Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Congratz to the US Military Forces!
edbro:
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be. When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields. One of the four killed last night was a woman that one of the men was using as a human shield. This weekend there was a bombing in Iraq against civilians where they used a 12 year old boy as the suicide attacker. Where is your outrage at that?
wraith808:
(there is IMHO a big difference between collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians, though)
-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 07:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
IMHO, no difference whatsoever. When you start bombing a country, you know there will be civilian casualties and you know this is not avoidable. Saying they are not deliberate is just that - saying it. You made it deliberate when you set out to bomb a city or a village full of civilians.
-tranglos (May 02, 2011, 10:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
But the point of the matter is that it is avoidable, for the fact that there are operations where it doesn't happen. It's just a matter of how much operational risk are you willing to take to avoid civilian casualties. (BTW- I abhor the term collateral damage. It's a euphemism used to cover up the fact that this damage takes its toll in lives. If you're going to do the act, at least look it in the eye when you do so.)
wraith808:
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be. When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields. One of the four killed last night was a woman that one of the men was using as a human shield. This weekend there was a bombing in Iraq against civilians where they used a 12 year old boy as the suicide attacker. Where is your outrage at that?
-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
Personally, I think the largest weapon against such is to not use pejorative and leading terms in referring to what you're doing. If you're willing to undertake an op against a target that you recognize will use such tactics, then don't sugar coat what you're doing- but put it down as precedent for (1) what the cost in lives other than to the soldiers involved might/will be, and (2) the case for why that risk is willing to be taken or what can be done to mitigate this chance for harm. In too many cases we take the easy way out in order to mitigate operational risk, and not to put boots on the ground. Military caskets make bad politics. But in order to not put faceless people in other countries on the line, sometimes those military caskets will be the cost. Our lives or theirs is what it comes down to in the end, but no one is willing to admit that this is the choice.
nosh:
It's a symbolic victory but it means a lot to people who lost their loved ones and I'm happy for them.
As for retaliatory attacks... meh! these guys never needed an excuse to take lives anyway, if anything they'll get all worked up and act unprepared now.
I think there would have been a concerted effort to get him alive if he had more than purely symbolic worth. The guy was out of the loop, holed up without telephones or internet. Just an a-hole who was better off dead and the world's a better place without him.
The Indian media has got a bone to chew on - OBL "hiding out" a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military academy in a disproportionately large house for that area with 12 foot walls. Move along, nothing to see here. 8)
Renegade:
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be. When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields. One of the four killed last night was a woman that one of the men was using as a human shield. This weekend there was a bombing in Iraq against civilians where they used a 12 year old boy as the suicide attacker. Where is your outrage at that?
-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
...
I had a very long post written, but have decided against it. Nothing inflammatory. It was simply, well, forget it.
I see it as boiling down to killing is killing.
The only question then is, are you willing to commit "evil"?
It seems like a lot of people are willing. Meh... I think I'm going to get back to working on some software now. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version