**** what that neighborhood says; it is run by a bunch of jackassholes mainly anyway.
Hehe. I was just about to reply to that, too ... the majority of people in my neighbourhood don't care about what's happening next door ... they're mainly concerned with the fact that their toilets clogged, or that they ran out of milk.
Like I said, if I were to jump in to protect my female neighbour from her brutish husband (after exhausting legal recourse), I would worry about my safety, but also realize that the greater good would come from protecting her. If, after the fact, half of my neighbours didn't agree with what I did ... screw 'em. Morally, I think my actions would have been correct. My neighbours who were capable of rational thought, would likely agree.
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians.
Not including Japan in WWII, how have we targeted civilian areas?
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Now morally, the U.S. is responsible of course. And were we to target those areas I'd be in favor of something the Secret Service or CIA wouldn't like*....
Not including Japan in WWII, how have we targeted civilian areas?
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Good question bunge.
hey, we agreed on something. That hasn't happened in a while
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Well there would still be moral issues with it, since the US is the attacking party.
Comments
Exactly! And in this case, "the neigborhood" said give it more time.
**** what that neighborhood says; it is run by a bunch of jackassholes mainly anyway.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
**** what that neighborhood says; it is run by a bunch of jackassholes mainly anyway.
Hehe. I was just about to reply to that, too ... the majority of people in my neighbourhood don't care about what's happening next door ... they're mainly concerned with the fact that their toilets clogged, or that they ran out of milk.
Like I said, if I were to jump in to protect my female neighbour from her brutish husband (after exhausting legal recourse), I would worry about my safety, but also realize that the greater good would come from protecting her. If, after the fact, half of my neighbours didn't agree with what I did ... screw 'em. Morally, I think my actions would have been correct. My neighbours who were capable of rational thought, would likely agree.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Well when it doubt just try to keep a level head and remember that the morality rises in proportion to your neighbor's cup size.
Good thing I don't live in Asia.
Yeah, yeah, cheap jab. Sorry to all Asians. I hope you're more 'moral' than any clichés would dictate.
Originally posted by trick fall
I wouldn't call it a policy, but the US Military has certainly targeted civilian areas and therefore civilians.
Not including Japan in WWII, how have we targeted civilian areas?
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Now morally, the U.S. is responsible of course. And were we to target those areas I'd be in favor of something the Secret Service or CIA wouldn't like*....
*Dear Mr. Poindexter, that was sarcasm. Thanks.
Originally posted by bunge
Not including Japan in WWII, how have we targeted civilian areas?
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Good question bunge.
hey, we agreed on something. That hasn't happened in a while
Originally posted by audiopollution
Good thing I don't live in Asia.
Yeah, yeah, cheap jab. Sorry to all Asians. I hope you're more 'moral' than any clichés would dictate.
Originally posted by bunge
Not including Japan in WWII, how have we targeted civilian areas?
Not that I want to get sucked into this thread but another WWII example is Dresden. Cleared a 6 times 6 kilometer area of a dense populated city.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Not that I want to get sucked into this thread but another WWII example is Dresden. Cleared a 6 times 6 kilometer area of a dense populated city.
Best part of A MILLION civillians in Cambodia. The original question was a joke right?
Originally posted by Anders the White
Not that I want to get sucked into this thread but another WWII example is Dresden. Cleared a 6 times 6 kilometer area of a dense populated city.
Actually the british were responsible for the worst bombing in Germany.
While the American bombing was mostly targeted at military objectives, the birtish bombing had a clear element of revenge over it.
Originally posted by bunge
As far as I know, legally if the military is using a civilian area it's no longer a civilian area. So technically if Saddam really has bunkers built beneath hospitals and schools (and I'm not doubting that he does) then those hospitals and schools, even if filled with little children, are almost fair game. They're not themselves legitimate targets but the U.S. is not legally responsible if they're damaged or destroyed in an attack on the military complexes underneath them.
Well there would still be moral issues with it, since the US is the attacking party.
Originally posted by New
Well there would still be moral issues with it, since the US is the attacking party.
My post actually included that, but it was cut off when someone quoted me.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Good question bunge.
hey, we agreed on something. That hasn't happened in a while
Hey, I agree with every post you make. Well, at least with your sig.
Originally posted by bunge
My post actually included that, but it was cut off when someone quoted me.
right, I totally misread your post.