US military ordered to kill stray dogs in Iraq

tell me more about this person? who is it? and do they live in Iraq?

 

yeah, the whole outrage on people killing civilians during war is pretty funny

both sides in modern wars end up killing tons of innocents, its a given.

 

Lorien, I agree with most of the above, although as I touch on below, we may differ on our views of how you achieve it. My whole (derailing - sorry, folks) offshoot in this thread was just responding to your statement:

-When we did. Specifically and with conscious, deliberative plan.

If you're asking my take, a couple of things.

First, and foremost, you always look at cost benefit. It seems odd to me that knowing the relative benefit of destroying factories over torching human beings, it seems, by any rationalist estimation (which was extant at the time - as evidenced from their own arguments), you go with what you believe works. I think, quite honestly, we were pissed. And we wanted to achieve the political windfall to say - we kicked some yellow ass (it is patently clear that racism was a very real motive, on both sides of the Pacific, for the conflict, starting all the way back with the Russo-Japanese war, continuing on into Japanese incursions into China, our draconian limitations on Japan - an ally - at the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty conferences, and the bloodbath of WWII). I'd argue that was a stupid, and immoral stance. (Without discussing the immorality of the other side - again, not my line here. It is patently acknowledged).

Secondly, to take Clausewitz one step further, not only do I think one has to think about politics as war, but that war continues on after the last gun is silenced; and that sometimes the cheaper thing is not a breaking of the enemy will, but a winning of the enemy non-combatant heart. Mao knew this when he kicked the Nationalist ass, sending prisoners back to Kai-shek well fed, treated well, with a load of communist propaganda in their back pockets and in their hearts.

 

I think that was a different era with different objectives. I bet no one believed, 50 years ago, that you could win a war without flattening the country. The way we fight now (smart bombs, precision bombing, guided bombs, etal) have completely changed the battlefield. Unimaginable back then.

I do, sometimes, wonder if we fought WW2 like we do current wars - precision missiles on precision targets, etc - if the conflict would have been shortened or what the results would have been.

Isn't that the goal in the current conflict? Troops going into regions of Iraq trying to talk to the local leaders to get them on our side and out the people trying to kill us and them? A lot easier to do that when they are your prisoners, than when people are shooting at you all the time.

 

It occurs to me that I have stepped midstream into another thread (not unusual for me, I'm afraid), and unduly weighting it to another subject - I am making a historical appraisal, and not looking at or arguing for any point in the current conflict (my views on the Iraq war are, I think, clear enough). You are right that that was another time. I haven't thought much on how lessons learned there may or may not apply, but you raise an interesting question.

 

The destroyed a civilian population quite deliberately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

I'm still trying to figure out if this is ironic or what.

 

It's not ironic.

It's moronic to think that every "conservative" is a Ann Coulter sniffer.

 

Well, Cheney can't tell a lawyer apart from a bird, so this is plausible...

 

Trying not to see the point that hard are we? Given that the war had not ended, if you had 2 choices - killing 300,000 people to ensure victory - or killing 4 million; the lesser of 2 evils applies here. Get the point?

Once again. I am not debating whether the action was right or wrong. I am trying (please try to understand this time) that the targets were valid militarily and it doesn't compare to driving cars into markets to blow up shoppers - as much as you'd like to make that moral equivolance. If you cannot see the difference, I feel sorry for you.

I'm missing the irony. Please do explain.

 

Typical false choice used to justify this war crime, which has been deemed unjustified by many close to the issue.

The nuclear bombing was quite literally an act of terrorism. You may was to spend your sympathy on the Japanese victims of this war crime.

Everyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is a terrorist sympathizer etc. What's sauce for the goose...

 

I know you find it hard to deal with reality - but, face it. We were at war with Japan. Japan had not capitulated. Analysis done on our side said that 4 million could die in an invasion.

Some were against the bombings, some were for the bombings. It doesn't make it a war crime because you disagree with it.

The lesser of two evils applies. I know you cannot accept that. So its okay. It really is.

It was, really? How so? 2 legimiate military targets were bombed. If it were -really- a war crime, you'd think the japanese would push that, dont you? Very recently, we had a japanese minister say it was the best way to end the war. If it were really a war crime, I don't think there'd be people saying that, now do you? Japanese were the aggressors in WW2 - ah, but that introduces your broken wife syndrome too, doesn't it?

It's our fault we were attacked. And it's our fault we responded to their aggression. Sorry! I won't do it again. Stop beating me.

Interesting concepts from you, yet again, Briant.

Can you remind me of a quote where I claim anyone who disagrees with Bush is a terrorist sympathizer? If so, please do let me know. I do not believe that is my schtick.

But if you feel bad for being called a terrorist sympathizer, maybe you shouldn't try to make poor comparisons between legitimate warfare and planting bombs under schools to blow up kids. Maybe you should say something bad (for a change) about people who actually perpetrate the acts that you pretend to find so horrid. Maybe? Just once?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


It's interesting that you would compared that to Pearl Harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor


A little wiki goes a long way

 

Yes, Briant. I do realize you spend an awful lot of time accusing the US of war crimes 50 years ago; but cannot spend a single second denouncing people who continue to blow up people right now; today. I find that striking. Don't you?

Forgetting some important words there, aren't we? Given that the court is a politically motivated one, I'd think you'd have a problem with this too - believing in the soveirgnty of the United states, like a good ron paul supporter should Right Briant? Or do I sense the faint whiff of more cognitive dissonance creeping in here?

Seemed to be a pattern there doesn't it? When you mix military installations with the general population; there are going to be casualties. Of course you -keep- ignoring the point I continue to make. But that's okay. Briant.

Keep blaming the US for ending a war without costing another 4 million or so people. While not blaming those who are actual terrorists for anything. I totally understand where you are coming from here. No worries

So, Brian't point here is that Japanese were noble to strike Pearl Harbor, and further applauds them for not killing many civilians. Is that about right, Briant?

But you do make another good point for yourself here, too. That you are only allowed to kill the exact number of people of theirs that they killed of yours. This is much of the source of blaming Israel for everything. Remember who was the aggressor, Briant? Got a clue for me?

How about it? Here's another shot. Got anything for me?

 

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563737_5/World_War_II.html

The Japanese aren't quite so stupid as to attack the US for no reason. The history most people learn in school convieniently leaves out at least half the story and distorts much of the rest.

 

It was our fault. We deserved it. Japanese aggression should have gone unchecked! Damn us! We made the Japanese attack us. We should be -thanking- them for setting it all right by blowing up our stuff. Thanks for the lesson, Briant!

This is another excellent case of Briant's beaten wife syndrome.

But if you feel bad for being called a terrorist sympathizer, maybe you shouldn't try to make poor comparisons between legitimate warfare and planting bombs under schools to blow up kids. Maybe you should say something bad (for a change) about people who actually perpetrate the acts that you pretend to find so horrid. Maybe? Just once?

How about it? Another try, Briant?

 

To many, incinerating entire cities of civilians IS NOT LEGITIMATE warfare.

 

I think that boot is on the other foot. The Japanese attacked a military target. Destroying cities is different.

 

I understand that. That was going on a lot during WW2, though. Cities were targets - I think twice as many civilians were killed as troops. There was no discrimination in who got bombed. It was country vs country. Germans bombed English cities. England bombed german cities. US bombed german cities. US bombed japanese cities. Russians did the same.

I'm simply making the point that the nagasaki/hiroshima was the lesser of two evils. Operation downfall suggested about 4 million casualties, should we need to invade Japan to win. The 2 bombs killed about 300,000 people or so - and both targets were partially military installations.

I can't see how warfare between 2 countries - when each attack had an actual militar objective can be compared to strapping bombs to kids and sending them into markets to blow up innocents - that has no rational military objective. Putting bombs underneath schools to blow up kids when the school is opened - no rational military objective.

That's the comparison I'm trying to get Briant to understand isn't very well conceived.

 

So you agree. Japanese were in the right to bomb our base because we responded politically to their aggression? Congrats on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_during_World_War_II

I'm sure if Japan had the ability to nuke Pearl Harbor they would have done it. Maybe the tit for tat would have made you feel better?

 

Here's a similar senario: