What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.studentx said:American tax payers don't pay taxes because they want to, but because they have to.
Luckily, most Iraqis are intelligent enough not to go out and kill as many civilians as possible.
Outcast said:What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.
Their level of acceptable civilian casualties seems to have no limit.
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71790&F_catID=&f_type=source
No, that's not what I meant (I meant "near" as in really near - literally standing next to a combatant), but that's still a valid point you have. A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building. Today, obviously, that's not necessary, as laser guided weapons have a better than 50% accuracy rate at 10m. With that improvement in technology comes the change in rules: now that its not just possible, but easy to avoid killing everyone within a square mile of your target, you must avoid doing it.BobG said:If you're talking inadvertent deaths as a result of collateral damage, all could be acceptable (depends on how important the target was - obviously killing 500 civilians to get one enemy combatant armed with one AK-47 is a bit of a stretch - and the example's meant to be extreme, not a comment on any actual events).
The critereon I use is how far from the battle (in both time and space) is the target. If you blow up a supply convoy of trucks (btw, these are all uniformed military personnel), you hinder the affected unit's ability to fight tomorrow. If you hit a supply ship (these are a pseudo-military force - government owed, civilian operated), it hinders the affected unit's ability to fight next month. If you hit the factory that is building the weapons, it hinders the military's ability to fight in maybe six months. Hitting the WTC (we'll assume for now that this was the actual goal - as we know, it was not), had it actually done serious damage to the economy, it would affect the military's ability to fight in two years.If you're talking targets, I'd say both 15 and 16 are viable targets. How is it different than resupply convoys - WWII oil tankers and cargo ships, factories vital to creating war supplies, for example - or command and control and communications centers in Iraq and Kosovo.
Once again, there has to be serious consideration of the war benefits vs. the cost in 'innocent' human lives, but it's this that has changed the rules enough since WWII to at least reduce the number of civilian casualties. We've not recently fought anyone that was a serious enough threat to our (or our allies) existence to warrant all-out warfare.
One thing I left out of the "total war" characterization was that civilians who are part of the economy are indeed a part of the war effort.omin said:You did not mention civilians who pay taxes for bombs who are dropped by the leaders they allowed or voted into office. Do they coun't to in this scenario? We should include every category. I think they are. That's why I want Bush out.
If you were an Iraqi, you'd consider the US the enemy? Even considering what kind of regime Hussein ran? I think you underestimate how bad it really was under Saddam.If I were an Iraq, (I'm more intelligent American), using the logic of the Golden Rule, you bet your a** I'd be out to get even any way I can.
Unfortuantely, it is my perception (I'm saying this a lot lately), that its far easier for most people to complain about a situation they don't like than to actually discuss how to deal with it once they are in it. Certainly, we are not ready for a rational discussion of Hiroshima, for example.Hurkyl said:This thread was started specifically to consider the latter question, "what is the right way to handle a bad situation once it has occured?" I intended to get into some more complicated scenarios, addressing questions like "when is it okay to cause a bad situation in order to avert a worse situation?" but people are practically kicking and screaming in order to avoid addressing these easier scenarios, so I have even less expectation that the harder questions would get discussed.
Judging from your last post, I'm guessing that's sarcasm (just want to clarify). The "insurgents" are indeed doing everything they can to kill as many civilians (caveat: yes, police do fall into a middle-ground) as possible and prevent the formation of a stable government.Outcast said:What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.
Their level of acceptable civilian casualties seems to have no limit.
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71790&F_catID=&f_type=source
A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building.
Hurkyl said:Wow, I never realized that bombing was so inaccurate in WWII!
Add Vietnam to that also. Almost 70 years after WW II we were still dropping dumb bombs that were no more accurate than the WW II ones. The Dragon's Jaw BridgeHurkyl said:Wow, I never realized that bombing was so inaccurate in WWII!
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/50899a.htmlMay 8, 1999
FACTS:
75% of all dumb bombs in Desert Storm landed off target
93% of all bombs dropped in Desert Storm were conventional ("dumb")
Source: US Air Force (after the war was over)
No I wasn't being sarcastic. If they had WMD, they would not hesitate to use them on the civilian population.russ_watters said:Judging from your last post, I'm guessing that's sarcasm (just want to clarify). The "insurgents" are indeed doing everything they can to kill as many civilians (caveat: yes, police do fall into a middle-ground) as possible and prevent the formation of a stable government.
russ_watters said:No, that's not what I meant (I meant "near" as in really near - literally standing next to a combatant), but that's still a valid point you have. A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building. Today, obviously, that's not necessary, as laser guided weapons have a better than 50% accuracy rate at 10m. With that improvement in technology comes the change in rules: now that its not just possible, but easy to avoid killing everyone within a square mile of your target, you must avoid doing it. The critereon I use is how far from the battle (in both time and space) is the target. If you blow up a supply convoy of trucks (btw, these are all uniformed military personnel), you hinder the affected unit's ability to fight tomorrow. If you hit a supply ship (these are a pseudo-military force - government owed, civilian operated), it hinders the affected unit's ability to fight next month. If you hit the factory that is building the weapons, it hinders the military's ability to fight in maybe six months. Hitting the WTC (we'll assume for now that this was the actual goal - as we know, it was not), had it actually done serious damage to the economy, it would affect the military's ability to fight in two years.
In WWII, hindering the military's ability to fight in 2 years, was a legitimate concern. WWII was a "total war," which means it absorbed all of the excess production of the countries involved in fighting it (it actually absorbed virtually all but the essential production).
WWII was the last total war and I believe it was the last there will ever be. Wars like the first and second Gulf war are called "limited" or regional wars by the military. They do not require a significant re-direction of the resources of the countries involved (caveat: Iraq was a military dictatorship, so all of its excess resources already went to the military). Since hitting economic centers, and even manufacturing centers doesn't do anything at all to affect the outcome of the war, except possibly, psychological impact, they are not valid military targets.
True, I think Baghdad was our first attempt to use smart bombs in urban areas against military targets to limit civilian casualties.JohnDubYa said:In the Persian Gulf War we relied mainly on dumb bombs dropped by B-52s on isolated targets. Calculate the spread of bombs dropped a half second from each other from a B-52 traveling 600 mph. Naturally 75% are going to miss their target unless they are intended to strike Rhode Island. That doesn't mean that they will strike civilians, however. We weren't trying to destroy city industry like in WWII.
The Urban Sanctuary in Desert Storm? # In 43 days of war, a mere 330 weapons (244 laser--guided bombs and 86 Tomahawk cruise missiles) were delivered on Baghdad targets (a mere three percent of the total of all smart weapons expended) (see tables 1 and 2).3
# Ordnance impacting in Baghdad totaled 287 tons (not even one--tenth of one percent of the total in the air war).4 Contrast this with Linebacker II, during which aircraft dropped 15,000 tons on Hanoi in 11 days, 50 times the bomb tonnage on Baghdad.
1991: Bush orders Allies to begin bombing Baghdad
Their bombs were aimed at military and strategic targets, including an oil refinery and Baghdad airport.
Flashback: Desert Storm The main targets were military, but Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was heavily hit and there were many civilian casualties.
In the capital, military and communications installations were targeted, as well as the parliament, airport, defence ministry, and various palaces.
A US stealth bomber dropped two laser-guided bombs on what the allies had pinpointed as an important command and control bunker.
The bombers had intended to drop the 900kg bombs into the ventilation shafts of the shelter. One missed and exploded nearby, blocking the only escape route.
The second plunged into the bunker and exploded in the middle of the largest room on the upper floor. That strike was 50/50 with laser bombs
Isn't it? I don't recall any Iraqis coming to the aid of Westerns being attacked, like instudentx said:But that's not done by "most iraqis". Could even have been foreign fighters. Most Iraqis arent fighting, tho theyre probably pretty pissed, they would never think of going to the US and taking revenge on civilians.
Muhammad His life, his examples and his psychology
The Quran and Hadith Shari'a, Errancies, Miracles and Science,
Women's Rights The rights, or lack thereof, of women in Islam
Islam defended Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Minorities' Rights Slavery, Dhimmitude and Jizyah
The effect of Islam on Muslims. Honour killing. Human rights abuses of Muslims. Poverty caused by Islam.
Married to a Muslim How to survive. Share your stories, good and bad.
Testimonies of those leaving Islam Share your story.
Islam vs. other religions Debate how Islam compares to other faiths and religions.
Jihad and Islamic Terrorism How serious is this threat and can it be stopped? The threat of Political Islam
The danger of Islamic infiltration in non-Muslim countries through lobbying and political action
What I bolded is the problem. All arguments must be based on the The Qur'an. The The Qur'an does not teach peace, love or forgiveness. Go to Prophet of Doom and look at their material. They have a free Ebook if you are interested.studentx said:Outcast, its fine to discuss religion (it wouldn't be the first time here), but you generalize it a bit. Passages that promote violence are also in the bible, its all a matter of interpretation. The problem as i see it is that Islam today offers no counter arguments to extremist interpretations of for example, that passage. Most moderate muslims (well over a billion) don't follow the books tho, they follow the culture and have never read the Quran or hadiths. But because theyre moderate, they can also said to be weak by scholars or extremists who take scriptures literally and even be condemned.
I read somewhere about Salman Rushdie who was condemned and sentenced to death in fatwas by islamic scholars all over the world. A muslim who investigates the origins of Islam is sentenced to death a hundred times, and Osama has not a single fatwa against him. Muslims really do have the power to cut off this extremism, but right now there is just no base for counter arguments in the religion and unless they reform, this thing is just going to grow and grow imvho...
Not pretty.The Islamic society of Compassion, Culture, Education, Security, Freedom, Equality, Health, Happiness, Comfort, Women & Children Rights as Promised!
You mean I should use sites like these?studentx said:Those are anti islamic hate sites. You should know better where to get unbiased information
Outcast said:Islam is either the religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of hate or Islam is the religion of hate and Christianity is the religion of peace. There is no middle ground.
We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed. The problem is Christianity and Western Civilization is slowly being over ran by Islam. 1) Recognize the problem, 2) Recognize that Islam is not a religion of peace as President Bush stated. 3) Stop immigration from Islamic countries. 4) Begin deporting Muslims back to their native country, that are not U.S. citizens 4) Stop teaching Islam in public schools. 5)Stop giving special privileges to Islam here in the United States. 6) Take back US property that was seized by Islamic nations.studentx said:Why not...
I see you talking about Islam as if you want to wage a giant war against muslims. Could you post something constructive about the problem and your view on solving it.
We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed.
Hurkyl said:Many of the threads here boil down to an argument over what constitutes an acceptable civilian casualty rather than discuss the issue from which the thread arose, so I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the topic that people are really discussing.
Hurkyl said:I haven't.
As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.