. I don't really take direct offense at anything that was written, but it was a pretty pathetic attempt of a jab at those that might seek to save lives without ending others. I have been on the front lines, so to speak, and I didn't need a gun to be there. The answer is not always to wave your dick around just because you have it. Some men have figured out how to prove they have one, without whipping it out and beating others over the head with it.

Well said Ohio, I too found LL's reply to Fluff to be dissembling at its finest. As far as I'm concerned any person who faces up to their responsibilities and is true to their conscience and beliefs is a "man". I thought this idea that a man can only be tested in battle went out with "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro patria mori".
(For those of you who didn't study Wilfred Owen in school the above translates as "it's a sweet and fitting thing to die for your country")

 

[N8 v2.0]

I find it really odd that when the US led Coalition Forces accidentally kill a handful of civilians all the auntie-War auntie-US whiners make a major deal out of it, however, they remain quite when Saddam's spent SAM's and anti-aircraft fire falls on those same innocents. I head a reporter on National Pubic Radio saying (almost disappointingly) that nearly all the evidence she'd seen of civilian casualties and damage around Baghdad pointed to Iraqi shells returning to earth. But this is nothing new to Saddam who has killed 100's of THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens...

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by N8
I find it really odd that when the US led Coalition Forces accidentally kill a handful of civilians all the auntie-War auntie-US whiners make a major deal out of it, however, they remain quite when Saddam's spent SAM's and anti-aircraft fire falls on those same innocents. I head a reporter on National Pubic Radio saying (almost disappointingly) that nearly all the evidence she'd seen of civilian casualties and damage around Baghdad pointed to Iraqi shells returning to earth. But this is nothing new to Saddam who has killed 100's of THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens...

Well excuse me for holding coalition forces up to a higher moral standard than Saddam Hussein . Would you honestly expect anything less from him? My expectations of coalition forces are of course much higher and these continual f*ck ups, quite apart from the deaths they cause just make the soldiers job harder. The coalition is under scrutiny and deservedly so because as I understand being part of a democracy means taking responsibility for your actions. Saddam does these things because he's a tyrant, we don't want to be tyrants so we avoid doing these things as much as we can. And when we inevitably f*ck up we take responsibility precisely because WE F*CKED UP. Instead what we get is finger pointing, vacillating and blame shifting. Way to build trust guys. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Well excuse me for holding coalition forces up to a higher moral standard than Saddam Hussein . Would you honestly expect anything less from him? My expectations of coalition forces are of course much higher and these continual f*ck ups, quite apart from the deaths they cause just make the soldiers job harder. The coalition is under scrutiny and deservedly so because as I understand being part of a democracy means taking responsibility for your actions. Saddam does these things because he's a tyrant, we don't want to be tyrants so we avoid doing these things as much as we can. And when we inevitably f*ck up we take responsibility precisely because WE F*CKED UP. Instead what we get is finger pointing, vacillating and blame shifting. Way to build trust guys. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

"if you fight a war in the sewer, you're going to smell like sh##"

you can't stay clean in a dirty war.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by manimal
"if you fight a war in the sewer, you're going to smell like sh##"

you can't stay clean in a dirty war.

Spoken like a true soldier . I realise your point of view is gonna be that of a grunt but you can't divorce the political implications of the war from its conduct. They are indelibly linked. As the saying goes war is politics by other means. Lose the political battle you lose the war, look at Vietnam, America wasn't defeated militarily. I mean the more civilian deaths that are caused by coalition bombs the harder the job becomes and there will come a point where the coalition will be viewed as invaders and tyrants no matter what Saddam does. Some suggest that point has already been reached. From there you go from fighting Saddam to fighting the very people you are supposed to be helping and the whole war becomes even more futile than it is now.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
My beef is with those contrarians who enjoy all the benefits of a free society built on the sacrifices of those same men they term "neanderthal" or "unevolved" war-mongers. It just makes me ill to see soup-bowl-chested, sandal-wearing protesters second-guessing the extremely difficult decision to attack a sovereign nation w/o UN approval after it has already been taken. Protest all you want until the war begins, but when your country goes to war, you should get on board or seethe quietly. ...It's called loyalty- one of the other outmoded concepts that I neglected to mention in my previous post.

It does amaze me how folks forget what this country is all about when I read crap like this.

Protests can and should take place anywhere, at anytime that folks want them to as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Second guessing is the right of every single American (or any free society for that matter). Just because they don't goose step in behind the majority doesn't make them any more or less American. If anything that is harder to do then stand with the majority.

I can think Bush is a pinhead puppet who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, Chenney is a war-mongering, environment hating twit, Congress is full of thieving lying bastards whose only concern is themselves, and the Military as bunch of jackbooted thugs, the whole time singing the StarBangled Banner, wrapping myself in the flag and proclaiming to the heavens I am the greatest of American Patriots. Because that is simply my RIGHT as an American. There are no exceptions to that, no footnotes, no astericks. You may not like it but there isn't a damn thing you OR ANYONE else can do about it. And please don't waste my time with tales of American soldiers dying for my rights because it doesn't change that one iota. I should be appreciative of the sacrifice but even if I am not, again, it still doesn't change a thing.

I can even make a little worse if you like. Its a volunteer armed forces with the price of admission printed on the paper that you sign when you go in, YOU COULD DIE BECAUSE OF SOME PINHEADS' DECISION, PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PINHEADS, EVENTHOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT. (Or at least I remember it saying something like that). If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed it. Even when the draft is instituted, there are alternatives to avoiding that.

If that hurts your feelings or makes you feel uncomfortable, then tough, its not anyone's job to make you feel comfortable or feel good about yourself or this country. Freedom and Liberty aren't easy concepts and sometimes hurt our own moral sensibilities to fully embrace them but that's the way it is. They can't be turned on and off to suit our own feelings and thoughts. Any limitations made to them are best done with extreme care and forethought. If you don't like it and would like to see it changed, I encourage you to pick any dictatorship throughout history or even better just pick one of the countries in the "Axis of Evil" and see if that brand of government is a better fit.

Patriotism is voluntary; when you're forced into it it's totalitarianism; when you just do it because everyone else is doing it, it's spineless.

 

[valve bouncer]

Well said DRB, enjoy your posts, even the ones I don't agree with (well actually not as much as the ones I do agree with ).

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ohio
And LL, if that post wasn't directed at fluff and other "peaceniks" who was it directed at? How about you "be a man" and just come out say what you think about other posters rather than beating around the bush and playing wordgames? "Oooooooh, I'm oh-so clever. I wasn't talking about YOU. I was speaking about men in general these days... you just happen to fit the description." Yes. I'm totally fooled. Hilarious how fluff fell into your genius trap. Ha ha. He must lack a penis and body hair. /sarcasm. I don't really take direct offense at anything that was written, but it was a pretty pathetic attempt of a jab at those that might seek to save lives without ending others. I have been on the front lines, so to speak, and I didn't need a gun to be there. The answer is not always to wave your dick around just because you have it. Some men have figured out how to prove they have one, without whipping it out and beating others over the head with it.

...you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. Let me break it down for you. I think most men today are psychologically weak. Simple enough? It was an observation about men in general- peacenik liberals and hawkish conservatives alike. You were so diverted by the wording of my response to fluff that you missed the point entirely. I set no trap, have no idea whether or not he "fits the description" and I stand by my comments about a large segment of the modern male population. They are aimed at targets bigger than fluff, DRB and yes, even you, ohio. Whereas men were once concerned with working hard and providing for their families no matter how painful, most today are more concerned with their designer haircut, pimpin' rims, and tanning bed time than meeting their obligations to the children they father and the country they live in. I never said anyone lacked a penis and I was not waving my own. I was saying that men now care more about their packaging than their substance. They don't mind spending hours and dollars flexing in gym mirrors(and NO- I am not anti-fitness) and having their body hair waxed, but they don't have the time to read to their children, further their education or work an extra job to pay for anything that they don't directly benefit from. And I don't see pacifists as saving lives, but as naively delaying inevitable conflicts to the point where today's brush fire is tomorrow's hellish conflagration.

As for DRB's post...I just don't know where to begin. You are correct in saying it is a right of Americans to protest...I just believe it is one that is overused and based far too often on just doing what your friends are doing rather than what you have calmly and rationally researched and believe is the right thing to do. Is the greater lemming the one who attends a protest with his buddies to get out of class on the off-chance of seeing some anarchy or the one who supports his country's decision to steer into the wind and fight a war that is globally unpopular? You have the right to think and say whatever crap you want about the U.S. and its government, no matter how ignorant. I also have the right to call you out as a thankless fool when I believe that is what you are.

As for your reasons for avoiding military service, I shared them as a youth. Now I regret my selfishness. Why are the benefits I enjoy as an American worth the next guy's life but not my own? I frankly think a tour of military service should be mandatory for all citizens. If you have a problem with picking up a gun, then you should pick up a stretcher. Even though mandatory military service will never happen here, at a minimum, all Congressmen and Presidents should have served. One should never have the power to send another's son off to die without having been there first himself.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings or making me feel uncomfortable. It is not within your power. I would have to respect you as more than just another joe average for that to happen. And don't preach to me on freedom or liberty as if you have even a passing concept of what they mean. Nobody is forcing you to be patriotic, were that even possible. When you do something simply because everyone else is doing it, you are psychologically weak- my original point.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Whereas men were once concerned with working hard and providing for their families no matter how painful, most today are more concerned with their designer haircut, pimpin' rims, and tanning bed time than meeting their obligations to the children they father and the country they live in.

What about the pacifist father not wanting to leave the world with more turmoil than they found it? Or the tree-hugging father that wants to preserve the rainforests so that his children (and grandchildren) might enjoy the environmental, medicinal, and even aesthetic benefits? Or the dissenting father that would prefer to see the country invest money in the education of its youth, rather than the "stability" of our oil supply?

These men have just as much conviction as you. They just see different solutions to protecting their family, and it may involve just as much "personal sacrifice" as all your flag-waving and chest-beating.