Kurdish Civilians are NOT legit targets, fuckwad!

[Jodi]

Yeah, I DO think it’s that simple, Jodi. The US would be violating international law and the Geneva convention by invading Iraq without just cause and/or trying to assassinate another head of state.

That’s not what you said, is it? And it sort of nicely moves away (again) from the sticking point, which is the fundamental difference between “accidental” and “on purpose,” since whether a military action would violate international law is an entirely different issue than whether specific military attacks would target civilians.

Any attack on Iraq would target civilians ANY attack. If you launch an attack which you KNOW will kill innocent people, then you are targeting civilians.

Patiently No, I’m afraid that’s just wrong. To “target” means “to aim at.” If I intend to spray you with my hose, and I spray SPOOFE as well (by accident), that doesn’t mean I’ve targeted SPOOFE. There are circumstances in wars when one side knows that its attack on a legitimate target or military installation will almost surely result in civilian deaths as well, but that does not mean the civilians are being targeted. If their deaths are unintended and unavoidable (within the context of the action being carried forward), then they are not being “targeted,” which implies an intent to kill them – not just a realization that in all likelihood they will die, but an actual intent to kill them.

Is there any circumstance in which you would be willing to kill your OWN children in order to further some hypothetical higher good. If the answer is no, then you don’t have the right to sanction the murder of someone else’s children.

You realize, do you not, that this does not make sense? First, war != murder except in the hearts of the strictest of pacificists, which may describe you but certainly does not describe me (and I’m sure you’ll allow that I am not required to embrace whatever universe of ethics you choose to live in.) Second, I am perfectly able to reluctantly sanction the killing of someone else’s child (and isn’t everyone someone else’s child?) without endorsing the killing of my own – provided, of course, “my own” is not himself a consciousless mass-murdering dictator.

Even if Saddam HAS defied the UN resolution, that does not give Smirky George the right to unilaterally enforce his own miltary retribution. The White House has consistently failed to show ANY compelling evidence of an Iraqi threat to the US, despite their shrill rhetoric.

Again, this has nothing to do with your idiotic statement that we are targeting civilians. (You note, I hope, that I am ignoring your salvo about Americans liking to kill brown people, which was beneath contempt and, therefore, beneath notice.) I will not assist you in attempting to change the subject from the moronic statement you did make to some other statement I did not (nor, for that matter, did anyone else).

Would anybody here feel even a LITTLE bit bad for the children who will lose their parents, their limbs or their lives as retribution for reasons they have nothing to do with?

Well, yes. Maybe even a lot bad. That too does not equate to endorsing the targeting of civilians, which fortunately my country does not do.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ogre, if GWB is so concerned about the human rights violations of other countries, then why is he sucking up to China instead of invading it?

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
It bothers the heck out of me, which is why I’m very fortunate my government doesn’t intentionally target civilian populations.

Like blowing up aspirin factories, or bombing weddings?

Your grasp of reality is a bit weak.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Ogre, if GWB is so concerned about the human rights violations of other countries, then why is he sucking up to China instead of invading it? **

Because China is a nuclear superpower???

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**

Like blowing up aspirin factories, or bombing weddings?

Your grasp of reality is a bit weak. **

Yes. I’m sure that the Joint Chiefs advised the President that this wedding HAD TO BE STOPPED!!! And that the aspirin factory would need to be targeted because it could cure the headaches of the Iraqi populace and bring ruin to the war effort…

You have heard the term ‘collateral damage’ have you not? It’s not just an Arnold Schwartzenneger movie title.

Sometimes in this crazy old world, countries have armed conflicts. They usually don’t target civillians, because what good would THAT do? But these countries do have to use bombs and what-not. And since military targets are often adjacent to civillian buildings (sometimes, purposely so) and the bombs that are used are not known for ‘surgical precision’ , yes, there often are civillian casulties. It really cannot be helped.

“But we don’t have to take military action!!!” you say. Sometimes we do. Maybe we won’t in this case. Maybe Sadam will agree to unrestricted inspections and what-not. That would be cool. But if he doesn’t, he’s gonna get his ass kicked.

[SPOOFE]

Ogre, if GWB is so concerned about the human rights violations of other countries, then why is he sucking up to China instead of invading it?

Because China hasn’t recently tried to invade, say, Japan, and lose, and then surrender while agreeing to certain concessions to the UN, and then summarily violate those concessions.

Please. Can’t you try a LITTLE harder to get a grip on reality?

[Apos]

—How does the UN expect to be taken seriously as a world power if it can’t enforce its own resolutions, which, I believe, to the signatories of the UN Charter (Iraq, Dec. 21, 1945,) have treaty status?—

Bwahahahahahahaha!

The U.N. was recently only barely able to pass a resolution stating that it was passing too many resolutions. So many nations are in violation of U.N. resolutions that it’s beyond being a joke. Resolutions get enforced when they serve the needs of politically powerful countries, and when they don’t, those resolutions sit and stink up the joint.

It’s one thing to present a reasonable rationale why an Iraqi regime needs taking out. It’s another pretending that being in violation of a U.N. resolution is some unpardonable offense. No one really cares about nations doing nasty things to each other, or breaking rules set by a whiny hall monitor. It’s when nations threaten vital interests or destablize regions that it really starts to matter. The U.N. passes all sorts of ridiculous resolutions that are (often righty) simply ignored.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Iraqi civilians are not legitimate targets either, but that doesn’t seem to bother us much. **

:rolleyes:

DNFTT

C’mon folks. It’s clear that this guy’s shtick is to simply post the most outrageous, stupid statements he can make in an attempt to get a rise out of people. Why waste calories responding? It’s not going to do any good.

Fenris

[Eleusis]

Fenris=right

[Michael_Ellis]

No, Fenris = doubleplus right

[flyboy]

*Originally posted by Apos ***No one really cares about nations doing nasty things to each other, or breaking rules set by a whiny hall monitor. It’s when nations threaten vital interests or destablize regions that it really starts to matter. The U.N. passes all sorts of ridiculous resolutions that are (often righty) simply ignored. **

I’m not a U.N. expert, but from what I understand, resolutions passed by the U.N. General Assembly are under Chapter 6 and are not binding. Many countries ignore these resolutions when they’re against them. Resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 (which deals with conflicts that threaten international security) are (or can be) backed with military force. Iraq’s resolutions are under Chapter 7. I don’t know, however, which other countries, if any, have continuing resolutions against them under Chapter 7.

[lieu]

I never would have believed anyone would actually buy a K-Car unless I’d seen 'em on the road.

I never would have believed a dog would eat cat shit unless I’d heard the crunch myself.

I never would have believed anyone would actually voice the notions Diogenes and Urban Ranger just shat here.

But then again, OJ is a free man.

[Henry_B]

I take off my hat for Diogenes and Urban Ranger.

A war is not a computer-game.

To tell that US will defend UN by going to war in order to save UN’s reputation, at the same time as UN does not want US to go to war, is more than I can grasp.
Even if this bullshit comes from a president, as someone above described.

US is not a Supreme Court of the World. It is US that have for decades been undermining the work of UN.
To laugh now at it’s hard situation is just stupid.

The propaganda in the direction that “UN is a joke”, has found a good place to grow in US. It can clearly been seen even here in this thread.
And now we should believe that US is so concerned about its reputation?

Just read a little bit what the world thinks about this and that, there is enough of material from around the world in English, if You happen to be a mono-cultural person.

So, now I will jump to the next thread, ecpecially designed for Diogenes.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
**To tell that US will defend UN by going to war in order to save UN’s reputation, at the same time as UN does not want US to go to war, is more than I can grasp.
Even if this bullshit comes from a president, as someone above described.

**

Bush said he would attack Iraq to defend the UN’s rep??? Do you have a site for that?

[Typo_Negative]

I meant ‘cite’, dammit.

[SPOOFE]

To tell that US will defend UN by going to war in order to save UN’s reputation, at the same time as UN does not want US to go to war, is more than I can grasp.

On the other hand, for the UN to act so nonchalantly towards Iraq’s numerous violations of the sanctions placed against them is more than I can grasp.

It’s like a spoiled child… if you ground him, and he goes out anyway, what’re you gonna do? Ignore his indiscretion, and thus encourage further indiscretions? Or are you actually going to punish him?