The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

a

GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
edited August 2017 in Debate and/or Discourse
.

GPIA7R on

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable, and the logic goes that by inadvertently killing X civilians today, you save >> X civilians down the road. See also: Hiroshima.

    Though a lot of the times we kill civilians because we're stupid or careless or don't give a fuck because they're not American civilians.

    Also, we're already kind of enemies with Russia, just not in the gonna-blow-each-other-up sense anymore. They're run by an evil fucker who wants to rebuild the USSR. Opposing that isn't exactly a terrible thing, as long as we oppose it intelligently.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You probably need to read the first article again - the target was killed along with some others who were with him. No mention of any civillian loss.

    The second article doesn't present any official statement as to why this way done. I think there is definitely a problem of locals getting paid as informants to make up stories about other locals. That's been going on in military operations all over the world by most major countries for many decades.

    Yar on
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    .

    GPIA7R on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm as anti war as they come but except for the jaded misanthropes (and there are alot of them there, as in any military) who don't give a shit, the brass goes to as great of lengths as possible to not kill civilians, to the point of putting US soldiers in danger.


    I mean it happens, and every time it happens it reminds me of why we shouldn't be there. The other guys pay no heed whatsoever to civilian casualties, and that ends up getting blamed on us in the rural middle east because we're there.




    Every time an American kills 10 terrorists it does little to further our standing in the middle east, but if an American kills 10 terrorists and 1 civilian with a missile, it will hurt our public image. This is why the longer we stay there the more people will join up with "the bad guys"

    override367 on
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    .

    GPIA7R on
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The first article you linked doesn't say anything about those 20 people being innocent....

    The second article, well its harder to say. I can only assume a bunch of people were fairly confident terrorists were in there because the USA doesn't go around with death squads killing people randomly. The article doesn't even say for sure weather any of the people killed were terrorists or not, only that a bunch of locals claim they are civilians.

    Dman on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    But do Pakistan and Syria necesarilly KNOW that "the enemies" are hiding in their countries? Say a single high-ranking member of al-Queda hides in a large apartment with 15 civilians that are basically being taken hostage, and used as human shields. I can't imagine us not blowing them all to hell for that single guy, just because "they aren't American, so it doesn't matter."

    That's what these instances seemed like to me, that these people that just happened to be nearby (one guy in Syria was just nearby, fishing) are becoming victims to what seem like uncaring Americans that just want to make sure they hit their target.

    Yes, they know. Because we are telling them, "Hey, there's a bad guy in your country. He's over there. Please go kill him." And they are telling us to fuck off for whatever reason.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2008
    Also depends on what you mean by "innocent".

    Al Qaeda are killers and will kill anyone of any race or ethnicity that gets in their way. The people that harbor and protect them are hardly innocent.

    It sucks that people who aren't directly involved in some things get punished, but then again, it's their fault that they're involved at all.

    Secondly, we've given Pakistan and Syria plenty of opportunities to take this matter into their own hands. We're saving their own population from these asshats. They refuse to intervene.

    It's a sad, but necessary, evil.

    Honestly, these raids into Pakistan and Syria are some of the few good ideas the Bush Admin and the Generals have had. Shame McCain is such a gigantic fucking pussy.

    Sheep on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    .

    GPIA7R on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Obviously, us being America, Mexico wouldn't do jack shit. But the point is that they'd be perfectly justified if they did. Which just goes to show that you shouldn't harbor the enemies of more powerful nations, because eventually they're bound to fuck your shit over it.

    They would be morally justified, huh? What if those "anti-mexican" revolutionaries were friends of America and wanted to topple the corrupt Mexican government and install one friendlier to America? Would the Mexicans be perfectly justified coming in and bombing the fuck out of the revolutionaries, killing innocent American citizens in the process?

    MikeMan on
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Syria is reducing security on the border. I bet whoever ordered that incursion is really glad they thought things through and considered the potential consequences of violating the sovereignty of a neutral country.

    Azio on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2008
    We don't need them to have additional security if we're patrolling the border.

    Seems like an invitation to me.

    Sheep on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable-

    The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Æthelred wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable-

    The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.

    For as long as these nations make no good-faith effort to ensure that they're not providing a safe haven for the people that we are fighting (even if it's not technically a war) these strikes are a necessity.

    Pakistan's government is very new and still fragile. The likelihood of cooperation with US anti-Taliban/AQ efforts is high (the new President's wife was killed by them, after all). We need to do what we can to work with them.

    This Frontline episode gives some fantastic insight about that situation, along with Afghanistan as a whole. It also does a good job describing just how insanely fucked up the Taliban are.

    EDIT: Pakistan is not "providing" a safe haven. The Taliban literally rolled in and killed pretty much all the local tribal leaders in Waziristan. The Pakistani army isn't doing much about it because it can't, yet.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable-

    The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.

    For as long as these nations make no good-faith effort to ensure that they're not providing a safe haven for the people that we are fighting (even if it's not technically a war) these strikes are a necessity.

    Pakistan's government is very new and still fragile. The likelihood of cooperation with US anti-Taliban/AQ efforts is high (the new President's wife was killed by them, after all). We need to do what we can to work with them.

    This Frontline episode gives some fantastic insight about that situation, along with Afghanistan as a whole. It also does a good job describing just how insanely fucked up the Taliban are.

    EDIT: Pakistan is not "providing" a safe haven. The Taliban literally rolled in and killed pretty much all the local tribal leaders in Waziristan. The Pakistani army isn't doing much about it because it can't, yet.

    I think that so far the US government has been pretty understanding about their situation. They can go after these people themselves, or they can give us permission to handle it for them. We're willing to entertain any offer that actually results in the bad guys being dealt with. We're not willing to have the Pakistanis both refuse to do the work and refuse to let us do the work.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable-

    The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.

    For as long as these nations make no good-faith effort to ensure that they're not providing a safe haven for the people that we are fighting (even if it's not technically a war) these strikes are a necessity.

    Pakistan's government is very new and still fragile. The likelihood of cooperation with US anti-Taliban/AQ efforts is high (the new President's wife was killed by them, after all). We need to do what we can to work with them.

    This Frontline episode gives some fantastic insight about that situation, along with Afghanistan as a whole. It also does a good job describing just how insanely fucked up the Taliban are.

    EDIT: Pakistan is not "providing" a safe haven. The Taliban literally rolled in and killed pretty much all the local tribal leaders in Waziristan. The Pakistani army isn't doing much about it because it can't, yet.

    And Syria?

    Yeah, fuck those guys.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In the general case, civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable-

    The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.

    For as long as these nations make no good-faith effort to ensure that they're not providing a safe haven for the people that we are fighting (even if it's not technically a war) these strikes are a necessity.

    Pakistan's government is very new and still fragile. The likelihood of cooperation with US anti-Taliban/AQ efforts is high (the new President's wife was killed by them, after all). We need to do what we can to work with them.

    This Frontline episode gives some fantastic insight about that situation, along with Afghanistan as a whole. It also does a good job describing just how insanely fucked up the Taliban are.

    EDIT: Pakistan is not "providing" a safe haven. The Taliban literally rolled in and killed pretty much all the local tribal leaders in Waziristan. The Pakistani army isn't doing much about it because it can't, yet.

    I think that so far the US government has been pretty understanding about their situation. They can go after these people themselves, or they can give us permission to handle it for them. We're willing to entertain any offer that actually results in the bad guys being dealt with. We're not willing to have the Pakistanis both refuse to do the work and refuse to let us do the work.

    Ummmm, no one's really been in a position to spearhead that kind of effort in Pakistan. That country is in serious danger of destabilization.

    I have a strong feeling the new government will work with us, but right now they've got a ton of shit to work our on their own end (like dealing with a massive fucking earthquake and a huge political opposition). I would be shocked if we didn't have their cooperation in a matter of months, though.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • edited October 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And Syria?

    Yeah, fuck those guys.

    Okay, so we're at least in the same chapter if we aren't on the same page.

    As far as Pakistan goes, I'm with ElJeffe...they need to either let us take care of it, or take care of it themselves...it not getting taken care of is not a valid third option. I get that they're trying, but if any country is unwilling or unable to handle this shit I think we're justified in doing what we need to...even though, unfortunately, it's usually going to be messier that way.

    See, this is where we disagree. I think the consequences of a bigger rift between the West and Pakistan and the consequential increase in anti-Western radicalism is too large.

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And Syria?

    Yeah, fuck those guys.

    Okay, so we're at least in the same chapter if we aren't on the same page.

    As far as Pakistan goes, I'm with ElJeffe...they need to either let us take care of it, or take care of it themselves...it not getting taken care of is not a valid third option. I get that they're trying, but if any country is unwilling or unable to handle this shit I think we're justified in doing what we need to...even though, unfortunately, it's usually going to be messier that way.
    I don't know that sending American forces to deal with the situation in Pakistan would really be messier than the one they have now. The far right Islamic militias rule the roost out in the hinterlands as it is, and it looks to most observers like Pakistan simply lacks the combination of military strength and political will to do anything about it.

    I'm pro intervention in Pakistan as long as it's well thought out. No more cowboy bullshit. If we can do that, we could do ourselves a lot of good, both in terms of the war on terror and our international standing.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Yeah. So, uh, what about issuing a Letter of Marque and Reprisal instead of military force?

    Richard_Dastardly on
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    1. Pakistan is bankrupt and can not afford to police their own so we have to do it for them in extenuating circumstances.
    2. Fuck Syria.
    3. Don't believe everything you read.
    4. Jack Nicholson.

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Things that scare me shitless:

    1. Russia
    2. Korea
    3. Iran
    4. USA being a dick to any of the above

    GPIA7R on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Things that scare me shitless:

    1. Russia
    2. Korea
    3. Iran
    4. USA being a dick to any of the above
    1. Russia's bad news, at least under Putin, but they're not "oh shit, we're all gonna die" scary. At least not yet. They've been flexing a bit in regards to the other former Soviet states they border, but I don't see them making a serious play in the next 5-10 years. Vlad's up to his eyeballs in internal dissent at this point, and former KGB agents know they need to deal with that stuff first.

    2. N. Korea is scary. I'll agree with you here. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I don't think forceable disarmament is the answer.

    3. Iran as a state isn't that scary. It's the various actors within Iran that are potential problems. It's a very delicate situation, and it needs approached as such. Quickly.

    4. I got nothing here. GOBAMA.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    1) Russia is a toothless bear. I might be just making that up.

    2) N. Korea is only crazy because China lets them be crazy. The only reason that N. Korea is allowed to remain an isolated state is because China uses them as a buffer between them and S. Korea and the US military presence there. And, China doesn't want beef with the US atm. So, it's safe to assume that N. Korea isn't really gonna start a war with anyone.

    3) Iran.. I dunno. But Ahmadinajad isn't even really in charge. It's the Theocracy. And, I don't think they're so bent on self destruction as to attack the US or it's allies. Of course, funding terrorists is another thing altogether...

    Richard_Dastardly on
  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    A nation is responsible for what occurs within it's borders and the actions of the people within said borders. For me, the question is the degree of responsibility. This degree is determined by each nation individually, and ideally there would be an agreed upon framework between nations that guides these determinations. In the end though, a nation is responsible to its citizens.

    The US and the countries it is invading should be trying to hammer out these guidelines right now, ideally in a public forum *cough* UN *cough*. Maybe this is happening, if it is I'm ignorant of it. If it isn't, I consider the governments of both nations partially responsible for the deaths of any civilians involved.

    If the people we're going after are actively involved in mass murder, we should try to respect the sovereignty of Syria through diplomacy. If they aren't responsive, I consider them to be actively aiding these guys. If they can't help, then I question their sovereignty in that particular region. This all depends of course on the evidence against these guys being rock solid. I'd like to see more transparency here.

    I also believe we should be making more of an effort to take some of these guys alive, even if it puts our guys at more risk. If we don't have them subdued, then move to subdue them, by killing them if absolutely necessary. I don't think we're justified in killing everyone in the house, including children, just to get one guy every time. Maybe they don't report it, but it doesn't seem like we every bring prisoners back from these raids. I'd rather preserve innocent life then actively take the lives of the guilty unless they pose an immense and immediate risk to others.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    .

    GPIA7R on
  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I should probably add, that I also put blame for the deaths of the innocents on these cowardly fuckers for hiding among civilians.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Things that scare me shitless:

    1. Russia
    2. Korea
    3. Iran
    4. USA being a dick to any of the above
    1. Russia's bad news, at least under Putin, but they're not "oh shit, we're all gonna die" scary. At least not yet. They've been flexing a bit in regards to the other former Soviet states they border, but I don't see them making a serious play in the next 5-10 years. Vlad's up to his eyeballs in internal dissent at this point, and former KGB agents know they need to deal with that stuff first.

    2. N. Korea is scary. I'll agree with you here. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I don't think forceable disarmament is the answer.

    3. Iran as a state isn't that scary. It's the various actors within Iran that are potential problems. It's a very delicate situation, and it needs approached as such. Quickly.

    4. I got nothing here. GOBAMA.
    1) Russia is a toothless bear. I might be just making that up.

    2) N. Korea is only crazy because China lets them be crazy. The only reason that N. Korea is allowed to remain an isolated state is because China uses them as a buffer between them and S. Korea and the US military presence there. And, China doesn't want beef with the US atm. So, it's safe to assume that N. Korea isn't really gonna start a war with anyone.

    3) Iran.. I dunno. But Ahmadinajad isn't even really in charge. It's the Theocracy. And, I don't think they're so bent on self destruction as to attack the US or it's allies. Of course, funding terrorists is another thing altogether...

    Alright, but were either of the above to ever just snap one day and go all out on America... would our allies help us? Hell, isn't Russia supposed to be an ally? What would happen if they decided to see exactly how much of America they could blow to hell in a day?

    Then we'd blow the everloving fuck out of them. In the age of megaton explosives, that's really all we've got when an entire state turns into an irrational actor.

    That said, no one on that list is going to do that. Survival instinct keeps the people who control those countries from starting fights they can't win and that are likely to end in their annihilation.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • witchkillerwitchkiller Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    OptimusZed wrote:
    I'm pro intervention in Pakistan as long as it's well thought out.


    Then join the Army.



    Personally I've had enough of being a part of Oceania's military flexing on foreign lands. I won't approve of using 3rd generation warfare and long occupations anymore.

    I truly wish that Sen Murtha would have his way, and that America would experience a massive draft. Start pulling the boys out of college, off of their jobs and away from their families; then send them all over to the sandbox... It sounds extreme, but I'm pretty sure that it will get the people moving, and finish this BS 'war on terror,' in a hurry.

    witchkiller on
    Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural, it is a whim of circumstance, and barbarism must always ultimately triumph.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Did I fall into some alternate dimension?

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Like, a war mongering alternate dimension that thinks nuking countries is a good idea?

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    1) Russia is a toothless bear. I might be just making that up.

    2) N. Korea is only crazy because China lets them be crazy. The only reason that N. Korea is allowed to remain an isolated state is because China uses them as a buffer between them and S. Korea and the US military presence there. And, China doesn't want beef with the US atm. So, it's safe to assume that N. Korea isn't really gonna start a war with anyone.

    3) Iran.. I dunno. But Ahmadinajad isn't even really in charge. It's the Theocracy. And, I don't think they're so bent on self destruction as to attack the US or it's allies. Of course, funding terrorists is another thing altogether...

    Fun fact, you can see crazy bunkers and shit in N. Korea with Google earth.

    North Korea is off the terrorist threat list.

    North Korea is dismantling their nuclear program, albeit slowly, but its not were living in 2006 after they detonated a nuke underground. I would not consider N. Korea an imminent thread.

    I would never call Russia toothless, they still have a shitload of nuclear weapons and a rather large army. I would say Russia has been westernized and they continue to work with the USA on issues like N.Korea even if Russia doesn't play nice with some of its smaller former soviet neighbours. Again, I would say not an imminent threat.

    Iran-well we have a bit of a problem here. A theocracy is kind of a scary form of government, and thats where the real power is in Iran. We need to work on peaceful positive solutions that strengthen the bonds between Iran and the International Community, because we don't want to end up with a clusterfuck worse then Iraq. I direct your attention to this article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703026.html

    With regard to the USA being a dick...well hopefully Obama will usher in a new era of international relations. But for all the mistakes the USA has made, I feel they were made in an attempt to do the right thing, hindsight is 20/20.

    Dman on
  • DerLustigeBosniakDerLustigeBosniak Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Syria just doesn't give a fuck to be honest.

    DerLustigeBosniak on
    sig-3.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Things that scare me shitless:

    1. Russia
    2. Korea
    3. Iran

    None of these are threats really worthy of fear. They're all problem areas that require a delicate touch to keep things from getting out of hand, and if not handled improperly or ignored they can become serious issues.

    They're like cavities. Keep an eye on them, fill them if needed. If you don't fuck it up, you won't have to deal with a root canal.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Sign In or Register to comment.