JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
I said nothing about genocide so I can only surmise that you are a mighty naive dumnbass. The big difference between the US and most of the Middle East is that we don't have the desire to kill them for no reason. I realize that it is a minority of fundamentlist Muslims perpetuating the hate and violence but these people are protected and encouraged by the powers that be in the region....all the while smiling and shaking the hands of our politicians and promising to help. The US is acting out of defense since we are not an imperialistic nation by design so your Hitler reference is as backwards as you appear to be.
Personally I don't see the difference between civilians and soldiers when in a war. The biggest mistake you could make is assuming the civilian population is not your enemy. A Soldier doesnt have to wear an easily identifiable uniform.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
In any conflict the victorious side, so as to enjoy the fruits of its victory, will have to co-opt the citizenry. You can do this through total fear (or total destruction) or the hope that you will eventually becomes allies with the population.
If you kill too many of invaded country's citizens you will find it hard enjoy those fruits.
Invading Army 101
If you kill too many of invaded country's citizens you will find it hard enjoy those fruits.
Invading Army 101
Why not? After they attacked us on September 11, 2001, we attacked THEM on their home turf in Afghanistan. Doesn't that mean that America fully recognizes the Al Qaeda war against America?
Having no objections to killing ANYONE in the Middle East sounds a mighty lot like genocide to me.
They have PLENTY of reasons for wanting to kill Americans. We don't understand or even give creedence to most of them, but fundamentalist Islamists simply don't like the American value system or way of life. And, conversely, we don't like theirs. That doesn't mean either value system is right.
There is a difference. Put yourself in the position of the civilain who is about to be shot for a possibly no good nor excusable reason, and ask the question again. It is all good until the bullet hits your head or that of your child...
Then get your family and get out of Dodge. Its all good until the people you're trying to help run at you with a suicide bomb.
I agree, but you have the think of your soldiers and your civilians first. Number one priority should be getting them home safely. If you're not will to do that , then perhaps you shouldn't be fighting wars to begin with.
Not directed at Atrail.
I think the number one priority is sending them away justly (soliders) and what you just mentioned is number two.
But we are after the fact now so I think number two is now the number 1
I think they are essentially the same thing, or like the ying/yang. I dont think anything that has happened since WW2 was necessary.
Agreed, when youre there you do what you have to do to get as many people back in once piece.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Civilians often are not involved directly in the decision to go to war (refering to your original question). Even in a nation like America, ordinary citizens have little say as to whether a certain war should happen or not. Therefore, how can they be held responsible for the war?
On top of that, bombing civilian targets almost always means the death of children, who are, by many, deemed innocent of all the political ramifications that led to war.
Your statement about World War II and the allies "being at a loss" without carpet bombing is a little frightening. The Allies, particularly the British, pushed bombing as a way of ending the war without a direct German vs Allied land confrontation. The impact of World War I, and the images of carnage and death affected the british deeply, and they strove to avoid it. Without Bomber Command, it's likely the Allies would have simply focused on building up an invasion force sooner (Bomber Command consumed ~41% of the British war effort).
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
I think we (society in general) have circled around this from war being mainly fought by the actual beneficieries (the nobility) to involving civilians (which in modern times had pioneers such as William Tecumseh Sherman). I think the horrors of total warfare in WWII along with the increasing ability to target weapons ever more precisely caused us to try and not involve civilians as much as possible in recent times but we may be rethinking that strategy yet again given the current circumstances.
Not being an expert in warfare I may be totally off base but that is kind of how I see it anyway.
Not being an expert in warfare I may be totally off base but that is kind of how I see it anyway.
I dont understand why all the dissidents in Iraq are suddenly Terrorists. Given that
we are an invading army it seems that anyone that opposes us is labled a terrorist. Why not rebels,
or militia, or Iraqi patriots, what's the deal with so strongly linking terror, terrorism and 9/11 with Iraq. Even
Bush tries to make the connection despite the total lack of evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda.
I'm quite fed up with the perverting of language to dupe the general public as to whom we're really
fighting.
we are an invading army it seems that anyone that opposes us is labled a terrorist. Why not rebels,
or militia, or Iraqi patriots, what's the deal with so strongly linking terror, terrorism and 9/11 with Iraq. Even
Bush tries to make the connection despite the total lack of evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda.
I'm quite fed up with the perverting of language to dupe the general public as to whom we're really
fighting.
In form of taxation yes. (You got to jail if you don't pay these though)
Some people work for companies that the military uses so those facilities are strategic targets.
But civilians in general, no they don't I believe.
If they do directly support the Army and the are civilians they are then considered enemy combatants..
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Well in a dictatorial government where let's say 95% of the civilians don't support a war their gov't has entered in to I would consider that different than a democracy where the civilians have elected in an official and he, with their blessing, commits the military to a war. Most people are happy to pay taxes to the military. Without the civilians doing what they normally do - going to work and paying these taxes - the military would not exist. Plus, since most civilians are happy and proud of their military I'd say that the two are in many ways one in the same, the only difference being that instead of every person in the country being untrained with a crappy gun, they just pick some people to have really good training, and really good guns.
That depends on what you mean by the word support.
Moral support is different than operational support...
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Without it they were at a loss of options, and it's an option they excercised. I don't think it was a bad decision - it was a necessary one. The geneva conventions say not to target civilians, but if the US was attacked by a country of similar strength and that country started carpet bombing cities you can bet your ass that the GC would be thrown out in a hurry, because as in a bar fight if one party starts fighting dirty, the other has to as well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter