Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Tell it to the tens of millions of civilians termed "collatoral damages" that have died at the hands of military men in the last century or so.
Cluster bombs are designed to kill people. the USA HAS used them specifically to kill civilians (during WWII for example, and VietName for example). Killing civilians is a tried and try method of winning wars, sport.
I can't help it if you are unwilling to accept historic truth
Well there is a difference, to be sure...not much but some. Both cases are seeking to break the spirit of the people they target and both are murder of innocents.
Guess we'll just have to disagree about that until you can read some military history.
Targeting civilians is very common. The USA has done it in the past, and god help us, if we find we need to do it again, I'm absolutely certain that we will.
As will every other power that uses their airforce to break the economy and spirit of their enemies.
I am not morally outraged by that, nor am I advocating that we eshew the use of clusterbombs.
I am simply unwilling to buy into the bullshit you seem to think is true about how American conducts itself in war.
Bullcrap. There is a huge difference between intentionally targeting civilians and targeting enemy military forces. Cluster munitions are not designed for soley targeting civilians and their use is not planned for in such a manner (at least not by our military) ..... flying a plane load of civilians into a building loaded with civilians is not even close to be morally or militarily the same.
There is some specious logic going on all right but it is not being used by the the ones shedding "tears of flag wrapped frustration". It is being used by a few posters in this thread.
I'm saying I'm sick of some armchair quarterbacks without a clue sitting back here in the AC and comfort of their La-Z-Boy presuming to pass moral judgement on something they obviously have no understanding about, not to mention lacking even a modicum of reality to their lameass arguments.
He may "opine" all he wishes. In in turn will free to "opine" on his cluelessness.
War is ugly. It's brutal. It reduces man to his basest form. Fighting to lose is pointless. Setting an arbitrary moral standard that Christ himself would envy for only our military to adhere to is stupid, and provides the enemy weaknesses to exploit.
The savage, brutal tactics of the enemy are hardly even mentioned while some leftwingnut slams our military in some sorry-ass attempt to slam the administration because partisan politics trump all in tiny little pea-sized minds.
If my choice is assault a defended line with my Marines or call for CAS dropping Napalm or cluster munitions on the enemy and they're pos is close to civilians -- or they are hiding among them, a favorite tactic of Islamic fundamentalists -- tough shit. I'm calling in the air and lighting them up.
I'm saying I'm sick of some armchair quarterbacks without a clue sitting back here in the AC and comfort of their La-Z-Boy presuming to pass moral judgement on something they obviously have no understanding about, not to mention lacking even a modicum of reality to their lameass arguments.
He may "opine" all he wishes. In in turn will free to "opine" on his cluelessness.
War is ugly. It's brutal. It reduces man to his basest form. Fighting to lose is pointless. Setting an arbitrary moral standard that Christ himself would envy for only our military to adhere to is stupid, and provides the enemy weaknesses to exploit.
The savage, brutal tactics of the enemy are hardly even mentioned while some leftwingnut slams our military in some sorry-ass attempt to slam the administration because partisan politics trump all in tiny little pea-sized minds.
If my choice is assault a defended line with my Marines or call for CAS dropping Napalm or cluster munitions on the enemy and they're pos is close to civilians -- or they are hiding among them, a favorite tactic of Islamic fundamentalists -- tough shit. I'm calling in the air and lighting them up.
When we use those munitiions, we do it with plenty of warning. If people choose to keep their children in harm's way, and choose to wage war that way, then they are the ones ultimately responsible for their deaths.
I guess if we were more "humane" we'd give them more of a fighting chance...hell, why not meet them at dawn to duel with pistols? Unfortunately, war isn't like that. The primary objective is to kill them as quickly and efficiently with the least amount of damage to our own.
Oh, ouch!
I if your point was that labeling unconventional warfare like terrorism immoral, while casually telling us that cluster bombing by uniformed soldiers is moral, you scored.
This cynic finds it rather amusing (of the black humor variety, of course) to see the outrage that some who advocate that our every foreign policy effect comes with the threat of WAR (as in: the war on terrorism) as a perfectly reasonable poltical approach, but who then weap tears of flag wrapped frustration when other people apply that same specious and deadly logic to US (as in 9-11) in order to solve their problems with the USA foreign policy.
One can almost taste the hypocracy ...
I could be mistaken but it seems to me that the issue has more to do with when the bombing ceases and the population returns than with the actual bombing ...
Civilians, especially children, picking stuff up off on the ground that ends up blowing up and killing them ....
We set booby traps?
I could be mistaken but it seems to me that the issue has more to do with when the bombing ceases and the population returns than with the actual bombing ...
Civilians, especially children, picking stuff up off on the ground that ends up blowing up and killing them ....
I can agree that unexploded munitions after-the-fact IS a problem, as well as tragic for those who come across and accidentally detonate them. I believe the same argument has been made for years regarding unexploded and still buried landmines.
I see it as no better or worse than a Marine firing a round that turns out to be a squib while he's being aimed in on. It's just as deadly to the Marine. He finds himself in a firefight with a nonfunctional weapon that takes time to clear.
Weapons/weapons systems fail. Ammunition fails. It happens. It always has, and probably always will. Weapons are mechanical instruments and ammunition relies on mechanics to detonate. Mechanics, in their basest forms, always fail sooner or later.
I'm not sure there is an a solution.
And I refuse to buy into every piece of anti military crap that comes floating across this board like you and others are wont to do. Every piece of military hardware in existence was designed to kill people or assist in that endeavor.
You are right...we will have to agree to disagree until such time as you become an expert on military doctrine and planning.
Yep.
It irks me that some would try to draw moral equivalency between a legitimate act of war where civilians may be injured or killed after the fact and the intentional targeting of civilians.
By the way, I would very much like for anyone to cite any doctrine of the United States military that proscribes the explicit targeting of civilians.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the firebombing techniques employed in WWII were exactly designed to kill civilians. IN many cases the targets were not military but entirely civilian, (as in Desden)
You want to know the killing methodology exactly?
Okay
Wave one - a small group of bombers drop incendiary bombss to start fires all over the town
Wave Two - timeed to give the firefighters time to get out and start fighting fires from t he first wave of incindiaries bombs. This wave dropped ANTIPERSONNEL bombs (cluser type, BTW) designed to kill and main as many civilian firefighters and emergency personnel as possible.
Wave THREE --the massive wave of incidniary bombs came to finish up the job and start the firestorms which inciderated the whole god damned town which was MOSTLY CIVILIANS.
Satisfied?
Doubt me?
Go check it out for yourself. My source was Winston Churchill, historian.
I am not disputing that such occurred and still occurs.
I am disputing that the US military today, as a matter of doctrine, intentionally targets civilians.
As in WW II, such intentional targeting is directed by CIVILIAN authorities. Apparently we are talking past each other. I do not believe you are pushing any particular partisan PoV and are merely pointing out that civilians have become targets in the past and in some cases still do. Again, that is not what I dispute.
In fact, I am absolutely certain that if military personnel were to intentionally target civilians as part of a fire support plan of any kind, they would immediately be relieved and replaced.
How can I be so certain? I am absolutely certain because up until 5 years ago I sat on many, many Joint targeting boards. Those boards have a resident JAG or two whose job is ensure that such does not occur.
The entire echelon within the fire support community goes to great lengths to ensure collateral damage is avoided to the greatest extent possible. You and others may choose to believe that or not but it is absolutely the truth.
I am not disputing that such occurred and still occurs.
Then why take me to task?
When you fire into civilian population centers, as we did by the when we we sent thousands of "smart" bombs (which turned out not to be so smart as we'd been lead to believe) you know perfectly well you will be killing civilians.
The distinction you are making is one without any real difference.
Nor I. Wars are fought today to cripple economies as much as armies. hence the wanton destruction of civilian targets (wehile perhaps regretted after the fact) is no less part of the plan now as in the past.
yes if we have overwhelming power, we can afford to be more humane, but the fact is that we will (and probably should) take the most adventageous route to victory.
If that means we knowingly are going to kill civilians, so be it.
What I will not stand is the bullshit that we are doing this by accident.
Nonsense, we know perfectly well we are killing civilians. After all we TARGET civilian structures like water, and power and bridges.
You seem to be saying that we ONLY target military targets.
This is not supported by the government's own reports about how the Iraqi conflict was conducted so why do you believe it?
Well, you're wrong.
How can I be so certain? I am absolutely certain because up until 5 years ago I sat on many, many Joint targeting boards. Those boards have a resident JAG or two whose job is ensure that such does not occur.
Yesh, well who did you think was manning the water supplies, electrical stations and so forth? Saddam?
No, you went to great lengths to target significant military and PUBLIC INFASTRUCTURE in order to cripple not only the military, but the society which made that military viable.
AS YOU SHOULD HAVE, incidently, given the way modern wars are conducted.
Stop bullshitting yourself.
Wars against nations ARE wars against national ecopnomies as much as they are wars against national militaries.
They always have been and they always will be.
While I do not doubt that we seek to minimize civilian casualties when possible, it is SELDOM possible to do that very effectively IF we are planning on winning that war as quickly and with the minimum casualties to our side AND THEIRS as possible.
I am realist, CMS, not come cardboard cutout of a weapy liberal you seem to think I am.
I guess we will be in disagreement then.
I do not think you are "some cardboard cutout of a weapy liberal". Nor am I the warmongering, baby killing knuckle dragging moron you seem think I am.
I am not wrong about the targeting process; your assertions to the contrary do not change the truth.
My assertions to the contrary are based on the military's own reports on how the war was conducted.
they are the truth.
Feel free to read up on the subject and get back to me.
If you find that I am wrong, that we did NOT target civilian targets like infrastructure supporting water supplies, electronic power stations intersections, and so forth, let me know.
Otherwise, accept the fact that modern warfare is warfare against the economy as well as the military, just as I am more than willing to accept that our military, when it has an overwhelming advantage, does its best to limit civilian casualties.
But by all mean do stop trying to rewrite my points (which are subtle, but written well enough for you to understand them) into some silly, liberal, kneejerking, anti-military nonsense.
Thanks.
My assertions to the contrary are based on the military's own reports on how the war was conducted.
they are the truth.
Right.
Feel free to read up on the subject and get back to me.
No thanks....you already have all the answers you think you need.
If you find that I am wrong, that we did NOT target civilian targets like infrastructure supporting water supplies, electronic power stations intersections, and so forth, let me know.
I never said we didn't. There is a big difference between targeting infrastructure and the deliberate targeting of civilian personnel...but you know that already.
Otherwise, accept the fact that modern warfare is warfare against the economy as well as the military, just as I am more than willing to accept that our military, when it has an overwhelming advantage, does its best to limit civilian casualties.
Never disputed that point at all.
But by all mean do stop trying to rewrite my points (which are subtle, but written well enough for you to understand them) into some silly, liberal, kneejerking, anti-military nonsense.
I never rewrote a thing you posted. Any inference that I did is strictly in your own head....
Thanks.
