|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Jan 26, 2010 3:43:44 GMT -8
NO what I am saying is we go to war with those that advance our commercial or ideological interest and RIGHT and WRONG has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 26, 2010 7:53:09 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Jan 26, 2010 11:15:47 GMT -8
What if the choice is to either kill the enemy of let the enemy kill innocent people? Should we refuse to protect innocent people unless we can do so in only the most humane way possible?"
Absurd question because it is a self serving kill. We are not defending ourselves and we are only defending innocents in country's where we have an economic interest. Tell me, would support having a police force if it only protected a tiny amount of the population. Imagine if there were dozens of murders and the police only investigated the murder of the police chief's best friend? That is basically what America does. If we are not going to attempt to defend the majority of innocent life, but only that which we have an economic interest in, then we have no right to be self righteous about our killings. We are soldiers of fortune. To romanticize it has a humanitarian mission does violence to the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 26, 2010 15:22:31 GMT -8
I would still favor having a police force. However, I would work to make the system protect everyone. It is not the idea of a police force that would be corrupt, but rather those who are in charge.
You have to be kidding me. What economic interests do we have in Afghanistan? Is there a shortage of rugs and poppy seeds here in the states? Even in Iraq I don't see any economic benefit. We would've been far better off supporting Saddam and buying his oil while he invaded his neighbors and killed off large portions of his own population. All you leftists said that we wanted their oil. Well where is it? We certainly could have taken it by now and paid ourselves back for the billions spent on freeing the country from Saddam. But instead we have given ever thing to the people of Iraq so they can rebuild there economy. Tell me, what economic benefit have we seen from these wars?
Who said anything about being self righteous? My question was regarding whether you would put limits on protecting innocent people from those who are harming them or intend to do harm.
If your notions about American are true, then why do others always look to us when they are in need of protection, or experiencing a natural disaster. There never seems to be a shortage of people like you who will describe any action by our country as evil. Even during this crisis in Haiti there are those criticizing America's efforts in saving people and getting help where it is needed. The US has no economic stake in the country yet there we are giving more that twice as much as the rest of the world combined. Hugo Chavez says that we want to occupy the country and steal it resources, and France has been critical as well. Perhaps you share Hugo's view of the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2010 18:47:58 GMT -8
"It is true that there is not, as pacifists and prigs imagine, the least inconsistency between loving men and fighting them, if we fight them fairly and for a good cause"
G.K. Chesterton
Just thought I'd throw that in here as I stumbled upon it today.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Feb 17, 2010 18:49:54 GMT -8
Josh, how do you define fairly? Us using massive air support and guns that can shot around corners while they have old AK47s and IEDs. If we are going to fight with a overwhelming force that is 40 years more technilogically advanced and far wealthier, I think it is absurd to expect them to fight by general rules of engagement that with our technical advantage gives them exactly two choices. 1. Surrender 2. line up and be shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 17, 2010 20:45:50 GMT -8
I wasn't saying Chesterton's necessarily reflected my view. I don't think he could have envisioned the possibility of your question (technologically)
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 18, 2010 8:45:13 GMT -8
I don't know why you find it so objectionable that the US has superior fighting capabilities. What we should be concerning ourselves with is whether the war is justified.
By the way are you familiar with the rules of engagement in which our soldiers are fighting under? Do you realize the significant disadvantage that our soldiers are in due to these rules. For example, US soldiers can not fire on an enemy combatant unless the enemy is holding their weapon or was seen shooting at our forces. So what the enemy does is they hide in a building and shoot at or soldiers and when it appears that the our soldiers are about the overtake the building, they simply drop their gun (out of site of those they are fighting) and walk out the door in front of their adversaries moving on to the next hideout or stronghold and start shooting again. Our enemies would never think of following such absurd rules. Are you outraged at the Taliban for not fighting fairly?
I take no joy in saying this but, I truly find your sympathy for the enemy and disdain for our soldiers to be repugnant.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Feb 28, 2010 23:10:40 GMT -8
I have no sympathy for the enemy. I also agree it is good for our soldiers to have overwhelming power. Yet detaching myself to my particular loyalty, all I am saying is that if the situation was reversed and our enemy was vastly greater than ourselves, I am pretty sure we would resort to the types of tactics that the current enemy is using. I am not saying that either form of attack is good, I am just saying we should not be self righteous that we fight fair and our enemy doesn't.
Its true Roadside bombs are acts of cowardice in the face of their enemy. Yet I find some of our tactics equally brutal and unfair. We launch missiles from ships that are floating on Oceans most of these people have never seen. If a IED is not fair, I would submit that a smart bomb or cruise missile is equally unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 1, 2010 8:48:11 GMT -8
When Roadside bombs are used to target the military, I don't find it to be unfair or cowardice. What I find to be cowardice is the use of women and children as human shields. I have no reason to believe that as a society we would resort to such tactics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 1, 2010 11:12:03 GMT -8
Tactics that Patriots used in the American Revolution were considered akin to terrorism back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 1, 2010 12:31:45 GMT -8
But weren't they just sniping from the woods? They weren't hiding among women and children were they?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 1, 2010 13:27:52 GMT -8
I certainly would not feel comfortable equating patriots in the Revolutionary War, with terrorists of the 20th and 21st century. The gorilla warfare tactics employed by the Patriots is a far cry from the intentional targeting of civilians used by Al-Qeada, the Taliban, Hamas, and even the Iraqi military under Saddam. The enemies that we find ourselves fighting against today will often use a strategy of positioning their military bases, and munitions factories inside of neighborhoods, and near schools and hospitals. They hide among civilian populations in an attempt to use our humanity against us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 1, 2010 13:39:56 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong; I'm not equating them. I'm just saying that we have also found overselves on the spectrum of "fighting dirty".
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 1, 2010 14:22:56 GMT -8
Certainly, but we're able to distinguish between accusations and guilt.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 1, 2010 15:25:07 GMT -8
The fact is that whether war is right or not should no tbe debated; it IS going to happen; it is not a perfect world. So the question is, under what conditions should it happen?
well, it seems that each situation would be justified under different circumstances, but some universal criteria would be:
a nation is forced to by another nation;
a nation will save more lives by entering
oops, time to eat
john
|
|
