Those portions most definitely do NOT apply. Those acts would have to be intentional, and civilians deaths were certainly not.
Quote:
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
I never said it did. I said it could be debated. Because there are rules about this in international law. Get it?
It doesn't have anything to do with SH. It has to do with the way the US fight their wars. Who the hell dreams up stuff like daisycutters and Mother of all bombs...? It's just sickening.
The only concern seems to be how to kill the most enemies will having no american casualties. Forgetting totally that they belong to the same people your trying to "save" so hard.
You mean like the "nudie-treatment"?
I think it is time to start actually reading posts before hitting the reply button.
Well, I agree war is not fun nor pretty. It's bloody and sickening. However, when one goes to war...one has to win. We develop weapons to that end. The purpose in war is to capture or kill the enemy. It's not a nice thought, but that's the way it is.
And I'm sorry...our goal SHOULD be to minimize American casualties and kill the most enemies. Welcome to real world.
Well, I agree war is not fun nor pretty. It's bloody and sickening. However, when one goes to war...one has to win. We develop weapons to that end. The purpose in war is to capture or kill the enemy. It's not a nice thought, but that's the way it is.
And I'm sorry...our goal SHOULD be to minimize American casualties and kill the most enemies. Welcome to real world.
And when the war is over, what then?
blip,blip,blip....metal void....
The purpose of war has never been to kill the most enemies. On the contrary the most successful wars are the ones won with the least amounts of casualties...
Those portions most definitely do NOT apply. Those acts would have to be intentional, and civilians deaths were certainly not.
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
Like I said, it can be debated. But then you know everything already...
Well, you have resorted to third grade come-backs, so I will assume you lost that debate.
On very loose terms, I suppose, it CAN be debated. But as demonstrated here it is a very week debate at that.
It doesn't seem that either of you are capable of debating at all. So I'm not really gonna push the issue. But there are some people who don't think it's a weak argument:
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
You're absolutely wrong and most anyone here would agree. Your sentiments are horrid, unjust and against the our Constitution. If you don't like it, sorry. I'd rather uphold the Constitution than your blood lust.
And you're absolutely foolish to suggest what you do.
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
Haven't you seen the night vision footage of our troops machine gunning an injured Iraqi soldier? Didn't you hear or read about the administration saying that even if Saddam surrendered we would still attack?
Please explain how your statement can be accurate in the face of the two examples I've just listed.
You're absolutely wrong and most anyone here would agree. Your sentiments are horrid, unjust and against the our Constitution. If you don't like it, sorry. I'd rather uphold the Constitution than your blood lust.
And you're absolutely foolish to suggest what you do.
So according to you and NEW, your idea of war is going in with the exact same forces thus forcing a long and drawn out bloodbath. Apparently that is much better in your eyes?
And before you say that is what we have now, I suggest you go back in previous wars and see what some of the one day and one week or month totals were, and you will see this war is far more effective visa vi US lives.
War is NOT unconstitutional. And if you think that the cold war was a bloodless war, look a little below the surface. many more people gave their lives during that conflict than this one. How much was spent on that war calculated for todays values?
So according to you and NEW, your idea of war is going in with the exact same forces thus forcing a long and drawn out bloodbath. Apparently that is much better in your eyes?
Don't be stupid. No one is advocating for using the "exact same forces" and nothing I've said has implied, or could legitimately be interpreted as implying, this silly point. This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.
War is not unconstitutional and I've never implied that either. Excessive force is unconstitutional because we've signed the Geneva Convention.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Shit, why not just nuke 'em then?
Right, because that's exactly what I said.
New:
Those portions most definitely do NOT apply. Those acts would have to be intentional, and civilians deaths were certainly not.
The chance they actually had to surrender will always be unclear. How do you surrender to a stealth bomber 10.000 feet up, or a high-tech tank several km away?
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
Originally posted by New
I never said it did. I said it could be debated. Because there are rules about this in international law. Get it?
It doesn't have anything to do with SH. It has to do with the way the US fight their wars. Who the hell dreams up stuff like daisycutters and Mother of all bombs...? It's just sickening.
The only concern seems to be how to kill the most enemies will having no american casualties. Forgetting totally that they belong to the same people your trying to "save" so hard.
You mean like the "nudie-treatment"?
I think it is time to start actually reading posts before hitting the reply button.
Well, I agree war is not fun nor pretty. It's bloody and sickening. However, when one goes to war...one has to win. We develop weapons to that end. The purpose in war is to capture or kill the enemy. It's not a nice thought, but that's the way it is.
And I'm sorry...our goal SHOULD be to minimize American casualties and kill the most enemies. Welcome to real world.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, I agree war is not fun nor pretty. It's bloody and sickening. However, when one goes to war...one has to win. We develop weapons to that end. The purpose in war is to capture or kill the enemy. It's not a nice thought, but that's the way it is.
And I'm sorry...our goal SHOULD be to minimize American casualties and kill the most enemies. Welcome to real world.
And when the war is over, what then?
blip,blip,blip....metal void....
The purpose of war has never been to kill the most enemies. On the contrary the most successful wars are the ones won with the least amounts of casualties...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right, because that's exactly what I said.
New:
Those portions most definitely do NOT apply. Those acts would have to be intentional, and civilians deaths were certainly not.
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
Like I said, it can be debated. But then you know everything already...
Originally posted by New
Like I said, it can be debated. But then you know everything already...
Well, you have resorted to third grade come-backs, so I will assume you lost that debate.
On very loose terms, I suppose, it CAN be debated. But as demonstrated here it is a very week debate at that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, you have resorted to third grade come-backs, so I will assume you lost that debate.
On very loose terms, I suppose, it CAN be debated. But as demonstrated here it is a very week debate at that.
It doesn't seem that either of you are capable of debating at all. So I'm not really gonna push the issue. But there are some people who don't think it's a weak argument:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1112555.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...926998,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579297.shtml
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/18/iraq8872.htm
Originally posted by NaplesX
None of this applies to what the US or it's allies did.
Haven't you seen the night vision footage of our troops machine gunning an injured Iraqi soldier? That's a violation and it's what we did.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I mean this in all seriousness: Thank god you are not running this country.
When one goes to war, one must go to win. This means using overwhelming force and using every possible means to kill the enemy. Prior to the war, we made every attempt to get the Iraqi army to surrender before we even started attacking. This worked in many cases. Those that chose to fight were slaughtered. That's the way war works. It's not pretty...but that's the way the world is.
You're absolutely wrong and most anyone here would agree. Your sentiments are horrid, unjust and against the our Constitution. If you don't like it, sorry. I'd rather uphold the Constitution than your blood lust.
And you're absolutely foolish to suggest what you do.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh my God. We had operations in place for MONTHS to get their military to surrender. Bush himself made public statements asking them not to fight. EVERY effort to minimize casualties was made. What a joke.
Haven't you seen the night vision footage of our troops machine gunning an injured Iraqi soldier? Didn't you hear or read about the administration saying that even if Saddam surrendered we would still attack?
Please explain how your statement can be accurate in the face of the two examples I've just listed.
Originally posted by bunge
You're absolutely wrong and most anyone here would agree. Your sentiments are horrid, unjust and against the our Constitution. If you don't like it, sorry. I'd rather uphold the Constitution than your blood lust.
And you're absolutely foolish to suggest what you do.
So according to you and NEW, your idea of war is going in with the exact same forces thus forcing a long and drawn out bloodbath. Apparently that is much better in your eyes?
And before you say that is what we have now, I suggest you go back in previous wars and see what some of the one day and one week or month totals were, and you will see this war is far more effective visa vi US lives.
War is NOT unconstitutional. And if you think that the cold war was a bloodless war, look a little below the surface. many more people gave their lives during that conflict than this one. How much was spent on that war calculated for todays values?
Edit: Found this link: http://www.cdi.org/issues/milspend.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
So according to you and NEW, your idea of war is going in with the exact same forces thus forcing a long and drawn out bloodbath. Apparently that is much better in your eyes?
Don't be stupid. No one is advocating for using the "exact same forces" and nothing I've said has implied, or could legitimately be interpreted as implying, this silly point. This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.
War is not unconstitutional and I've never implied that either. Excessive force is unconstitutional because we've signed the Geneva Convention.