Trump - Go To War In Somalia

[Shadowy Man]

You think sick children are choosing to put their hospitals next to weapons factories?

No. I know that sick-minded adults do this to create propaganda against the enemy. I can think of several specific examples. The Geneva convention explicitly disallows the attacking of hospitals during wartime. Combatants have abused that convention for military strategy by placing high value targets right next to them so they can call foul when they are hit by a strike.

So that justifies the killing of children in hospitals?

 

[Derec]

So that justifies the killing of children in hospitals?

Their deaths are the fault, certainly morally and hopefully legally, of the side that places military targets next to the hospital.

 

[Opoponax]

No, his claims went a bit further than that " I don't have any interest in protecting non-Americans. I have no empathy for civilians caught up in wartime activity."

So, pretty monstrous indeed.

GRRRRRRAAAAURRRRR! Monster, indeed. Hey, I couldn't give a shit about your (or anyone else's) kids at all... They are a dime a dozen. We have MORE than enough.

Anyway, the point is that if a combatant wants to put their own country's children at risk by installing a military target next to their beds, then that is 100% on them. That the victims feel differently (blame on those that dropped the bombs), is entirely, 100%, the point of doing that.

Who's the monster? The one that puts the children there, or the one that accidently hits them because they shouldn't have been there in the first place?

There's an inescapable truth to this. Terrorist organizations do indeed mix in with the civilian population on purpose, fully knowing that they're likely potential targets. Therefore, they bear the burden of civilian casualties when they are actually targeted. Were it otherwise, terrorist organizations could function completely unfettered simply by renting out buildings next to hospitals or providing free wedding ceremonies on an around the clock basis.

Of course, the carnage on the ground isn't changed by any of this. Dead and maimed civilians are still dead and maimed. But no matter the size and strength of the U.S. military, it doesn't have the resources to carry out the Tom Clancy-ish Navy SEAL/Delta Force surgical insertion that takes out nothing but bad guys while leaving everything else unscathed every time a terrorist hotspot is identified.

It's all ugly, but it's impossible to get around. Okay, maybe it's not impossible. The day we don't need Middle Eastern oil is the day it could all end. So in that sense it's defacto impossible.

 

[funinspace]

It's all ugly, but it's impossible to get around. Okay, maybe it's not impossible. The day we don't need Middle Eastern oil is the day it could all end. So in that sense it's defacto impossible.

Uhm...for the $4-5 trillion the Afghan/Iraq invasions/occupations cost the US, I don't think we would need their oil.
See: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/war-costs-report-brown-university

I'm sure global oil issues were a part of the geopolitical calculus, but I don't think the monumental stupidity can be summed up by 'oil'. For the money spent, we could have probably replaced half our electric grid with solar power, and literally given Americans 20 million Volts/Leafs, and probably had spare change to have a manned Mars mission (or whatever NASA would find the best to do) with say $500 billion over a decade.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So that justifies the killing of children in hospitals?

Their deaths are the fault, certainly morally and hopefully legally, of the side that places military targets next to the hospital.

That may be true, but is it justifiable to kill them in order to kill the enemy?

If a cop chases a criminal into a bar, is it ok for him to kill any patrons in his attempt to subdue the criminal? Wouldn't it be morally the fault of the criminal that those patrons were killed?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I probably came closest but Im not American, so i don't vote there.. I didn't want Australia to be dragged into another war with you guys which I still think would have been way more likely with Clinton in the White House.

but the thing you did not consider is an American war against Australia was more likely with a President Trump.

 

[LordKiran]

Their deaths are the fault, certainly morally and hopefully legally, of the side that places military targets next to the hospital.

That may be true, but is it justifiable to kill them in order to kill the enemy?

If a cop chases a criminal into a bar, is it ok for him to kill any patrons in his attempt to subdue the criminal? Wouldn't it be morally the fault of the criminal that those patrons were killed?

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

 

[Elixir]

That may be true, but is it justifiable to kill them in order to kill the enemy?

If a cop chases a criminal into a bar, is it ok for him to kill any patrons in his attempt to subdue the criminal? Wouldn't it be morally the fault of the criminal that those patrons were killed?

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

You may have just coined a useful new word: "assymetrical"
Justifying the massacre of innocent non-combatants by counting dead terrorists would indeed be an "assy metric".

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

You may have just coined a useful new word: "assymetrical"
Justifying the massacre of innocent non-combatants by counting dead terrorists would indeed be an "assy metric".

Not really. My horrible spelling just gave you the inspiration for your own cleverness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think sick children are choosing to put their hospitals next to weapons factories?

No. I know that sick-minded adults do this to create propaganda against the enemy. I can think of several specific examples. The Geneva convention explicitly disallows the attacking of hospitals during wartime. Combatants have abused that convention for military strategy by placing high value targets right next to them so they can call foul when they are hit by a strike.

Yup, and so many on the left are unwilling to believe the targets were anything but the sweetness and light that is claimed for them.

I think the best example was when we hit a "Baby Milk Factory" (the only English words on the place) in Iraq. Sorry--the amount of shattered rebar we were seeing wasn't consistent with the purported use of the building. That was a hardened facility of some kind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That may be true, but is it justifiable to kill them in order to kill the enemy?

If a cop chases a criminal into a bar, is it ok for him to kill any patrons in his attempt to subdue the criminal? Wouldn't it be morally the fault of the criminal that those patrons were killed?

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

The problem is if we don't drop on such targets we have effectively yielded the war to the enemy.

 

[laughing dog]

Their deaths are the fault, certainly morally and hopefully legally, of the side that places military targets next to the hospital.

That may be true, but is it justifiable to kill them in order to kill the enemy?

If a cop chases a criminal into a bar, is it ok for him to kill any patrons in his attempt to subdue the criminal? Wouldn't it be morally the fault of the criminal that those patrons were killed?

I think it depends on the actions of the police officer. If the officer enters the bar and starts firing away without bothering to look, then it is the officer's fault. If the criminal is a jay walker, then even if the single bullet that is fired goes through the jaywalker and hits a patron, it is the police office's fault.

The notion that the police or the military can do anything in order to get their target is ridiculous. People - including the police and the miliitary - are responsible for their decisions and their actions.

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

The problem is if we don't drop on such targets we have effectively yielded the war to the enemy.

'Kay. So long as you're up to paying war reparations to the bereaved each and every time we do it.

Also who's enemy? Yours? Can you explain how the interests of dissidents in Yemen or Somalia run directly counter to yours in a way that isn't just vague speculation?

I am not moved by, and am highly skeptical of emotional appeals that compel me to fight 'the enemy'.

 

[funinspace]

The problem is if we don't drop on such targets we have effectively yielded the war to the enemy.

'Kay. So long as you're up to paying war reparations to the bereaved each and every time we do it.

Also who's enemy? Yours? Can you explain how the interests of dissidents in Yemen or Somalia run directly counter to yours in a way that isn't just vague speculation?

I am not moved by, and am highly skeptical of emotional appeals that compel me to fight 'the enemy'.

Well duh! They're the bad guys!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is if we don't drop on such targets we have effectively yielded the war to the enemy.

'Kay. So long as you're up to paying war reparations to the bereaved each and every time we do it.

Also who's enemy? Yours? Can you explain how the interests of dissidents in Yemen or Somalia run directly counter to yours in a way that isn't just vague speculation?

I am not moved by, and am highly skeptical of emotional appeals that compel me to fight 'the enemy'.

No. If we refuse to drop on such targets we end up under the thumb of ISIS or the like.

 

[KeepTalking]

'Kay. So long as you're up to paying war reparations to the bereaved each and every time we do it.

Also who's enemy? Yours? Can you explain how the interests of dissidents in Yemen or Somalia run directly counter to yours in a way that isn't just vague speculation?

I am not moved by, and am highly skeptical of emotional appeals that compel me to fight 'the enemy'.

No. If we refuse to drop on such targets we end up under the thumb of ISIS or the like.

How does that work?
Step 1: Don't bomb hospitals.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: ISIS rulez us all!

I think you are missing at least one step there.

 

[Elixir]

No. If we refuse to drop on such targets we end up under the thumb of ISIS or the like.

How does that work?
Step 1: Don't bomb hospitals.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: ISIS rulez us all!

I think you are missing at least one step there.

How may "ISIS" fucktards are there, anyhow? I don't see how they're ever going to "rule" 300 million of us any more than they already do, which is insignificantly... other than the extent to which the GOP can keep their 37% continuously quaking in their snowflakey little boots.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem with Malintent's reasoning is that it doesn't apply in an age of assymetrical warfare. In most cases, the terrorists are not the de facto leadership of whatever country you're bombing. So regardless of where they (An illegal armed militia with no legitimacy) puts their armory, you are killing the civilians of a nation that is not formally aligned with them. So actually, it is your fault when you bomb and kill them and said nation would be well within their right's to demand redress.


Just imagine if we bombed a building next to a British hospital that held terrorists and we killed a bunch of civies. You think that shit would fly? EEEERH, wrong!

The problem is if we don't drop on such targets we have effectively yielded the war to the enemy.

So, it is justified then. As long as the enemy is defeated, is there anything not justifiable?

 

[LordKiran]

'Kay. So long as you're up to paying war reparations to the bereaved each and every time we do it.

Also who's enemy? Yours? Can you explain how the interests of dissidents in Yemen or Somalia run directly counter to yours in a way that isn't just vague speculation?

I am not moved by, and am highly skeptical of emotional appeals that compel me to fight 'the enemy'.

No. If we refuse to drop on such targets we end up under the thumb of ISIS or the like.

Loren if you can't explain to me how these people are in any practical sense "Your enemy" then to insist that they are is utterly irrational.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. If we refuse to drop on such targets we end up under the thumb of ISIS or the like.

How does that work?
Step 1: Don't bomb hospitals.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: ISIS rulez us all!

I think you are missing at least one step there.

It's not specifically hospitals, but rather protected targets in general.

They'll use those protected things to defeat you.

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?