(November 22, 2014 at 8:27 am)paulpablo Wrote: It depends on how you categorize the killing overseas. I'm thinking more of the individual actions and battles fought, rather than what American leaders say the objective of an entire war is beforehand.

The individuals are decent people who have willingly put their lives on the line for something that they themselves may have no stake in, that they themselves may not agree with - that they may actively oppose. War, at the level of strategy -or- individual action is not about killing the other guys kids, wife, and extended family. There's at least one different word for that. Genocide.

Quote:I'm sure there have been many instances of at least some military personnel targeting civilians.

In that there are people in wars, and some people are sadists and nutballs, of course. Again, wafflehouses also have sadists and nutballs in them - and I bet at least a few of them shave their legs. I'm not defending war, I'm not defending nutballs, I'm just suggesting that war and nutballs are bad enough without extraneous and shadowy equivalence being asserted between the two. If someone wanted to make the case that both are bad form (and I definitely would) the worst way to do so, imo, is to begin with a straw effigy of what we hope to undermine. We'd be poisoning our own well.

(November 22, 2014 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 22, 2014 at 8:27 am)paulpablo Wrote: I'm sure there have been many instances of at least some military personnel targeting civilians.

In that there are people in wars, and some people are sadists and nutballs, of course. Again, wafflehouses also have sadists and nutballs in them - and I bet at least a few of them shave their legs. I'm not defending war, I'm not defending nutballs, I'm just suggesting that war and nutballs are bad enough without extraneous and shadowy equivalence being asserted between the two. If someone wanted to make the case that both are bad form (and I definitely would) the worst way to do so, imo, is to begin with a straw effigy of what we hope to undermine. We'd be poisoning our own well.

I agree with the point you're making, Rhythm, about the difference between school shootings and military operations -- but it needs to be pointed out that attacking civilians as a measure of war has been conducted in the past, formally -- think of Imperial Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI, or the Allied bombing campaign against Germany in WWII.

I grant the obvious objection that those policies aren't the norm; but it has happened in the past, and nuclear deterence, which is still our national policy, is predicated on the mass slaughter of civilians.

This doesn't negate your objection, of course; just offering a bit of nuance for it.

(November 22, 2014 at 8:30 am)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote:

(November 22, 2014 at 8:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Yes and yes.

you can leave now.

Thanks a lot. I'm sure the kids would have wanted to leave too.

(November 22, 2014 at 1:30 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I agree with the point you're making, Rhythm, about the difference between school shootings and military operations -- but it needs to be pointed out that attacking civilians as a measure of war has been conducted in the past, formally -- think of Imperial Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI, or the Allied bombing campaign against Germany in WWII.

Absolutely. The fire bombing of Dresden comes to mind, particularly.

Quote:I grant the obvious objection that those policies aren't the norm; but it has happened in the past, and nuclear deterence, which is still our national policy, is predicated on the mass slaughter of civilians.

This doesn't negate your objection, of course; just offering a bit of nuance for it.

I'm of the opinion that all bets are off once we invoke MAD. If the other guys has tried to -completely end us-, from that point on whatever we do can be accurately described as the actions of an injured and dying animal lashing out against it's own annihilation. To my mind, that's a completely amoral subject. I appreciate the nuance, and I raise you my own..hehehehe.

But..Since we're referring to school shootings and "the killings overseas" I feel fairly confident that we are approaching the subject from a modern, american perspective entirely unrelated to nuclear deterence. If someone asked me what the difference between a school shooting and the fire bombing of dresden was from an ideological standpoint, I'd reply "vision and competence".

Quote:The individuals are decent people

Which individuals?

Quote: War, at the level of strategy -or- individual action is not about killing the other guys kids, wife, and extended family.

But again I'm not talking about what war is or isn't about. I'm talking about in general a lot of the killing overseas goes against conventions, and laws of war.

(November 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Which individuals?

The soldiers -on both sides-.

Quote:But again I'm not talking about what war is or isn't about. I'm talking about in general a lot of the killing overseas goes against conventions, and laws of war.

Then speak up, because if you have information about warcrimes you need to share it and those people need to be prosecuted (and they will be). It doesn't happen a lot, not even generally. We have a professional army that we hold to a standard. If it turns out that american soldiers are running into villages - even a little bit- and targeting the civilians.....I'll pull the trigger myself because they've shit on the only thing I hold sacred. I have no patience for it, and I certainly have no patience for people claiming,"in the general, um, our soldiers are intentionally doing nonspecific bad stuff to civilians against conventions and laws of war". No, they aren't.

I thought this was going to be a joke thread. Disturbing.

It should have been......and then........

I don't know if there is anything more horrible than killing a child.

(November 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Which individuals?

The soldiers -on both sides-.

Quote:But again I'm not talking about what war is or isn't about. I'm talking about in general a lot of the killing overseas goes against conventions, and laws of war.

Then speak up, because if you have information about warcrimes you need to share it and those people need to be prosecuted (and they will be). It doesn't happen a lot, not even generally. We have a professional army that we hold to a standard. If it turns out that american soldiers are running into villages - even a little bit- and targeting the civilians.....I'll pull the trigger myself because they've shit on the only thing I hold sacred. I have no patience for it, and I certainly have no patience for people claiming,"in the general, um, our soldiers are intentionally doing nonspecific bad stuff to civilians against conventions and laws of war". No, they aren't.

So you're of the opinion that in recent wars, not many civilians have been killed? Or the ones that were killed were just accidental? What's your opinion of the vietnam war or various other war crimes that have already been committed?