'No charge' over Falluja killing

[ASsman]

"In the NAVY!" , err marines, whatever, bitches.


----
'No charge' over Falluja killing

Residents pick through the rubble of a house destroyed in Falluja
The US operation in Falluja reduced much of the city to rubble
A US marine filmed apparently shooting dead an injured Iraqi in a Falluja mosque last year may not be formally charged, according to media reports.

Military investigators have concluded there is not enough evidence to prosecute over the shooting, US television network CBS news says.


Blah ..Blah...

No movement'

Kevin Sites, a news cameraman covering the operation, had entered the building with a squad of marines who were checking over a district fought for the previous day.

He caught on film one marine shooting an apparently unarmed, injured Iraqi. The soldier told investigators he thought he had seen the man moving.

Mr Sites said he had seen no movement apart from breathing from the Iraqi before he was shot.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4293717.stm

[Qdrop]

i still don't see what the big fuckin deal is hear.....

a room full of dead or injured enemy soldiers.......some enemies have been known to rig the dead with booby traps....others to be suicide bombers, ect.
they walk in the room....make sure all the enemies are dead. shoot them all to be sure.

that's war, fuckers.....that's fucking war.
they were not on peacekeeping mission.....they were thier to kill people. kill the enemy.

so few people have a grip on the reality of such situations....they have such ridiculous expectations and ideologies....

same with the video of the that soilder who shot that enemy iraqi that was crawling away injured...

they were in a firefight.......one of the iraqi's got shot, lost his weapon....and tried to crawl to cover.
a US soldier saw him and finished him off.

i would expect the same from an iraqi soldier....

if any of this conflicts with the geneva convention IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, then it should be changed.....

[racer5.0stang]

We should have battles like in civil war times, where both sides lined up shot each other. Whoever was left standing with the most soldiers, wins.

[Ace42]

so few people have a grip on the reality of such situations....they have such ridiculous expectations and ideologies...

Yeah, how ludicrous to expect soldiers to follow the Geneva conventions that their government has ratified and they are obliged under law to abide by. How insane that these people behave in the manner which even the Nazis managed to.

Bleeding heart liberals, don't they know that both legality and morality have changed since the twentieth century? Nowadays a law means "something you kinda follow when it isn't inconviniant" and a warcrime means "something you want to do, but shouldn't, but will anyway because no-one will stop you."

if any of this conflicts with the geneva convention IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, then it should be changed...

Urm, no. British soldiers quite like the idea of not being gassed; napalmed; hit with dum-dums or daisy-cutters; raped; summarily executed; etc.

Why don't you become the President, officially declare your renunciation of the Geneva Conventions, and then see how glad your soldiers are that there is no reason whatsoever that they should be treated humanely in any way shape or form by the people fighting them. I'd say "also see how much international support you get in future wars" - but Bush has already made that point moot anyway.

And of course, you'd have to have your army invade your own country, as it is precisely this sort of thing that Bush uses as an excuse to lump a coutnry into the "axis of evil" and invade it.

Jeez, what next, are you going to be telling us that "we shouldn't get all upset about Saddam gassing the Kurds, it was a war FFS!"

What about September the 11th? "Hell, who cares if they are dead, it's a WAR ffs!"

[Qdrop]

Bleeding heart liberals, don't they know that both legality and morality have changed since the twentieth century? Nowadays a law means "something you kinda follow when it isn't inconviniant" and a warcrime means "something you want to do, but shouldn't, but will anyway because no-one will stop you."


i never stated we should do away with the Geneva convention....
simply that IF such actions ("finishing off" wounded enemies) is prohibited...that should be changed.



Urm, no. British soldiers quite like the idea of not being gassed; napalmed; hit with dum-dums or daisy-cutters; raped;

agreed.


summarily executed; etc.

on the battle field?.....fuck, that's war. you aren't shooting to wound....you are shooting to kill.

now if you are talking of taking prisoners, then executing afterwards.....that is another matter and debate.


Why don't you become the President, officially declare your renunciation of the Geneva Conventions, and then see how glad your soldiers are that there is no reason whatsoever that they should be treated humanely in any way shape or form by the people fighting them. I'd say "also see how much international support you get in future wars" - but Bush has already made that point moot anyway.

strawman.....
i never stated we should repeal the entire Geneva convention....
but possibly ammend it....IF it indeed warrants against killing wounded enemies on the battlefield.


Jeez, what next, are you going to be telling us that "we shouldn't get all upset about Saddam gassing the Kurds, it was a war FFS!"

yes, ace.
you took the words RIGHT out of my mouth.

[yeahwho]

Obviously, GWB has declared "Open Season" in Iraq. Oh wait...it was a war about WMD's, or wait, it was a war about regime change, or wait it was a war about democracy...blah, blah, blah...

[Whois]

The dead Iraqi in question was in fact at the time a POW.

So we shot a POW...no big deal. :rolleyes:

Now watch, in the next conflict (Syria, Iran, blah...) some American POW will be shot dead and Americans will be screaming for blood.

Idiots...

[Ace42]

simply that IF such actions ("finishing off" wounded enemies) is prohibited...that should be changed.

So, yank soldiers have been ambushed, many are injured with shrapnel, none are armed. You think the enemy combatants should:

A. Finish off the injured ones, but keep the healthy ones that have surrended as prisoners.
B. Kill all of them, taking prisoners is not true war
C. Shoot them just enough to injure them, so that all of them are merely being "finished off"

?

on the battle field?.....fuck, that's war. you aren't shooting to wound....you are shooting to kill.

Urm, no, you are shooting to neutralise the threat. While killing is clearly the predominate way of achieving this, even you (seem to) acknowledge this does not extend to executing prisoners (which are just as much a threat as an unarmed injured enemy. If not more so, as they are supposedly kept healthy, and thus will be more "fighting fit" then someone missing a section of leg)

So unless the enemy have a magical teleportation device that allows them to beam into one of your prison cells, then clearly by that argument there should never be any prisoners, as the only place you are going to be able to get prisoners is on the battlefield?

now if you are talking of taking prisoners, then executing afterwards.....that is another matter and debate.

No, it isn't. By your argument, there should not be any prisoners taken, as they are the enemy on the battlefield, and you sohuld be shooting to kill.

i never stated we should repeal the entire Geneva convention....
but possibly ammend it....IF it indeed warrants against killing wounded enemies on the battlefield.

It depends on if they are a threat or not. A perfectly healthy soldier may be routed and in full retreat, and will still be considered a "non-combatant" (as they are fleeing, not fighting) and thus not a viable target.

Technically, an incapacitated soldier is a non-combatant (for obvious reasons, someone who has just had their spinal cord shot out are not going to be springing up and unloading their AKs) and thus they are not an "enemy" in the conventional sense.

By "injured" the context in this thread is "incapacitated" - no-one is suggesting that an Iraqi with a bloody-nose or a sprained ankle who is waving his RPG around wildly is not a viable target. Piles does not mitigate you from being a combatant. However, being injured to the point of helplessness is.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva06.htm

Article 13

The present Convention shall apply to the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea belonging to the following categories: (...) (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.(...)6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 16

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked of a belligerent who fall into enemy hands shall be prisoners of war, and the provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall apply to them. The captor may decide, according to circumstances, whether it is expedient to hold them, or to convey them to a port in the captor's own country, to a neutral port or even to a port in enemy territory. In the last case, prisoners of war thus returned to their home country may not serve for the duration of the war.

The key section is "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" - clearly someone who is critically wounded is "taking no active part in the hostilities."

And it is neither fair nor legal to simply *assume* someone who is injured, apparently unarmed and motionless is "taking an active part". If he is killed, and it transpires that he is unarmed and thus hors du combat then clearly a crime has been commited.

[yeahwho]

Put me in the Ace42 fanclub.

The logic of this whole war is lost on me. $5 billion a month of US dollars is being spent and somehow the American public bit off that the whole 9/11 attack was why we must declare war in Iraq? Which was being monitored by multiple countries, regulatory agencies and US fighter jet's.

I guess this may be truer than we thought, because now I'm reading Saudis are becoming part of the insurgent scene, careful for what you ask for.

APLink (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Saudi%20Jihad%20in%20Iraq)

[ASsman]

I still don't know what the big deal is.

I mean we aren't chopping peoples heads off while taping it, as long as we stay a few levels below the "terrorist", we will win.

[yeahwho]

I still don't know what the big deal is.

I mean we aren't chopping peoples heads off while taping it, as long as we stay a few levels below the "terrorist", we will win.

Always looking for the good in people, that's ASsman for you.

[Qdrop]

So, yank soldiers have been ambushed, many are injured with shrapnel, none are armed. You think the enemy combatants should:

A. Finish off the injured ones, but keep the healthy ones that have surrended as prisoners.
B. Kill all of them, taking prisoners is not true war
C. Shoot them just enough to injure them, so that all of them are merely being "finished off"



i would fully expect "A". assuming that there is a value in keeping the health ones (ie- intelligence info, ect).

otherwise "B".

i do not believe in much humanitarianism when dealing with the enemy in war.
that is an oxymoron.



Urm, no, you are shooting to neutralise the threat. While killing is clearly the predominate way of achieving this,

it is the best way at achieving this.


even you (seem to) acknowledge this does not extend to executing prisoners

i don't relish the death of prisoners....
but it makes little sense (other than humanitarian) to keep prisoners alive for any reason other than intelligence info or leverage.

humanitarianism does not mix with enemies.



No, it isn't. By your argument, there should not be any prisoners taken, as they are the enemy on the battlefield, and you sohuld be shooting to kill.


correct, unless a value is determined by using prisoners for info or leverage.


It depends on if they are a threat or not. A perfectly healthy soldier may be routed and in full retreat, and will still be considered a "non-combatant" (as they are fleeing, not fighting) and thus not a viable target.

they still have a potential to be a threat at a later date.
they should be killed anyway.
kill the enemy (non-civilian) at all times. armed or not.


Technically, an incapacitated soldier is a non-combatant (for obvious reasons, someone who has just had their spinal cord shot out are not going to be springing up and unloading their AKs) and thus they are not an "enemy" in the conventional sense.

kill them.
remove any posibility of future conflict with these individuals.
continue until the enemy surrenders and the war ends.
show NO mercy to the enemy soldiers.

show mercy and humanitarian effort to civilians whenever it is possible.

do not rape and pillage the civilians.

colateral damage is awful.
but it will happen.
it will continue to happen until the enemey at large, surrenders or is summerilly defeated.



obviously i am about as hardline as you get when discussing my views of actual combat.

i advocate complete ruthlessness towards the enemy when engaged in war/combat.
continue until victory is acheived.

this is why war sucks....and should be used as a last resort and avoided at ALL costs if possible.

many of my views may conflict with the geneva convention.
i think the geneva convention should be changed.

any questions?

[ASsman]

I'm not even gonna go there. Fuck that, I might say some shit about certain people serving in the armed forces.

Don't push Qdrop.

HINT: If you don't abide by the Geneva Convention, no one else should/would. So you cannot argue ANYTHING as being illegal during war. e.g. 9/11 was not only justified, it was not out of line.

[Qdrop]

I'm not even gonna go there. Fuck that, I might say some shit about certain peoples relatives that are serving in the armed forces.

Don't push Qdrop.


oh, bring it on bitch.

what, you think you're gonna make me cry talking about my cousin or uncle.

if they were met by the enemy on the battlefield, i would fully expect the enemy to attempt to kill them....and if captured alive, to torture them to no end.


HINT: If you don't abide by the Geneva Convention, no one else should/would. So you cannot argue ANYTHING as being illegal during war.

again...i do not think it should be dropped....but certain aspect should be changed.


e.g. 9/11 was not only justified, it was not out of line.

9/11 was not "illegal".
it is comprable to pearl harbor.

it was a first strike by the enemy.

[Ace42]

i advocate complete ruthlessness towards the enemy when engaged in war/combat.
continue until victory is acheived.

this is why war sucks....and should be used as a last resort and avoided at ALL costs if possible.

The problem with this policy is that it can only create exponentially more brutal conflicts. If you behaviour in such a manner, then not only can you expect, but you also compel similar acts of barbarism from your opponents.

POWs are, by your argument, a liability (at the very least, they divert resources away from the war effort) and as such all should be summarily executed. If various nations had decided to do this during WW2, then a lot of people would not be alive today, both veterans and their decendants. Neither of my grandparents were POWs, so I'd still be here.

Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that waging a war in the most ruthless manner is waging a war in the most efficient manner. While it makes your task more difficult, it makes your enemy's task equally more difficult, and thus it has the effect of elleviating some of the misery of war.

You COULD argue that "it is better if war is MORE brutal, as people will have less of a taste for it" - TH White argues in The Once and Future King that "total war" (as opposed to the more medieval marshalled battles) is the only way to give the general sipping wine in their tents a taste of what the misery of war actually is.

However, that in itself is paradoxical. Simply asserting that more misery in war will make less (miserable) wars, does not make it self-evident. The horrors of real wars (WW1 & 2) are now really quite distant in the minds of the US population it seems (hence the gung-ho attitude to imperialist wars of expansion) and it seems unlikely that making the wars MORE horrific (if indeed that is really that possible, given the wretchedness of the last century's conflicts) would help remedy this.

[ASsman]

oh, bring it on bitch.

what, you think you're gonna make me cry talking about my cousin or uncle.

if they were met by the enemy on the battlefield, i would fully expect the enemy to attempt to kill them....and if captured alive, to torture them to no end.


again...i do not think it should be dropped....but certain aspect should be changed.



9/11 was not "illegal".
it is comprable to pearl harbor.

it was a first strike by the enemy.

Meh, can't argue with that. Yah making you cry was what I was worried about, more like offending you, idiot. But really if you don't care for the well being of any of "our" soldiers, then shit, I don't want to hear any bitching/whinning/nagging about how the "terrorist" are in any way out of line. Or that we are any different from them, or that they are any better.

Oh and now you support torture, and the killing of innocent people. Along with your mastubating session, this has made Jesus cry.
Some "Centrist".

[Qdrop]

The problem with this policy is that it can only create exponentially more brutal conflicts. If you behaviour in such a manner, then not only can you expect, but you also compel similar acts of barbarism from your opponents.


as stated, i fully expect this.


POWs are, by your argument, a liability (at the very least, they divert resources away from the war effort) and as such all should be summarily executed. If various nations had decided to do this during WW2, then a lot of people would not be alive today, both veterans and their decendants. Neither of my grandparents were POWs, so I'd still be here.


this is true.
and i accept this.



Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that waging a war in the most ruthless manner is waging a war in the most efficient manner. While it makes your task more difficult, it makes your enemy's task equally more difficult, and thus it has the effect of elleviating some of the misery of war.

i see your point.
but i don't necessarily agree.


You COULD argue that "it is better if war is MORE brutal, as people will have less of a taste for it" - TH White argues in The Once and Future King that "total war" (as opposed to the more medieval marshalled battles) is the only way to give the general sipping wine in their tents a taste of what the misery of war actually is.

However, that in itself is paradoxical. Simply asserting that more misery in war will make less (miserable) wars, does not make it self-evident. The horrors of real wars (WW1 & 2) are now really quite distant in the minds of the US population it seems (hence the gung-ho attitude to imperialist wars of expansion) and it seems unlikely that making the wars MORE horrific (if indeed that is really that possible, given the wretchedness of the last century's conflicts) would help remedy this.

i could argue that....but i won't.

my view comes from a simple place: if you enter a war, you fucking win.
ANY....WAY....YOU CAN.

that is the very ethic i hold if engage in a fist fight. i enter only if i have to....but if i do....i WILL win, no matter what i have to do to win.


look, this is where i am coming from....
i frown on ANY attempt to "civilize" war or violence.
that is an oxymoron.
it weakens the effort and it attempts to make the impalatable palatable.

to me, that is more disgusting then beheading POW's on camera.

war is ugly.
do not attempt to dress it up with pretty "ethics" dresses and play tea party.

i would much rather people put effort in avioding war, rather than putting effort into making war more "ethical".

[Qdrop]

But really if you don't care for the well being of any of "our" soldiers, then shit, I don't want to hear any bitching/whinning/nagging about how the "terrorist" are in any way out of line.

who said i don't care?
it is a volunteer army.
my cousin and uncle knew what they were getting into, at least to a degree.


Or that we are any different from them, or that they are any better.

explain.
"better"?


Oh and now you support torture,

support it?...or accept it as part of war?


and the killing of innocent people.

support it?...or accept it as part of war?


Some "Centrist".
that makes NO sense.
elaborate.

perhaps you are alluding that i don't seem to be adhearing to the strict dicitonary definition of the word "centrist"- being that i am not a moderate who takes no significant liberal of conservative stances.

i use the label centrist to simply pervay a sense of "indepandance" from a preordained view...or to show that i have a very wide view of sentiments.

[Ace42]

that is the very ethic i hold if engage in a fist fight. i enter only if i have to....but if i do....i WILL win, no matter what i have to do to win.

That is stupid. That is like saying "well, I'll kick him in the nuts, as that will more than likely secure victory" - well it might do, but then what if he goes "I was just gonna hit you a bit, but now you have inflicted this agony on me, you have opened to door for me to do exactly the same, AND THEN SOME."

And then he (although in pain) kicks you in the nuts repeatedly until you pass out.

Well, because of your ethos, you have manged to get yourself fubar. In a fist-fight, choosing to disregard certain ethical considerations will only escalate the situation, and that will more than likely come back to bite YOU in the ass.

i frown on ANY attempt to "civilize" war or violence.
that is an oxymoron.
it weakens the effort and it attempts to make the impalatable palatable.

Which effort? It makes war less efficient you think? I'd disagree. If you simply like to equate war with number of enemy soldiers dead, then you might have a point. However, while that is often to score-keeper, it does not necessarily equate to sucessful operations.

war is ugly.
do not attempt to dress it up with pretty "ethics" dresses and play tea party.

War is a man-made abstract. It is what we choose it to be. If we arbitrarily decided that all warfare would be conducted unarmed, and that killing an opponent automatically forfeited the battle, then war would not be "ugly."

You might just as well say "capitalism is ugly, do not attempt to dress it up with pretty ethics" and thus advocate eliminating any legilsation that might stand in the way of profit, including legalising slavery, removing any form of litigation, welfare, etc etc. Likewise, any form of atrocity in warfare (including murdering civillians) would be totally justified.

Personally, I think capitalism is only even remotely tolerable because it is fettered and chained.

i would much rather people put effort in avioding war, rather than putting effort into making war more "ethical".

Hence the UN, which your President chooses to disregard.

However, it needn't be either or.

Saying that wars regulated to minimise suffering are somehow less preferable to wars in which there is an abundance of suffering and misery just strikes me as peevish, and more than a little childish.

Unless you (not you specifically, the rhetorical 'you') derive a perverted pleasure from human suffering, then clearly you must prefer a war in which there is a net deficet in suffering, rather than the same war in which ethics were out the window and more people died horribly.

It is completely nonsensical to suggest that as soon as the casualties in a war exceed 0 the values become inverted and the highest number of casualties becomes preferable.

[ASsman]

support it?...or accept it as part of war?
#

1. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.

# To endure; tolerate:

Pick one.
Tolerance of slavery = support of slavery, and I would argue only one spot below actively "advocating".

Damn, who said this, I forget, as I am not as "well read" as some. But if we end up doing exactly what the "terrorists" are doing, then what are we fighting? Because we have already lost, and everyones life has been lost in vain. Maybe Ace has already said this, dunno.

[Qdrop]

That is stupid. That is like saying "well, I'll kick him in the nuts, as that will more than likely secure victory" - well it might do, but then what if he goes "I was just gonna hit you a bit, but now you have inflicted this agony on me, you have opened to door for me to do exactly the same, AND THEN SOME."
that's kinda laughable, ace...sorry.
you enter in a fist fight to win....both parties should, and often do.
to walk into a fight thinking "well, i don't want to get kicked in the nuts or choked....so i won't do it first" and assume he is thinking along the same line of ethhics is pretty stupid.

never underestimate your enemy.



Which effort? It makes war less efficient you think? I'd disagree. If you simply like to equate war with number of enemy soldiers dead, then you might have a point. However, while that is often to score-keeper, it does not necessarily equate to sucessful operations.

off course not.
"killing the most" is not the goal.
but it is a good START to winning a war.
but you are correct that that alone does not equate to victory.
look at the current situation in Iraq ..."mission accomplished" indeed.ha.


War is a man-made abstract. It is what we choose it to be. If we arbitrarily decided that all warfare would be conducted unarmed, and that killing an opponent automatically forfeited the battle, then war would not be "ugly."

you are dealing with too much abstract here.
war is biologically driven...as is violence in general.
legislation does not really change that.....


You might just as well say "capitalism is ugly, do not attempt to dress it up with pretty ethics" and thus advocate eliminating any legilsation that might stand in the way of profit, including legalising slavery, removing any form of litigation, welfare, etc etc. Likewise, any form of atrocity in warfare (including murdering civillians) would be totally justified.

Personally, I think capitalism is only even remotely tolerable because it is fettered and chained.

i agree with your stance on capitalism.
more on that in a minute....



Hence the UN, which your President chooses to disregard.

indeed.



Saying that wars regulated to minimise suffering are somehow less preferable to wars in which there is an abundance of suffering and misery just strikes me as peevish, and more than a little childish.

i just don't think it's realistic.....or practical in many cases.
there is some value in it, however.


Unless you (not you specifically, the rhetorical 'you') derive a perverted pleasure from human suffering, then clearly you must prefer a war in which there is a net deficet in suffering, rather than the same war in which ethics were out the window and more people died horribly.

i would rather their no war at all.
but there is, it should be decisive and complete.
an extensive PRE plan should be established... AS WELL AS A POST WAR PLAN....to make the victory realistic, complete, and long lasting (although never permanant)....
(WW2 as opposed to current Iraq war)


i do see your paralle between capitalism and war....

"if i believe that capitalism should be controlled or else it will destroy itself (which it would)....then why not have the same view of war?

i just don't think those two subject have enough in common to really warrant such a comparison....
but that is a good debate...

[ASsman]

Victorory = Hearts and Minds of the Iraqis, defecating on dead Iraqi insurgents will make victory certain...

[Qdrop]

Damn, who said this, I forget, as I am not as "well read" as some. But if we end up doing exactly what the "terrorists" are doing, then what are we fighting? Because we have already lost, and everyones life has been lost in vain. Maybe Ace has already said this, dunno.

i do not beleive the tactics you use in War automatically equate to your levels of culture, ethics and societies....

if we torture iraqi's.....and iraqi's torture us.....
that does not make our cultures equal.
sorry.

your methods of war and your tactics DO NOT equate to your level of cultural ethics, ect.

people often try to attest to this...but i do not agree.


if someone throws a rock into your window and hits your wife in the head...and you run outside and beat the fucking shit out of him....
that does not mean you are evil violent madman who beats up anyone who opposes him in his day to day life.

heavyweight boxers do not neccesaraly go home and beat their wives and children...

[ASsman]

Aslong as we win the hearts and minds.

Also, Stalin, totally kicked ass. And Hitler, the end justifies the means.

[Qdrop]

Also, Stalin, totally kicked ass. And Hitler, the end justifies the means.
the society and culture that stalin and hitler advocated is not equal to ours....despite all of us having rather ruthless war tactic on the battlefield.

again....your comparison falls short.

[Ace42]

to walk into a fight thinking "well, i don't want to get kicked in the nuts or choked....so i won't do it first" and assume he is thinking along the same line of ethhics is pretty stupid.

There is an unwritten law (at least around here) that you don't kick a chap in the pills. I saw some little kid try it on the school bully, and I knew he was gonna get it for that. Yeah the guy got hurt, but then he gave back tripple. Had the kid just taken an ineffectual swing at his chops, he'd've just got a bit bruised and dirty. As it was, he ended up crying his eyes out.

Just like in Poker, raising the stakes can secure you a victory, but it can also fuck you up royal. It is a high-risk manoeouvre, and like all high-risk manouvres, they invariably end up backfiring.

As Sun-Tzu advocates, wars are won by playing it safe, not by gambling.

war is biologically driven...as is violence in general.
legislation does not really change that...

Violence certainly has a foot in genetics, but it is not exclusively biological. There can be numerous examples of where violence is solely the product of circumstance rather than a spontaneous biological imperative.

War is certainly not biologically driven in any meaningful sense of the word, in that it is the product of socio-economic factors which are not related to hormones, instinct, etc. There is nothing instinctive about refining Uranium and creating a fission bomb. There is nothing instinctive about pressing a button that will target somewhere you have never been, and will kill people you don't even know exist. These socio-economic factors bring me onto my second point.

it should be decisive and complete.

If decisive and complete victories in unlegislated wars made war unpalatable (or in any way made them less frequent) then there would be more wars in the last century than there were before these accords existed. That is not the case. Skirmishes, border disputes, occupations, invasions etc were more common during the Victorian era. IE: Colonial expansion, the Napoleonic wars, Hundred years war, The Romans were in a constant state of warfare, etc etc.

In the last century? Less than half a dozen. Quite different to the Hundred years war which lasted that long pretty much back to back.

i just don't think those two subject have enough in common to really warrant such a comparison....
but that is a good debate...

"War is capitalism with the gloves off" - Tom Stoppard.

[ASsman]

the society and culture that stalin and hitler advocated is not equal to ours....despite all of us having rather ruthless war tactic on the battlefield.

Who said it did, we are complete pussies compared. They didn't let "ethics" stop them from attempting to create a utopia.

Nazi Germany > USA

[yeahwho]

It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish with contempt.

Thomas Paine, 1737-1809

we're in the processing phase, somebody has to follow, let Q be a follower.

[ASsman]

Your new avatar looks like that of 2 others on the board. Very confusing.

[Qdrop]

we're in the processing phase, somebody has to follow, let Q be a follower.

what pussy jab...

stay out of it.

i have yet to hear you ONCE make ANY original argument or come with ANY novel idea on ANY subject in my time on this board.

talk about being a follower....lemming.

[yeahwho]

what pussy jab...

stay out of it.

i have yet to hear you ONCE make ANY original argument or come with ANY novel idea on ANY subject in my time on this board.

talk about being a follower....lemming.

Sensitive aren't you, Q, you always ask people to do their research, I always do, why? I don't know, because once I'm finished and I show you beyond a shawdow of doubt...like ASsman and Ace42 already have, you just go away with no reply. I'll stay anywhere I want and I will be 10 times more considerate than you are capable of being because I have a mind that is capable of doing so.
Your arrogance wears thin.

[Qdrop]

There is an unwritten law (at least around here) that you don't kick a chap in the pills. I saw some little kid try it on the school bully, and I knew he was gonna get it for that. Yeah the guy got hurt, but then he gave back tripple. Had the kid just taken an ineffectual swing at his chops, he'd've just got a bit bruised and dirty. As it was, he ended up crying his eyes out.

i just don't abide by that law, i guess.
nor do most that i know.

if you fight....you fight to win...period.


Just like in Poker, raising the stakes can secure you a victory, but it can also fuck you up royal. It is a high-risk manoeouvre, and like all high-risk manouvres, they invariably end up backfiring.

have you been in many fights?
that's not a personal jab....just asking.


As Sun-Tzu advocates, wars are won by playing it safe, not by gambling.

the dangerous gamble would be starting or jumping into a fight with some much larger or more skilled.
pick your battles wisely to reduce the risk of defeat.



Violence certainly has a foot in genetics, but it is not exclusively biological. There can be numerous examples of where violence is solely the product of circumstance rather than a spontaneous biological imperative.

War is certainly not biologically driven in any meaningful sense of the word, in that it is the product of socio-economic factors which are not related to hormones, instinct, etc. There is nothing instinctive about refining Uranium and creating a fission bomb. There is nothing instinctive about pressing a button that will target somewhere you have never been, and will kill people you don't even know exist. These socio-economic factors bring me onto my second point.

my point being....even with the building of complex weapondry and extensive planning....and the other likely stategic gains behind aggression (oil, trade, stategic outposting, ect)....the sentiment behind it is still a very primal one: us vs "them".....we are better then "them"...
basic group think and social conformatity...and....well a host of other psychological factors....

i think this part of the debate is going to get too abstact and lead us off course.




If decisive and complete victories in unlegislated wars made war unpalatable (or in any way made them less frequent) then there would be more wars in the last century than there were before these accords existed.

i never said they would....or that they will.

and i disagree with your assumption that more ethical war behavior has/would decrease the amount of wars in recent times.

there are other factors that have lent themselves to that trend.

[ASsman]

Kick me in my balls, ill pull a blade on your punk ass, nigga.

[Qdrop]

you always ask people to do their research, I always do, why? I don't know, because once I'm finished and I show you beyond a shawdow of doubt...like ASsman and Ace42 already have, you just go away with no reply.

the fuck are you talking about?
the SUV "debate"?
i never really even disagreed with you on that...

what other instances are you babbling about where your detailed research has silenced me and sent me into retreat?

i mean, are you serious?
dude, i barely even interact with you on this board simply because you never entice me much.
your views are predictable and pedestrian....you arguments are copied rhetoric....

you aren't even a factor to me on this board.

hush now.....

[Qdrop]

Kick me in my balls, ill pull a blade on your punk ass, nigga.
and you'd win....exacty my point.

[yeahwho]

the fuck are you talking about?
the SUV "debate"?
i never really even disagreed with you on that...

what other instances are you babbling about where your profound researched has silenced me and sent me into retreat?

i mean, are you serious?
dude, i barely even interact with you on this board simply because you never entice me much.
your views are predictable and pedestrian....you arguments are copied rhetoric....

you aren't even a factor to me on this board.

hush now.....

Yet you reply. The ultimate compliment. Thank You.

[Qdrop]

Yet you reply. The ultimate compliment. Thank You.

true dat. i guess-
..DOH! you got me again!

you tricky little wabbit, you!

[Ace42]

have you been in many fights?
that's not a personal jab....just asking.

A few. It is not often that someone wants to hit me, and I don't think I have ever been antagonised to the point where I would feel obliged to hit them back.

the sentiment behind it is still a very primal one: us vs "them".....we are better then "them"...
basic group think and social conformatity...and....well a host of other psychological factors...

Most psycho-social factors are anything but primitive, and certainly not exclusively biological. In terms of conformity, Skinner and Zimbardo's experiments both resulted in the conclusion that culture plays a significant part in shaping social responces. So saying "war is brutal and primitive" is merely echoing your social programming. Many people have (as you have pointed out) a more abstract understanding of it, this is equally down to their social programming. It is not to say one is more "true" than the other.

If anything, war is anti-biological, as humans have an innate reluctance to kill. Only a small percentage of the general population (the psychopaths in the litteral sense) are not furnished with this empathy-mercy mechanism.

I'd say that the idea that war is "Primal" is more to do with it being associated with very primal concerns (death, *the* great evolutionary factor) rather than a state of armed conflict (armed, by its very nature, is counter-primitive) being instrinsically primal.

i think this part of the debate is going to get too abstact and lead us off course.

Quite.

and i disagree with your assumption that more ethical war behavior has/would decrease the amount of wars in recent times.

there are other factors that have lent themselves to that trend.

I was merely stating that the idea that "total war" would somehow lessen the incidence of war (and thus bloody total wars are preferable for that reason to wars which adhere to guidelines) is not born up by the evidence. I was not saying that ethical war behaviour has decreased the amount of wars, but it certainly has not increased it.

By stressing the importance of other factors, that would seem to limit the significance of ethical warfare as a bad thing. That leaves the stone cold fact that the geneva conventions, as they stand, have saved lives and thus are a good thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ASsman
Kick me in my balls, ill pull a blade on your punk ass, nigga.
and you'd win....exacty my point.

So your point is, exactly, that if you are ruthless and raise the stakes, he will win when he is obliged to go one further which proves to be the final straw?

I'm afraid that was *my* point exactly. Rather than just a black-eye or a kick in the nuts, your ruthlessness just got you knifed.

[D_Raay]

One of the most important responsibilities that the self-proclaimed "greatest" country in the world should follow is leading by example. What example would we be setting if we followed Q's warped sense of combat strategy? We would never NOT be at war for one. We would be hated around the world except by some insignificant little countries wanting to suck from our proverbial teat. Maybe we would have neat little bloodied heads on posts outside of our military bases? We would triple the useage of the word "barbaric".

Point being is that we cannot claim to be something we are not anymore. We wouldn't fit the mold. And our opinion on other matters would mean less than shit.

[ASsman]

and you'd win....exacty my point.
Exactly, I'd win. Exactly my point.

[Qdrop]

Most psycho-social factors are anything but primitive, and certainly not exclusively biological. In terms of conformity, Skinner and Zimbardo's experiments both resulted in the conclusion that culture plays a significant part in shaping social responces. So saying "war is brutal and primitive" is merely echoing your social programming. Many people have (as you have pointed out) a more abstract understanding of it, this is equally down to their social programming. It is not to say one is more "true" than the other.

If anything, war is anti-biological, as humans have an innate reluctance to kill. Only a small percentage of the general population (the psychopaths in the litteral sense) are not furnished with this empathy-mercy mechanism.

I'd say that the idea that war is "Primal" is more to do with it being associated with very primal concerns (death, *the* great evolutionary factor) rather than a state of armed conflict (armed, by its very nature, is counter-primitive) being instrinsically primal.

this is actually a great debate.....
one which i will pick up with you on monday...perhaps on another thread.




So your point is, exactly, that if you are ruthless and raise the stakes, he will win when he is obliged to go one further which proves to be the final straw?

I'm afraid that was *my* point exactly. Rather than just a black-eye or a kick in the nuts, your ruthlessness just got you knifed.
i guess we are coming from 2 differant paradigms here.
my point is: he who is strongest and most aggressive will win. the loser will often look to up the ante, so to speak- to a degree
that goes without saying.
thus you "bring it"....put everything you got into it and go for the win.

i have been in enough confrontations....they have NEVER resulted in death or truly serious injury....
for just the reason you stated earlier:"humans have built in impedance to killing.

if someone slaps my girlfriends face...i am not going to run over to him and try to engage in calm game of slap-boxing, hoping to keep the escalation of violence to a minimal....i am going to put my forehead directly into his nose and break it.....he may (if he can see) try to up the anty and throw a bottle at me.....but eventually...the strongest and greatest aggressor will win...often VERY quickly if the intensity is enough.

see, what you are missing here...perhaps due to inexperiance...is that this escalation rarely goes very far.....
in a seek for dominance....one party often (and very quickly) becomes subordinate.....gives up.
most fights i have engaged in or seen (that have not been broken up) close at hand are over in minutes, with one party screaming "OKAY, FUCK...OKAY...I'M SORRY....ENOUGH.....FUCK"...while they hold their bleeding nose.

wow.
tangent.

[Qdrop]

Exactly, I'd win. Exactly my point.

see above.

[Qdrop]

k, kids....i'm out for the weekend...goin home.

resume on monday, perhaps....

[yeahwho]

k, kids....i'm out for the weekend...goin home.

resume on monday, perhaps....

So I have to wait til' Monday to have my intellingence insulted? Hey maybe on Monday you can kick my ass too, let me know when your done tough guy.

[Ace42]

i guess we are coming from 2 differant paradigms here.
my point is: he who is strongest and most aggressive will win. the loser will often look to up the ante, so to speak- to a degree
that goes without saying.
thus you "bring it"....put everything you got into it and go for the win.

"most aggressive" is clearly quite different being "the strongest" or the "Most ruthless"

In my experience, the strongest are seldom the most ruthless, as they have no need to be. Their strength will make them victorious anyway, and thus it is in their best interest to "play by the rules" and thus minimise their own losses. (IE the school bully will win whether he gets kicked in the nuts or no, so he doesn't raise the ante which would thus result in him getting his balls kicked too) While this reasoning might not be conscious, it is visible in all the fights I have ever witnessed, and judging by your account later, it seems to hold at least partially true in your own experiences.

he may (if he can see) try to up the anty and throw a bottle at me.....but eventually...the strongest and greatest aggressor will win...often VERY quickly if the intensity is enough.

As I said strongest != greatest aggressor. Strength consists of the "other factors" you mentioned earlier when refering to history. While strength or shrewd combat strategy can be seen to directly correlate with military success, ruthlessness or aggression cannot.

While strength is relatively static (a function of your force in terms of troops and hardware, in relation to strategy and terrain) "ruthlessness" is not. There is always a greater level of atrocity that the other side can stoop to.

The person who takes the bottle cannot be sure that it will not end up being stuck in him, or that (in the US at leat) it won't result in a gun being pulled on him. Then the guy with the gun cannot guarantee that the other person (or that person's friend if we assume he has jsut been shot) will not pull out a bigger gun. Etc, etc etc.

see, what you are missing here...perhaps due to inexperiance...is that this escalation rarely goes very far.....
in a seek for dominance....one party often (and very quickly) becomes subordinate.....gives up.
most fights i have engaged in or seen (that have not been broken up) close at hand are over in minutes, with one party screaming "OKAY, FUCK...OKAY...I'M SORRY....ENOUGH.....FUCK"...while they hold their bleeding nose.

I concur, however IMO this is where the analogy parts from the situation. The Arab-Israeli conflict hasn't 'fizzled out' in fifty years, and there are still cases of gross barbarism. Secondly, you could argue that the Geneva Conventions are merely formalising the macroscopic paradigm of this "upper limit" to escalation. It takes the decision to say "fuck, okay, I'm sorry, enough, fuck" out of the hands of the generals who might be sociopathic despots who do not give a shit about their people, and thus offers protection to the unseen masses. It could be seen to be analogous to the bystander who says "don't you think he's had enough?" to the guy who is still kicking his unconscious victim.

[Qdrop]

So I have to wait til' Monday to have my intellingence insulted? Hey maybe on Monday you can kick my ass too, let me know when your done tough guy.

troll much?

[Qdrop]

I concur, however IMO this is where the analogy parts from the situation. The Arab-Israeli conflict hasn't 'fizzled out' in fifty years, and there are still cases of gross barbarism. Secondly, you could argue that the Geneva Conventions are merely formalising the macroscopic paradigm of this "upper limit" to escalation. It takes the decision to say "fuck, okay, I'm sorry, enough, fuck" out of the hands of the generals who might be sociopathic despots who do not give a shit about their people, and thus offers protection to the unseen masses. It could be seen to be analogous to the bystander who says "don't you think he's had enough?" to the guy who is still kicking his unconscious victim.

i agree with most of this, i suppose.

i guess you could go back in history and find wars in which pure brutal aggression won out (the Huns and other barbaric tribes), the Nazi's vs. much of europe (blitzgrieg is about as intense and aggressive as you get....the french surrendered in, what....about 20 min?).

i mean, if you look at Hiroshima and nagasaki....
there was an instance of extreme aggression...the utmost...
and Japan finally said "ok...fuck....sorry....it's done!"
one could speculate the outcome of that USA-Japan conflict without the use of atomic weapons....
the US would have pulled it out most likely, with aid from the rest of the world.....but at a much greater total casualty rate (for the US anway).

if the atomic bombs were used earlier (and thus provoked surrender).....would the TOTAL death toll had not been much smaller?

i see your point on arab israeli conflict....
i think, though....the reason all out aggression has not won out for either side is that niether side really has a large enough tactical edge on one another....or rather, neither side really gone ALL OUT in a pure rampage....
yes, Israel does have an edge in weapondry (thanks to the US, ect), but not on signifant enough level....nor (due to foreign diplomacy and UN constraints) will they ever truly go ALL out against pakistan and use that edge.

it sounds sad....but i really don't see that conflict EVER ending until one side obliterates the other....
every fucking time they get close to a peace accord of some kind (this past month).....some independant radicals fuck it up.....and it escalates right back to where it began....
i believe that one should give peace every chance one can to work.
but i do not believe that peace is always the answer.....that's nature.
animals don't strike peace accords....
and we STILL (whether others want to believe it or not) follow the same rules of nature that we did when we were swinging from trees......it just got more complex....

[Ace42]

i mean, if you look at Hiroshima and nagasaki...

Which was the direct result of the Japanese starting an all-out aggressive unprovoked sneak-attack on the US.

Just proves my point - they were ruthless (a day that will live in infamy) and the result was an escalation which was detrimental to them.

[Qdrop]

Which was the direct result of the Japanese starting an all-out aggressive unprovoked sneak-attack on the US.

Just proves my point - they were ruthless (a day that will live in infamy) and the result was an escalation which was detrimental to them.

so the strongest AND most ruthless/aggressive won...(dropping two nukes is pretty fuckin aggressive and ruthless.....the "i'm not fucking around, assholes!" approach).

see this debate is falling into tautology....

we both see the same incidents as support for our point.

you see the japanese incident as support you view that upping the anty is bad for everyone...

i see the japansese incident as support for using extreme ruthless aggression to force surrender of your enemy....

again....2 differant paradigms looking at the same incident.

niether of us are wrong, here....

[Qdrop]

Which was the direct result of the Japanese starting an all-out aggressive unprovoked sneak-attack on the US.

Just proves my point - they were ruthless (a day that will live in infamy) and the result was an escalation which was detrimental to them.

out of curiosity, do you think of 9/11 as unprovoked....or not?

meaning, do you see a parallel here?

[Ace42]

out of curiosity, do you think of 9/11 as unprovoked....or not?

meaning, do you see a parallel here?

Not in the way I think you are implying. The US retaliation has not been against people who were responsible for 9/11. Nor can it be, as they died in the suicide attack (thus depriving the US of their target for retribution, hence the US drumming up wars against fictional perpetrators) and even the person they claim was directly responsible (even though he wasn't in any meaningful sense) has gotten away not only scott free, but with energised popularity, etc.

The only way it could've been a parrallel is if after Pearl Harbour the US then waged war on Mexico and said "they are the sort of people who'd want to do Pearl Harbour style attacks in the future."

And 9/11 was provoked. The US has been pissing off the whole region for roughly half a century. Take the USS Vincennes incident for one. Shit like that won't stand.

so the strongest AND most ruthless/aggressive won...

Urm, last I checked the US didn't decapitate POWs with Katanas, hammer 10 inch artillery shells into the anuses of suspected spies, pull out the intestines of living prisoners and use them to affix them to crucifixes, etc. And the US didn't launch a pre-emptive strike without warning.

If anything, the most ruthless / aggressive (The Japanese clearly. They started it, they had a greater reputation for brutality, they went to greater lengths [IE Kamikaze pilots] etc than the US) lost.

Nukes certainly made the US the strongest, and I would not argue that the strongest traditionally wins, but that has no direct relation to ruthlessness and aggressiveness. The Germans were more ruthless and aggressive in WW2, and they lost.

Clearly, being ruthless has *no* correlation to victory, and every correlation to incurring greater reprisals. As no sane commander would want significant reprisals, quite clearly ruthlessness is ineffecient.

[Qdrop]

Urm, last I checked the US didn't decapitate POWs with Katanas, hammer 10 inch artillery shells into the anuses of suspected spies, pull out the intestines of living prisoners and use them to affix them to crucifixes, etc. And the US didn't launch a pre-emptive strike without warning.

If anything, the most ruthless / aggressive (The Japanese clearly. They started it, they had a greater reputation for brutality, they went to greater lengths [IE Kamikaze pilots] etc than the US) lost.

i dunno, i still think dropping 2 atomic bombs trumps ripping out intestines...
BUT....i can perhaps part somewhat with bond between strongest and most aggressive.
i really do think they often go hand in hand...but yes, you can show instances where they did not historically.

you are eluding to "first strike" as most aggressive...which makes sense.

i am eluding to "the highest LEVEL of aggression" used has being the most aggressive. (an atomic/nuclear bomb will trump just about anything in that regard)


Nukes certainly made the US the strongest, and I would not argue that the strongest traditionally wins, but that has no direct relation to ruthlessness and aggressiveness.

i disagree......but not entirely (stated above).


The Germans were more ruthless and aggressive in WW2, and they lost.


well, up until the US entered (thanks to japan), germany's ruthless blitkrieg tactics were working quite well.....with little resistance (britian was saved due to thier geographic luck- island and all that)....
when germany started their ruthless and aggressive march, the US was neutral.
germany didn't attack the US.

however, YOU CAN make your point by pointing to hitler's blunder with Russia....when he turned on them in fit of unbridled agression....seriously fucking himself in the end once the US entered....

[Ace42]

you are eluding to "first strike" as most aggressive...which makes sense.

i am eluding to "the highest LEVEL of aggression" used has being the most aggressive. (an atomic/nuclear bomb will trump just about anything in that regard)

ag·gres·sion Audio pronunciation of "aggression" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-grshn)
n.

1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Using nukes only comes under the third definition. And while it is very destructive (12.5 kilotons, equal to the typical bombing capacity of 625 B29 superfortresses) I'd question whether it is more hostile than any other bombing mission. Both are equally unhealthy (fatal to those in the blast area, likely to cause severe injury to those in the tertiary blast zone) and both are equally likely to convey emnity.

So really, it seems that by "ruthless and aggressive" you merely mean "destructive" which is again quite distinct from strength or the aforementioned.

Dropping a powerful bomb is not any more "ruthless" than dropping lots of small bombs, nor aggresive in the sense that I would use it.

[Qdrop]

ag·gres·sion Audio pronunciation of "aggression" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-grshn)
n.

1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Using nukes only comes under the third definition. And while it is very destructive (12.5 kilotons, equal to the typical bombing capacity of 625 B29 superfortresses) I'd question whether it is more hostile than any other bombing mission. Both are equally unhealthy (fatal to those in the blast area, likely to cause severe injury to those in the tertiary blast zone) and both are equally likely to convey emnity.

So really, it seems that by "ruthless and aggressive" you merely mean "destructive" which is again quite distinct from strength or the aforementioned.

Dropping a powerful bomb is not any more "ruthless" than dropping lots of small bombs, nor aggresive in the sense that I would use it.

i just can't agree with you there, sorry.

i think your reaching....





i must say, i am flat out AMAZED that no "qdrop haters" have jumped on this thread with "qdrop, you are so ignorant...and you're getting owned!!" posts.

i'm impressed with the self control....

[Ace42]

i think your reaching...

No, I am using the words literally. And literally they do not support your argument. "Aggressive" traditionally means to initiate hostilities, and thus be the "aggressor" - that does not literally fit with the analogy of the US bombing Japan. Likewise "ruthless" means to have no compassion or pity. Logically this means that you cannot really be "more ruthless" as you cannot have grades of "no pity" - there is either pity (in whatever small degree) or there is not.

You can be "pityless" but you cannot be "the pityleast" or "the pitylessest"

Even if you conject (quitely legitimately, I would say) that you were using ruthless as a synonym for "barbaric" - the Japanese would still be ahead of this, as their brutal torture was a lot "cruder" than using thermo-nuclear technology to bomb a city.

[Qdrop]

No, I am using the words literally. And literally they do not support your argument. "Aggressive" traditionally means to initiate hostilities, and thus be the "aggressor" - that does not literally fit with the analogy of the US bombing Japan. Likewise "ruthless" means to have no compassion or pity. Logically this means that you cannot really be "more ruthless" as you cannot have grades of "no pity" - there is either pity (in whatever small degree) or there is not.


You can be "pityless" but you cannot be "the pityleast" or "the pitylessest"

as you stated, i was using in the 3rd def. sense.
which i CAN do....

we have entered "splitting hairs territory" now.
i think we have come as far as we can on this debate.



Even if you conject (quitely legitimately, I would say) that you were using ruthless as a synonym for "barbaric" - the Japanese would still be ahead of this, as their brutal torture was a lot "cruder" than using thermo-nuclear technology to bomb a city.
and again, i disagree.
that really is a matter of opinion.

[yeahwho]

troll much?
This thread and all others are on an open BB. The thread I am participating in was not started by you and is not exclusive to you or Ace42.

I as reread your attemps to defend and define the rules of engagment outside of actual US laws, let alone many international treaties, I ask you,
How do we begin to assert diplomatic relations on a planet which screams for such action?

Do we continue to fight insurgents without regard for these rules of engagment and hope it slows the tide of anti-american sentiment, because I'm telling you, this is not going to work ie: todays headlines (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory%3Fid%3D538256). It is propaganda clearly, just as the Vietamization rules of engagment of Nixon fed the enemy with propaganda, so will all our attempts which avoid solution based thought.

I know I'm coming from a complete different mindset than you on this, ignore me or reply, it really does not matter, I disagree with your stance that the ends (all out aggression w/ disregard for rules) justifies the means. Society as we know it would surely be destroyed. That is the definition of terrorism.

[Qdrop]

This thread and all others are on an open BB. The thread I am participating in was not started by you and is not exclusive to you or Ace42.

I as reread your attemps to defend and define the rules of engagment outside of actual US laws, let alone many international treaties, I ask you,
How do we begin to assert diplomatic relations on a planet which screams for such action?

Do we continue to fight insurgents without regard for these rules of engagment and hope it slows the tide of anti-american sentiment, because I'm telling you, this is not going to work ie: todays headlines (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory%3Fid%3D538256). It is propaganda clearly, just as the Vietamization rules of engagment of Nixon fed the enemy with propaganda, so will all our attempts which avoid solution based thought.

I know I'm coming from a complete different mindset than you on this, ignore me or reply, it really does not matter, I disagree with your stance that the ends (all out aggression w/ disregard for rules) justifies the means. Society as we know it would surely be destroyed. That is the definition of terrorism.

as far a more diplomatic attempts at peace, ie- with Iraqi insurgants...
hell if i know....and niether do you.
who the fuck does?

what peaceful solution/cease fire can be obtained with iraqi insurgents if they themselves have no interest in peace?
they want one thing: for the west and it's democracy to get the fuck out of Iraq.

that ain't gonna happen.
past the point of no return....we all know that.

if the US pulled out right now, you know as well as i do that Iraq would fall into civil war....a bigger cluster fuck than it already is.


so if peace cannot be obtained with them....
how else should they be dealt with?

these (predominantley) aren't even Iraqi's....these are foreign insurgents...they are every bit the outsiders that the US is.
how are they any more entitled to shaping Iraqi's future than us?

i mean, the general sentiment from the far left anyway, is that these insurgents are actually proud islamic freedom fighters, desparately fighting to keep Iraq free from oppressive American control and the demons of democracy....
is that really how you feel about them?
do you respect and care for these insurgents in Iraq?
they are not even fighting for their country....they are doing no differant then us...attempting to shape another countries future and gov't.
well, over 60% of Iraqi's (in voter eligable areas) turned out to participate in OUR attempt to shape thier gov't and future....risking fucking death in the process.
obviously they don't think it's all that bad....

as opposed to a stict fundamentist theocracy or a dictatorship.....
hmm......what do you think better suits the people of ANY society.

[Ace42]

that ain't gonna happen.
past the point of no return....we all know that.

Well, it is comforting to know that whenever you want to invade a country, all you have to do is get it "past the point of no return" and then popular support or legitimacy ceases to be a problem.

[Qdrop]

Well, it is comforting to know that whenever you want to invade a country, all you have to do is get it "past the point of no return" and then popular support or legitimacy ceases to be a problem.

point taken....

but you're beating the dead horse, here.

i guess the elepant in the room at this point is "ok, liberal left...how do YOU think we should deal with Iraq going forward?"

the answer is always "well, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place....no WMD's blah blah...illegal war...blah blah"

yes yes....all true...and i'm the first to agree with many of those points.

but that doesn't answer the question...

it seems as though the left is much more content to sit back in relish in the quagmire that Bush/neo-cons got us into....rather then taking a stance on Iraqi's future or give out plausible stategies, ect.

[yeahwho]

Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations (including our own), struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, war is not only an act of aggression, it also a political stance. Our soldiers are being used as a tool for Jihad prophecy. The insurgents will continue to strike until we either step up as intelligence warned (minimum 250,000, ideally 400,000+ troops) or bomb the wholly fuck out of a land masse we're not even sure of.

The current administration is gambling that democracy in Iraq by election, will inspire peace in the middle east. The lives and money to gamble on this bet is yours, mine and our future generations. As much as I was impressed with Iraqs voter turnout, it does not make me feel comfortable in our ability to fight our war on terror.

----------------------------------------------------

Former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, who served under President Reagan, urged observers to resist euphoria.

"I think for the new Iraqi government to begin to secure the loyalty of its own people, it has to be seen as standing on its own feet," he told CNN.

"These elections were great, but let's not fool ourselves: They were held under occupation. They were held thanks to the omnipresence of American forces."

----------------------------------------------------


As the events in Iraq today show, we have a very long road to travel and this is just one of many Nations in which the "real terrorist" cells exsist.

[Ace42]

What we are to do in Iraq now is beside the point. As you have pointed out, Bush and the Coalition of the Criminal have put us in a situation where the only course is to acquiesce with the plan.

What *should* be done is to prevent such an abuse of power from happening again by shoring up the relative legal frameworks, and by prosecuting with extreme prejudice those responsible. They cannot be allowed to get away with these machinations, and it is too late to thwart them. Now George Bush and his cronies all need a dose of the "Justice" they purport to be exporting. That is the price of redemption, and it is not going to happen.

When everything has died down and we are being spun stability in Iraq (and all other problems etc are left off the airwaves) they are going to say "look, history has proved us right, everything is ok"

And that means it will happen again, and again. "Look, we proved that the ends justified the means" - yeah, because you killed everyone who dissented.

Can't dismantle the injustice? Dismantle the unjust.

And I don't think "relish" is the right word. I know when I say "I told you so" (which I do a lot) I only rub it in for effect so that people know better next time. I do not get any satisfaction out of people screwing up, but I know that rubbing their nose in it means next time they'll listen to me and save us both hassle.

[Qdrop]

What we are to do in Iraq now is beside the point. As you have pointed out, Bush and the Coalition of the Criminal have put us in a situation where the only course is to acquiesce with the plan.

What *should* be done is to prevent such an abuse of power from happening again by shoring up the relative legal frameworks, and by prosecuting with extreme prejudice those responsible. They cannot be allowed to get away with these machinations, and it is too late to thwart them. Now George Bush and his cronies all need a dose of the "Justice" they purport to be exporting. That is the price of redemption, and it is not going to happen.

When everything has died down and we are being spun stability in Iraq (and all other problems etc are left off the airwaves) they are going to say "look, history has proved us right, everything is ok"

And that means it will happen again, and again. "Look, we proved that the ends justified the means" - yeah, because you killed everyone who dissented.

Can't dismantle the injustice? Dismantle the unjust.

And I don't think "relish" is the right word. I know when I say "I told you so" (which I do a lot) I only rub it in for effect so that people know better next time. I do not get any satisfaction out of people screwing up, but I know that rubbing their nose in it means next time they'll listen to me and save us both hassle.

none the less:


it seems as though the left is much more content to sit back in relish in the quagmire that Bush/neo-cons got us into....rather then taking a stance on Iraqi's future or give out plausible stategies, ect.


yes, Ace...i and most on this board are in agreement with you.
you're preaching to the chior...

[Qdrop]

Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations (including our own), struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, war is not only an act of aggression, it also a political stance. Our soldiers are being used as a tool for Jihad prophecy. The insurgents will continue to strike until we either step up as intelligence warned (minimum 250,000, ideally 400,000+ troops) or bomb the wholly fuck out of a land masse we're not even sure of.

The current administration is gambling that democracy in Iraq by election, will inspire peace in the middle east. The lives and money to gamble on this bet is yours, mine and our future generations. As much as I was impressed with Iraqs voter turnout, it does not make me feel comfortable in our ability to fight our war on terror.



there you go...
that's what i'm talking about....

focus on this...

[yeahwho]

there you go...
that's what i'm talking about....

focus on this...

Focus on this, scroll down to Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 (http://www.kevinsites.net/)

[Qdrop]

Focus on this, scroll down to Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 (http://www.kevinsites.net/)

yes, we went through this on friday.

i understand how some of those actions could conflict with the geneva convention..
but...

"No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you."

that's pretty much the stance i sit by.


what is the point you are trying to make with that link?

[yeahwho]

what is the point you are trying to make with that link?

You were asking for focus, so I just went back to post #1 (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=45521&page=1&pp=30) of this thread. This is Kevin Sites POV in his own words. The source of ASsman's post.

[Qdrop]

You were asking for focus, so I just went back to post #1 (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=45521&page=1&pp=30) of this thread. This is Kevin Sites POV in his own words. The source of ASsman's post.

i see....bringing back to the beginning.
well kudos to you.

cept, as i stated...we kinda went through all of this on friday...
perhaps this thread has run it's course.

[yeahwho]

i see....bringing back to the beginning.
well kudos to you.

cept, as i stated...we kinda went through all of this on friday...
perhaps this thread has run it's course.

Perhaps, the Kevin Site's blog (http://www.kevinsites.net/) is fascinating in that it gives us the first person story of the events which led up to todays dialogue. Your initial reaction was

" still don't see what the big fuckin deal is hear.....

a room full of dead or injured enemy soldiers.......some enemies have been known to rig the dead with booby traps....others to be suicide bombers, ect.
they walk in the room....make sure all the enemies are dead. shoot them all to be sure.

that's war, fuckers.....that's fucking war.
they were not on peacekeeping mission.....they were thier to kill people. kill the enemy."

Yet from what Mr. Site's presents this is a pretty big deal. He is not coming from some half assed POV.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

I pray for your soon and safe return

We can and have done better.

[ASsman]

Meh, fuck it. Frankly I don't lose any sleep over some dead Arab.

[Whois]

Meh, fuck it. Frankly I don't lose any sleep over some dead Arab.

1,000,000 dead Arabs = Zzzzzzzzzzz

3000 dead Americans = Huge tragedy

Dog Bless Merica (y)

[yeahwho]

Meh, fuck it. Frankly I don't lose any sleep over some dead Arab.

Dumbass cameraman what was he doing there anyway? Then to try and have some sort of integrity with his findings. Dammit! Let TalonNews (http://www.talonnews.com/) take care of this type of thing. Oops, they're taking a bit of a break right now. Fuck Me.

[Qdrop]

Perhaps, the Kevin Site's blog (http://www.kevinsites.net/) is fascinating in that it gives us the first person story of the events which led up to todays dialogue. Your initial reaction was


We can and have done better.

as i stated before, i don't believe in POW's.......unless they hold an intel value, ect.
i do not think that being humanitarian and treating an enemy so that he can live to try and kill you again is a good idea.

yes, that goes agains't the geneva convention. i don't agree with THAT aspect of the geneva convention.

you think i am brutal, ignorant neo-con...

this is getting redundant.
i am not interested in repeating the thread.

it's like fuckin groundhog day on this board sometimes...

[ASsman]

I would have enjoyed watching any American POWs die slowly. Especially those early in the Iraqi invasion, serves them right.

[Qdrop]

I would have enjoyed watching any American POWs die slowly. Especially those early in the Iraqi invasion, serves them right.

ooooooooh, you're getting under my skin.
ooooooooooohh.





ooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.




so why not join the insurgancy and go kill some americans.....
knock yourself out....fight against this evil american empire you hate so much....
stop talking and start doing......

[ASsman]

I'm not my own person yet, I have my parents to think about. It would be selfish of me to ignore their wishes and feelings. Also I would have a lot less effect that way, I have no military training, I would rather use my talents here to change my country, rather than fight in someone elses war. I'd rather try and stop it as the US citizen I am.

[Qdrop]

I'm not my own person yet, I have my parents to think about. It would be selfish of me to ignore their wishes and feelings.

pussy.


real american-haters don't care what their parents think.....lil john walker.

[ASsman]

pussy.
Hah, stick and stones.

[ASsman]

pussy.


real american-haters don't care what their parents think.....lil john walker.
Pff, that's what you think cracker. I do, for some reason all you honkeys don't seem to give a damn about your mothers, were I come from they are to be given utmost respect.

As my skills and abilities grow, so will my actions.

[Qdrop]

Hah, stick and stones.

well at least go find some kid wearin a USA shirt.....and beat him up.

it's the least you can do....

[ASsman]

I do that on the weekends. Right after flag burning, and toking sessions.

[yeahwho]

as i stated before, i don't believe in POW's.......unless they hold an intel value, ect.
i do not think that being humanitarian and treating an enemy so that he can live to try and kill you again is a good idea.

yes, that goes agains't the geneva convention. i don't agree with THAT aspect of the geneva convention.

you think i am brutal, ignorant neo-con...

this is getting redundant.
i am not interested in repeating the thread.

it's like fuckin groundhog day on this board sometimes...

I find your stance to unique to you. Having family members active in POW causes and a steady stream of Vietnam Vet's flowing through my house and work, I've never heard anybody bash POW's. It's nothing personal, I'm ignorant for not knowing there is a mindset or group of people who think the POW concept is based on the enemy's ability to give intel value, ect.

This would be the end to movies like Stalog 17!

[Qdrop]

I've never heard anybody bash POW's.

i'm not bashing POW's....
i just think the practice for POW for any reason other than intel or leverage is done purely to satisfy the humanitarians within the world society. (i'm not bashing them either...they want to limit killing,ect....can't knock that sentiment in and of itself)


It's nothing personal, I'm ignorant for not knowing there is a mindset or group of people who think the POW concept is based on the enemy's ability to give intel value, ect.


as i stated, the only other reason is to satisify the humanitarian voices around the world (that's not a bad sentiment...just not practical in war IMO)
i know Ace has a more philisophical reasoning behind it....but i disagree with that.

[ASsman]

i just think the practice for POW for any reason other than intel or leverage is done purely to satisfy the humanitarians within the world society
Maybe it's because they aren't cold blooded killers.... Then again soldiers don't have feelings, their purpose is to die.