You have yet to refute your own claim that innocent people are simply "collateral" casualties in any conflict.
And this:
>I could care less than you can imagine what you think they were 'symbolically' trying to say.
is the best example of intellectual surrender that i have yet seen. We need to know this, to learn from the past...
"couldn't care less" is the correct expression.
And this:
>I could care less than you can imagine what you think they were 'symbolically' trying to say.
is the best example of intellectual surrender that i have yet seen. We need to know this, to learn from the past...
"couldn't care less" is the correct expression.
radio: that's not what I said ... here's my full post:
"Danny: I'm not rationalizing anything - civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of military action. Reality. What I AM doing is saying go ahead, post all the civilian incidents you feel like, all of the pictures, it won't change my feelings one iota since I know we are not targeting them.
Please let that one sink in - I am aware of the deaths that can occur, and I'm consciously saying that it is regrettable, must be minimized, but that it is a part of war and will not stop me from supporting this war, because I think it is a necessary war."
Here's how you chose to interpret it: "You have yet to refute your own claim that innocent people are simply "collateral" casualties in any conflict."
What the heck are you trying to say, that I think all civilians in all conflicts were accidentally killed??? That's insane - Saddam has done nothing but target civilians (his own as well) in all of the conflicts he has ever fought - purposeful targeting is not 'collateral damage' but 'primary damage'. There have been cases of the US doing it as well, as has been pointed out in My Lai, but not as high level policy but as individual decisions (some horribly wrong ones) on the battlefield. What I AM saying is that accidental civilian casualties are unavoidable, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MANNER in which the Iraqis are fighting ( do I have to list them or do you know?), and to that extent AND THAT EXTENT ONLY I'm saying they are unavoidable in war.
Later, my goddamn battery went out on my car this morning and I've got to get a ride over to pick it up.
"Danny: I'm not rationalizing anything - civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of military action. Reality. What I AM doing is saying go ahead, post all the civilian incidents you feel like, all of the pictures, it won't change my feelings one iota since I know we are not targeting them.
Please let that one sink in - I am aware of the deaths that can occur, and I'm consciously saying that it is regrettable, must be minimized, but that it is a part of war and will not stop me from supporting this war, because I think it is a necessary war."
Here's how you chose to interpret it: "You have yet to refute your own claim that innocent people are simply "collateral" casualties in any conflict."
What the heck are you trying to say, that I think all civilians in all conflicts were accidentally killed??? That's insane - Saddam has done nothing but target civilians (his own as well) in all of the conflicts he has ever fought - purposeful targeting is not 'collateral damage' but 'primary damage'. There have been cases of the US doing it as well, as has been pointed out in My Lai, but not as high level policy but as individual decisions (some horribly wrong ones) on the battlefield. What I AM saying is that accidental civilian casualties are unavoidable, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MANNER in which the Iraqis are fighting ( do I have to list them or do you know?), and to that extent AND THAT EXTENT ONLY I'm saying they are unavoidable in war.
Later, my goddamn battery went out on my car this morning and I've got to get a ride over to pick it up.
Funky: quickly, GOOD NEWS on the euphemism front! From Yahoo ...
200 killed in coalition attack on Baath party meeting: US generals
2 hours, 26 minutes ago
AS-SALIYAH, Qatar (AFP) - Some 200 members of Iraq (news - web sites)'s ruling Baath party were killed in a coalition attack at a gathering in the Basra region, US generals said.
"It was an attack against a Baath party assembly northeast of Basra yesterday (Friday) evening," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations at US central command, told a daily briefing here.
"It had about 200 members of the Baath party in attendance."
Brooks followed the remarks with footage showing a missile or bomb dropped on the building, which appeared to be blown to smithereens.
Major General Victor Renuart told journalists it was thought that all those in attendance had been killed.
"We believe ... about 200 leaders of these -- of these irregular squads, and key leaders -- we believe were destroyed last night," Major General Victor Renuart said.
"Each time we make one of these attacks, we continue to degrade the regime, we continue to degrade their capability. And in a very systematic approach, we are moving nicely down the road."
British troops besieging Basra said Saturday the Baath party apparatus in Basra was now their chief target.
"The targetting and eradication of the Baath party within Basra province is now our primary focus and military main effort," Colonel Chris Vernon told reporters in Kuwait City.
Vernon said that a senior unnamed Baath party official was now in British custody and was being questioned.
British forces in Basra also destroyed two statues believed to have been of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on Saturday, Vernon added.
200 killed in coalition attack on Baath party meeting: US generals
2 hours, 26 minutes ago
AS-SALIYAH, Qatar (AFP) - Some 200 members of Iraq (news - web sites)'s ruling Baath party were killed in a coalition attack at a gathering in the Basra region, US generals said.
"It was an attack against a Baath party assembly northeast of Basra yesterday (Friday) evening," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations at US central command, told a daily briefing here.
"It had about 200 members of the Baath party in attendance."
Brooks followed the remarks with footage showing a missile or bomb dropped on the building, which appeared to be blown to smithereens.
Major General Victor Renuart told journalists it was thought that all those in attendance had been killed.
"We believe ... about 200 leaders of these -- of these irregular squads, and key leaders -- we believe were destroyed last night," Major General Victor Renuart said.
"Each time we make one of these attacks, we continue to degrade the regime, we continue to degrade their capability. And in a very systematic approach, we are moving nicely down the road."
British troops besieging Basra said Saturday the Baath party apparatus in Basra was now their chief target.
"The targetting and eradication of the Baath party within Basra province is now our primary focus and military main effort," Colonel Chris Vernon told reporters in Kuwait City.
Vernon said that a senior unnamed Baath party official was now in British custody and was being questioned.
British forces in Basra also destroyed two statues believed to have been of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on Saturday, Vernon added.
>Danny: I'm not rationalizing anything - civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of military action. Reality. What I AM doing is saying go ahead, post all the civilian incidents you feel like, all of the pictures, it won't change my feelings one iota since I know we are not targeting them.
Jazz, so the only difference between a hero and monster is intent? We are still valient as long as we don't intentionally kill innocents even if we know that there is nothing "surgical" about an airstrike?
What was that about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
Jazz, so the only difference between a hero and monster is intent? We are still valient as long as we don't intentionally kill innocents even if we know that there is nothing "surgical" about an airstrike?
What was that about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
Nope. Lots of differences including intent.
You can argue semantically all you want, radio, the blunt fact is that I support this war in spite of the accidental civilian deaths.
By the way, do you argue that no conflict which can kill civilians accidentally should ever take place? Yes or no
You can argue semantically all you want, radio, the blunt fact is that I support this war in spite of the accidental civilian deaths.
By the way, do you argue that no conflict which can kill civilians accidentally should ever take place? Yes or no
Jazz,
How do you feel about having so many people in this world that disagree wholeheartedly with your reasoning?
Are you saying that good intentions are enough to redeem a cause no matter the outcome? Is removing Saddam worth complete the possible instability that might come of the middle east in the wake of this war?
How do you feel about having so many people in this world that disagree wholeheartedly with your reasoning?
Are you saying that good intentions are enough to redeem a cause no matter the outcome? Is removing Saddam worth complete the possible instability that might come of the middle east in the wake of this war?
Not Jazz, but, i'll pipe in.
So, we should avoid conflict because of that risk?
I don't think so.
Also, i'm not expecting the dramatic results that i see some people spouting.
The middle East, imo, has never been all that stable.
So, we should avoid conflict because of that risk?
I don't think so.
Also, i'm not expecting the dramatic results that i see some people spouting.
The middle East, imo, has never been all that stable.
