Hezbollah's guerilla tactics complicate ground war

The whole premise of the cartoons is faulty, the reason we are the "good" guys is because we don't drop to our enemies level, we are better then they are because we have the rule of law on our side.

If we fought the same way they do we would have no moral high ground, which in war that has a lot more to do with preception then normal military victories , is more important then ever.

Do you actually want your side to the side that believes in torturing people? Do you think if we started chopping of peoples heads we would start winning?

 

hey....maybe the last one ; ) But I continue to see the others ones constantly. It's not nutcase shit, it's a real perspective.

The geneva convention only applies to nation states that are a part of it, not terrorists. Some people here think that it implies to everyone...it doesn't...by chose Bush admin claims to be givinging these special rights to them (CLAIMS).

Many here continue to make an arguement that 'proportion' seems to be a part of the arguement. Method, yes, ...proportion no.

....I just find it funning....because it helps paint the impracticality of some.

 

Here's a lot realer perspective:


I'm not too sure you, or gtech will "get it" though

 

I do recall us dropping a nuke on Japan...among the carpet bombs. Point of the first cartoon.

How are your morals any different from a 'wacko-religous' person? They're both subjective and idealistic, not practical. Mind you I don't think we should behave crazy like terrorists, but morality bends in war.

It's odd that some athiest liberals don't understand their morality isn't subjective as well.

The Japanese people did that for sometimes, as they also thought it was honorable to commit suicide with their plane. It's odd culture thing in my opinion, and should be generally shunned as abnormal...as it is now.

Torturing has it's own context. The constitution forbids it to citizens and those whom are in the geneva convention...but I'm sure like Lincoln, you'll bend rules in the Constitution in order to keep the Republic going.

Note: I'm not pro-south or pro-north in the civil war.

 

'realer'

You've been listening to too much c rap.

 

haha .. that was legit yo

 

Yeah we target their civilians, fire bombed their cities one after another , then finally nuked them not once but twice. But thats what happens in wars

They are not "my" morals, they are what our country and world considers moral. We face a emeny which cannot be defeated by normal military means. We need the world to help us. We don't get the world to help us by being total assholes and doing stuff like killing civilians, torturing people etc

I noticed you didn't bother to answer either of my questions, you are starting to become like GTech, just spout party BS.

Do you want to be on the side that tortures people?

Do you think if start chopping off heads , we will start winning?

 

Word up

 

So you find this reasonable bevahiour?

This seems like a valid concern. I don't support most of the above, within reasonie we shouldn't do those things, unless there's little alternative.

Not true. I did answer your questions but not in the manner YOU wanted.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1254589&postcount=44

As said before, but not as YOU like:

The Japanese people did that for sometimes, as they also thought it was honorable to commit suicide with their plane. It's odd culture thing in my opinion, and should be generally shunned as abnormal...as it is now.

The context included chopping heads off in that paragraph.

Now for torturing:

Torturing has it's own context. The constitution forbids it to citizens and those whom are in the geneva convention...but I'm sure like Lincoln, you'll bend rules in the Constitution in order to keep the Republic going.


I think for the most part torturing should be shunned, but as like Lincoln ascertained...in critical situations the rules might not apply as-is. Most people seem to think Lincoln was right in his actions, even though in a partial context he did some really bad shit to the constitution.

In other words, I lean your direction, but I don't fully commit to your IDEALS.

 

So in other less sugar coated words, you support torture.

 

Given we KNOW there's a nuke that got in America, and we have a suspect that knows,...then yes. Call me wrong, but I wouldn't care....nor would the millions whom were saved if that happened.

 

dropping nukes on Japan in 1945 was a terrible thing, but it prevented lots of worse stuff, full scale ground invasion would have caused to many more dead, so extreme situations demand extreme acts

 

Japanese civilians were committed to fight or commit suicide.

Truth is, the Japanese were willing to surrender, but the US didn't like the terms of letting Japan keep it's emperor (I think that's the term)....

The US wanted a full surrender. Personally I don't agree with using or inventing nukes. I would take that back if I could...if it was in my power.

 

Nothing like lame excuses for the savage murder of women and children eh Michael?

 

i think the firebombing killed more people

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html

In war its a little over the top but its probably what had to be done. Although I do find it amusing when people are SHOCKED about some photoshopped pictures during a war, because that is just going way to far.

 

We're living in a world where the enemy doesn't value the lives of women and children,.

 

would you prefer 2 millions dead instead of 200K?

no one said life is fair ..

 

Can you back that claim up? Some how I don't think so

 

So we should start killing woman and children?

 

You want proof of something that doesn't exist.....