Wow. Strong stuff: And so, if we are people of conscience, we must admit that the killing of an unknown Iraqi child by the push of a button miles away is no less immoral than the televised slaughter of an American adult by a butcher's knife. Our troops have performed admirably in Iraq, with honor and courage. We who have sent them there, however, should feel not satisfaction but shame. We dare not brandish the evil of those who killed Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il as cover against our own guilt. Rather, we should beg forgiveness from our troops, the citizens of Iraq and decent people everywhere. The pious among us, beginning with our born-again president, should also repent before God.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find the person who launched the smart-bomb standing over the button doing their best Mr. Burns impression ("excellent"), knowing that he/she was going to kill a child. The difference, at least in my estimation, is the intention. (this isn't an example that draws a clear cut line) Is there a difference between the person who walks up to someone on the street and shoots them in the chest three times and the person who loses control of their car and hits a pedestrian?
When the button-presser pressed the button, what did he/she intend? Waas this person hoping that out of the desert of Iraq would pop a USO band and fresh water? Did he/she press the button in order to send over Hallmark cards, MREs, and the lastest version of AOL? Worst. Argument. Ever.
It's even worse than that. Segroves the Widowmaker is responsible for nearly 1000 deaths per year in building construction. Many are grisly falls from roofs. And don't forget those bloodthirsty civil engineers, over 40,000 deaths last year on the roads. And the dirty bums knew there would be deaths but built them anyway. Better to be a computer geek, nobody ever died from a computer virus. Then you can wag your finger all day long at people who actually do something useful and scream "J'accuse"
Bad analogy. Is there a difference between a sloppy drunk, speeding driver, in rush hour, on a major road, and your shooter? Yes...the former is gonna kill more people.
I would guess that 99% of the American soldiers fighting in Iraq do their job in hopes of saving the very lives of the children the original post mentions. When they push their button to launch a smart-bomb I think it's safe to say that they're aiming at a camp or building that their intelligence tells them is full of "bad guys." They don't want to kill children, but let's be honest things don't always work out the way we want. No, you won that one.
As I posted, it wasn't a clear-cut analogy. In my mind, the shooter has intent to kill, while the (sober) driver does not. Also, while there isn't intent with the drunk driver, there is disregard for human life. I'm not an optimist, but the majority of military activity in Iraq is more along the lines of the (using your analogy) sober driver than the drunk one.
At what point does recklessness morph into intent? A better analogy would be a policeman firing his handgun into a crowd in an attempt to kill a wanted man.
You'll say potato, and I'll say potato...which is why the law doesn't (and shouldn't) recognize a difference between the two. They're purely philosophical in the analogy that was used. Yea, that's better.
I think a better analogy would be a policeman throwing a hand grenade into a crowd in an attempt to kill a wanted man. Even with poinpoint targeting a Hellfire missile or 500lb. GBU is going to kill eveyone in the domicile and probably anyone on the street as well. Isn't this what we have special forces for? Not that I'm arguing that it is wrong. I think it is unless you can show that the individual is an imminent threat; as in, finger on the button not, he's "terrorist" and will probably try to do more "terrorist stuff" soon. But the main reason I don't like is is because it is horrible P.R. and just literally overkill. Jesus, these terrorists scrubs manage to sneak up and pop a cap in half the governing council and our ass-kickin' SpecOps guys can't dispose of anyone without calling in Rolling Thunder? It's a head-scratcher sure.
It helps when you can hide among their the population or the terrain. That's what they're trained to do, and that's not an option for our SF guys in Iraq. They also need intelligence to plan their strikes. They're not getting it. I understand the author's point is not to condemn the soldiers but the view of the country and politicians that sent them to Iraq, but there is a world of difference between innocents dying in a bombed building and the beheading of captives. So firebombing the Germans and nuking the Japaneese is ok because they were evil, but smart bombing the Iraqis is immoral because they're only 'quasi-evil'? Not pose a danger to anyone outside his borders? Come on. Israel? Kuwait? Iran? If he wants to hammer the administration for failing to prove that Iraq had the WMD or WMD programs used to justify the invasion, fine. But what he wrote is just not true. Worst. Arguement. Ever. Because superlatives do so much to further intelligent discourse.
One: The SF guys have had a year and-a-half in country. One would think they would have grown beards and learned Arabic by now. Talents for that sort of thing is how you get that f***ing job. Second, if we don't have good intel, how the hell do we justify dropping 500lb bombs on buildings.?! That argument makes it worse! I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying it don't make sense when there are other alternatives. CinC will say our SF guys are overstretched and probably resort to your argument No. 1 above. To which I still say, why the hell not?
The germans were firebombing England first so the English came up with better way to do it, and gave it back to the Germans. Nuking Japan saved a lot of lives both on the allied and the Japanese much more would have died if the war had dragged on and Japan didn't surrender. On death by bombing and beheading when it comes down to it dead is dead.
In RE: Hirosima, Nagasaki; firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, London, et.al; rocketing and bombing of dense residential areas and automobiles in the public thoroughfare in pursuit of combatants (read, suspected terrorists). 1st Geneva Convention, Article 57: 1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. 2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. 3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. 4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects. 5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects. (Emphasis Added} Civillian objects are defined in Article 52, Para 2 & 3. 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used. Oh, I forgot. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to us. <headsmack!>
The Geneva Conventions which you are referring to were not accepted until August 12, 1949. So they don't apply to World War 2. I guess it was easy to miss that in the big bold type face at the top of your link in order to call us terrorists.
Didn't we do this whole 'bombing of civillians: a warcrime?" thing a week or so ago? Besides, the author's saying it's immoral, not illegal. Let's stick to that.
terrorist headquarters or terrorist sites are fair targets in war high-rise buildings filled with civilians are not targets get it right!
Don't agree. Would you rather have someone shoot you in the head w/a sniper rifle from afar, or even kill you instantly w/a dropped bomb, or would you want someone to slowly carve your freaking head off? Dead is never simply dead. The getting their can be utter agony for a long, bloody long time, quickly or anything inbetween, other than being maimed, I'd take almost anything (other than perhaps flame thrower death in a German Bunker) before I'd take the fate of poor Nick Berg. As for WWII, as the other poster said, there weren't any conventions yet, and you need to do some research before condemning the actions of the allied forces. Ask the Chinese, or bolo wielding phillipino veterans how Japan dealt w/civilians before any allied force came within hundreds of miles of Japan. Ask what happened to the civilian contractors on Wake Island that were kept as slave labor, ask what happened in Nanking, ask what happened to allied flyers caught in the waters by Japanese sailors. Ask what happened to an Austrailian soldier after the Japanese Surrender had actually happened (beheaded) and ask what happened when the Japanese, as they often did in '42, and '43, faked surrenders and deliberately targeted unarmed medics. As for Germany, there have been few, if any whole nations as consumed with the course of Evil as Germany was during that time period. Whether you talk Einsatzgrupen, the mass slaughter of British and American P.O.W.'s, the ritualized testing of anti-semetic weapons of extermination first against the slavs and russians, or the French Civilians that were slaughtered if even a hint of a resistance was suggested in their town, particularly in the days, weeks and months after D-Day, the crux is the same, the Nazi's were guilty of the most astounding atrocities imaginable alongside Japan. I'll never argue that the allies were pure and as innocent as lamb's during the war, but there is no comparing whatsoever between the actions of the axis and the allies. I'm not always comfortable thinking about what was done to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but even a cursory analysis of the History of WWII, and of Japanese preparations for the home invasions renders in my mind, the high-minded philosphizing of our methods in destroying these two twisted empires moot. Ask a veteran, or ask an Asian civilian in Korea, China, the Phillipines during this time period about what was just and unjust, ask Eastern European Jews (woops, there are virtually none left, how about asking some elderly civilian Eastern European Slavs, and/or Ukrainians) what was justified and not to win the war. Unconditional surrender was the demand, neither would surrender and the outrages that were committed by Japan and Germany before the surrenders infinitely outstripped anything the allies ever brought to bear. Justifying may never be possible, but a war needed to be won, and the overwhelming force that was brought to bear in winning it insured that a third major European war, or a 2nd war with Japan which could have killed even more than the tens of million killed in WWII never happened. What if's exist about the handling of WWII, and particularly the peace, agonizing what if's that involve more than 50 million dead, WWII's finish has no such similar regrets in my view and that's a credit to Churchill, and FDR (and gag, even Stalin and more importantly his troops) and to the allied Soldiers that won the war. As for Smart Bombs and Beheading, the comparison is utterly non-sensical in my view. We go SO bloody out of our way to limit casualties of non-combatants that we actually are continually putting our own soldiers at far greater risk and our strategy as well (Fallujah comes to mind), do innocent civilians get killed, sure, and that's a horrible tragedy, but it's war, and important to note that the US continues to spend oodles of money and oodles of effort trying to sure that the fewest possible civilian deaths and/or casualties happen, this is not even remotely comparable to what Zarqawi and his ilk, do.
Stop telling this goddamn mother********ing cum-sucking whore-infested lie! STOP. You are wrong, this lie is wrong; both are total and complete ****************. How do we ever come to understand anything if we keep covering ourselves in the feculence of our own failed national and international lives, time after time after time? STOP TELLING THIS LIE. THIS IS A LIE.
Um, yes actually I assumed we all knew that. I was trying to point out that no matter how one goes about justifying past or present practices, when one looks at the letter of the law, they are pretty much prima facie violations. Do you suppose it could be both? And where are the big signs posted on the roofs of these "terrorist headquarters" that say "terrorist headquarters"? Are all or most of the occupants known to be terrorists or is the building only suspected to be a terrorist headquarters or safe house? All of which pertain to the morality/legality of blowing up houses and cars that contain terrorists and also incidentally their wives and infant children (see Palestine) in the streets. But it does not pertain to my original point that the strategy moral, legal or not is just plain stupid when your stated goal is to convince eveyone else that you are the good guys and you're not there to make war on Palestine/Iraq/Chechnya as a people but you just want to get the bad guys and leave a better country behind. And perhaps secondarily to (ideally) catch or kill all the bad guys and actually establish some peace and tranquility.
Yea, because we all know that these terrorist scrubs have hgih profiles just like the governing council.