Torture in Iraq

[30A Skunkape]

Scooter, misread your question. Iraq attempted to fight 'traditionally' in Desert Storm. you bring up a good point.

 

[scooterbug44]

I know I'm generalizing, but we used guerilla tactics against the British to win our country's freedom, the Resistance was key in defeating the Nazis, a major problem in Vietnam was guerilla warfare.....

It is hard for an organized military to fight guerillas because they have to follow Geneva convention or they are accused of human rights violations etc. and the media is no help either.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Other than nuclear or biological weapons, guerilla tactics like using suicide bombers, are the only thing that will stop a country like the USA. I don't want to give any terrorists ideas, but I can think of plenty of easy ways to shut down this country indefinitely, as long as a few people are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process. When the person fighting against you has died, it is difficult to fight them in battle. I laugh at the US Citizens who hord all of the weapons in case they have to fight their gov't at some point in time. Can you see a small compound using their automatic weapons to take on the US Military? Apprarently, they haven't thought much about the history books, except the book including the US Constitution.

 

[scooterbug44]

Yes, I give thanks daily that the terrorists are apparently stupid. They could have a field day just by reading some Tom Clancy books and copycatting.

And before someone jumps on me - I am NOT saying we will lose in Iraq becasue we are fighting guerillas, just exploring the idea of how warfare needs to adapt.

 

[rancid]

and targeting civilians, specifically women and children, is cowardly. If you want to mention camouflage, soldiers in camo do not depend on the goodwill and moral compass of their enemy to elude fire. As for war being killing, as I mentioned, war is tragic. However, the killing is not on the same parallel when targeting those that are not fighting. That is murder. It?s this country?s set of core values that condemns such, like we condemn and understand an arguably more nuanced difference of firing upon a citizen that was threatening when they are running away and firing on them when they are still posing a threat.

If this is the case, explain that to people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. More moral relativism from you. You are doing a fine job of arguing against the absolutes you said you believe in.

 

[6thGen]

I was going to let Chickpea, Bob, rancid or Mango bring it up, since it is a fair weapon in their quiver, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered as well. It was probably the toughest choice the leaders of this Republic have ever had to make, so it?s safe to say it?s nuanced to their taste. I believe we did the right thing, but I?m not sure I could say that if my signature was the one required executing the decision. I believe that on moral grounds we were within bounds, so I won?t argue based on the American and Japanese lives the drops saved. I believe we were within our bounds since the citizens were well warned, and we even fired a few warning shots in Nagasaki for those that believe the second drop was gratuitous. Japan was also waging total war, so the line between civilian and soldier was near indistinguishable. The targets were military in nature, even if there could have been a better military target than Hiroshima, I doubt there was one that could beat Nagasaki. Again, that decision was as gray as it gets, but I hope I?d have the fortitude to sign off on it if I were Truman, because I completely understand the argument against doing so.

 

[6thGen]

If this is the case, explain that to people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. More moral relativism from you. You are doing a fine job of arguing against the absolutes you said you believe in.

We are on the same page, if it is not obvious that I posted that before I saw this.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I was going to let Chickpea, Bob, rancid or Mango bring it up, since it is a fair weapon in their quiver, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered as well. It was probably the toughest choice the leaders of this Republic have ever had to make, so it?s safe to say it?s nuanced to their taste. I believe we did the right thing, but I?m not sure I could say that if my signature was the one required executing the decision. I believe that on moral grounds we were within bounds, so I won?t argue based on the American and Japanese lives the drops saved. I believe we were within our bounds since the citizens were well warned, and we even fired a few warning shots in Nagasaki for those that believe the second drop was gratuitous. Japan was also waging total war, so the line between civilian and soldier was near indistinguishable. The targets were military in nature, even if there could have been a better military target than Hiroshima, I doubt there was one that could beat Nagasaki. Again, that decision was as gray as it gets, but I hope I?d have the fortitude to sign off on it if I were Truman, because I completely understand the argument against doing so.

I disagree with your reasoning for it being morally correct, because they were warned. Yes, it probably saved many other lives, by dropping the bomb, than it actually killed, but tell that to the family members of those who innocently died. Using your reasoning, I guess Al Quida could also say that we were warned, but, IMO, that wouldn't make it right.

As for soldier and civilian being nearly indidstinguishable, if our enemy was invading our country, I think there would be many civilians taking up arms and wearing camo, and driving HUMMERS, making them nearly indistinguishable from the military. ;-)

 

[scooterbug44]

And more than 50 years later people are still debating Hiroshioma and Nagasaki for those exact reasons. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no major bombings of a civilian population since.

 

[Smiling JOe]

:roll: I guess that depends on your definition of "major."



Thinking more about this comparison of Fat Man and Little Boy to our war with Iraq, I am not sure that we are saving more lives in the end, by killing so many innocent civilians in today's war. I guess that will also be debated for a long time, since it is unknown.