OK, so UAVs have killed people in Pakistan on the war on terror

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country. Fertilizer from their plants goes into making IEDs that are used against enemy troops. That doesn't sound like an innocent country.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but that's the nature of this kind of warfare.

sonicare

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the position of an individual so I'd refer you to the reponse I gave to a similar post.
But on that situation Peter King is head of homeland security despite funding an illegal terrorist organisation and showing consistance support for them so it's hardly like the goverment had a tougth stance on it either.

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The US government did fund the IRA.

LJS9502_basic

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

Well they either harbored him and continued taking the money and giving the US lip service in saying they were looking for him and AQ in general.. Or they were amazingly incompetent.. Eitherway they are both extremelyb ad.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

tenaka2

And I had to erase your post because it wouldn't let me quote it.

Dont edit posts to suit agenda, i provided valid stats.

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The US government did fund the IRA.

LJS9502_basic

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

MattDistillery

So another words they are incredibly incompetent.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

MattDistillery

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

sSubZerOo

Well they either harbored him and continued taking the money and giving the US lip service in saying they were looking for him and AQ in general.. Or they were amazingly incompetent.. Eitherway they are both extremelyb ad.

The U.S. will support any terrotist in the world, once it supports there ideas, what don't u get?

The U.S. trained bin L. They trained lots of others.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

ad1x2

I don't know why people always bring up that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when saying we shouldn't have invaded. Last time I checked the US had justification to invade based on over a dozen UN-mandated restrictions put on Iraq as a condition of Saddam's surrender in 1991 after the Gulf War he constantly broke. Bad intel told us he had a lot of WMDs, which proved false for the most part (there were a few illegal items found there, such as some yellowcake).

Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destrucion by itself, yellow cake is a lie.

I'd be out of a job if we didn't have UAVs :(

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Pakistan government harbored Bin Laden. I'm not seeing the analogy.

sSubZerOo

So another words they are incredibly incompetent.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

MattDistillery

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Pakistan government harbored Bin Laden. I'm not seeing the analogy.

Verge_6

I'm fairly sure I do. But I also don't think the faults of a goverment is not a reasonable excuse to kill it's civilians as an inconvinent acceptable casualty, it does little to raise opinions on America in the locals minds and infact makes them more likely to become an extremist themselves.

Basically I'm trying to say that the US is no better than the insurgents because they are both killing civilians, may it be intentional or not.parkurtommo

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Basically I'm trying to say that the US is no better than the insurgents because they are both killing civilians, may it be intentional or not.DarthJohnova

I feel that this kind of topic could be far more potent if bin Laden hadn't just been found and killed in Abbottabad. Given the history of armed conflict, both in terms of war and simple violent action, this is an example of extreme restraint. Given the capabilities of the USA, a hellfire missile from a UAV can probably be considered a fairly measured response in an asymmetric conflict.

That said, I'm not a fan of our current wars, or the notion that you can ever declare war on a concept. I'm also not a fan of the ongoing war in Afghanistan (never was of Iraq)... and a LOT of these drone strikes are aimed at fighters moving through a porous border. So... if we're following the "targeted killing" strategy outside of war, it's acceptable to me. If we're extending the front lines of a totally pointless conflict to include Pakistan, I think we're making a mistake. This is the model we should have followed in Afghanistan instead of getting on the ground, and we never should have gone into Iraq.

Had that been done, we probably STILL would have missed bin Laden, and a lot of soldiers and civilians would be alive. Afghanistan would be a "poop"hole... just like it is today, and will be tomorrow.We would still have pissed of Pakistanis by walking into Abbottabad to kill bin Laden, but... well... tough. We WOULDN'T be nailing the border areas near Afghanistan to fight a force we're just plain NOT going to beat. I'm still constantly amazed that we CHOSE to enter the "graveyard of empires". *facepalm*

Maybe they should do something about the terrorists using their country as their main base of operations before they complain about other countries doing something about it.

Maybe they should do something about the terrorists using their country as their main base of operations before they complain about other countries doing something about it.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Maybe they should do something about the terrorists using their country as their main base of operations before they complain about other countries doing something about it.

Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

Maybe they should do something about the terrorists using their country as their main base of operations before they complain about other countries doing something about it.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] That sounds good, but the reality is that most of our strikes are against 'Taliban' and "insurgents". Those aren't terrorist in the sense of Al Qaeda, but entities that existed before we went in, and will after. Kill an actual terrorist with international reach, and I'm all for it... blast 40 people or so to get at some replaceable people who are "Taliban" is just a waste of life. Besides, we let terrorists and their state sponsors go a LOT; I mean, we didn't bomb Iran to kill Imad Mugniyeh did we? I think we should be more careful playing in the back yard of a nuclear power that is still VERY concentrated on India. The whole endeavor strikes me as unwise.. the kind of "warfare" that would make Clausewitz spin in his grave. If we're not actually accomplishing much or anything with the vast majority of strikes, they're wasted lives. Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]All I got here was we're not killing enough people.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Errrrr... then I'm either communicating HORRIBLY, or you're misreading my posts. Frame_Dragger

I'd be out of a job if we didn't have UAVs :(

commonfate

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

CreasianDevaili

*sigh*

The point isn't what's likely to happen, the point is what would you find acceptable. It's a hypothetical exercise to test the limits of the justifications being used here.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

*sigh*

The point isn't what's likely to happen, the point is what would you find acceptable. It's a hypothetical exercise to test the limits of the justifications being used here.

I know this. I said specifically sure. Best to use maybe Canada for the example next. Touching Canada is like touching U.S.'s breast. My limits on justification here goes as follows. Bring back every single U.S. troops abroad, from every single country and stop all foreign aid to all countries regardless of country being an ally or not. Recede from the U.N. and point a missle at a country after their citizens launch an attack against us. If they do it again remove that entire country. Re-establish the cold war era mentality. Things were better for U.S. when we weren't as meddlesome nor as nice to people not of our own. Yes I know we meddled during that time but one could say not as much.CreasianDevaili

Weren't as meddlesome? Dude, we've been meddling in other countries for well over a century now. And the Cold War era saw some of our worst meddling.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]I know this. I said specifically sure. Best to use maybe Canada for the example next. Touching Canada is like touching U.S.'s breast. My limits on justification here goes as follows. Bring back every single U.S. troops abroad, from every single country and stop all foreign aid to all countries regardless of country being an ally or not. Recede from the U.N. and point a missle at a country after their citizens launch an attack against us. If they do it again remove that entire country. Re-establish the cold war era mentality. Things were better for U.S. when we weren't as meddlesome nor as nice to people not of our own. Yes I know we meddled during that time but one could say not as much.worlock77

Weren't as meddlesome? Dude, we've been meddling in other countries for well over a century now. And the Cold War era saw some of our worst meddling.

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

worlock77

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear. These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

Some of these posts make me sick..... clowns proud to be AMERICAN but obviously not proud to be a HUMAN.... you think 'its a consequence of war'???? i wonder what your mindset would be if war broke out in the US?FreshPrinceUk

[QUOTE="FreshPrinceUk"]Some of these posts make me sick..... clowns proud to be AMERICAN but obviously not proud to be a HUMAN.... you think 'its a consequence of war'???? i wonder what your mindset would be if war broke out in the US?CreasianDevaili

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

mattisgod01

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear.These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

There is no area where Pakistan military is too scared to go, Pakistani Taliban have been pushed back to Afghanistan and they regularly stage cross border attacks on our forces in huge numbers:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/241008/cross-border-attack-28-dead-as-ttp-men-attack-border-posts/.

You need to understand the double game being played against Pakistan by NATO/Afghanis and Indian intelligence agency RAW which is to destabilise Pakistan by supporting anti Pakistan militants.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="FreshPrinceUk"]Some of these posts make me sick..... clowns proud to be AMERICAN but obviously not proud to be a HUMAN.... you think 'its a consequence of war'???? i wonder what your mindset would be if war broke out in the US?FreshPrinceUk

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

Harisemo

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear.These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

There is no area where Pakistan military is too scared to go, Pakistani Taliban have been pushed back to Afghanistan and they regularly stage cross border attacks on our forces in huge numbers:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/241008/cross-border-attack-28-dead-as-ttp-men-attack-border-posts/.

You need to understand the double game being played against Pakistan by NATO/Afghanis and Indian intelligence agency RAW which is to destabilise Pakistan by supporting anti Pakistan militants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

The Pakistan Military Launches occasional attacks on Areas with a strong Taliban presence but they always face the issue of reprisal. Government, Military and Police officials are being killed all the time in such attacks as well as the constant suicide bombings and armed raids being carried out by the Taliban in Pakistan. The Last thing NATO or India want is for the Pakistani Government to lose control and be replace by the likes of the Taliban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

The Pakistan Military Launches occasional attacks on Areas with a strong Taliban presence but they always face the issue of reprisal. Government, Military and Police officials are being killed all the time in such attacks as well as the constant suicide bombings and armed raids being carried out by the Taliban in Pakistan. The Last thing NATO or India want is for the Pakistani Government to lose control and be replace by the likes of the Taliban.

mattisgod01

That is old news brah, that was the situation before Pakistanarmy carried out any major operations but much has changed since the successful operations in those areas. Taliban CANNOT take control of all of Pakistan and India knows it but they are a tool to weaken Pakistans military which would serve many of NATO and Indian interests but to say Taliban could somehow come to Islamabad and overthrow the government..that is not possible.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]I know this. I said specifically sure. Best to use maybe Canada for the example next. Touching Canada is like touching U.S.'s breast. My limits on justification here goes as follows. Bring back every single U.S. troops abroad, from every single country and stop all foreign aid to all countries regardless of country being an ally or not. Recede from the U.N. and point a missle at a country after their citizens launch an attack against us. If they do it again remove that entire country. Re-establish the cold war era mentality. Things were better for U.S. when we weren't as meddlesome nor as nice to people not of our own. Yes I know we meddled during that time but one could say not as much.CreasianDevaili

Weren't as meddlesome? Dude, we've been meddling in other countries for well over a century now. And the Cold War era saw some of our worst meddling.

Meddlesome? The CIA and MI6 overthrew Mosadeq the Iranian democratically elected president because he nationalized the countries oil.. He was conviently declared a communist and overthrown because Mosadeq felt that their country was getting ripped off by the British company.. They then installed the brutal and corrupt dictator Shah and fully supported him for over two decades.. What the West has done in the region since the end of World War 1 and the creation of Mandates goes far beyond meddling.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

The Pakistan Military Launches occasional attacks on Areas with a strong Taliban presence but they always face the issue of reprisal. Government, Military and Police officials are being killed all the time in such attacks as well as the constant suicide bombings and armed raids being carried out by the Taliban in Pakistan. The Last thing NATO or India want is for the Pakistani Government to lose control and be replace by the likes of the Taliban.

Harisemo

That is old news brah, that was the situation before Pakistanarmy carried out any major operations but much has changed since the successful operations in those areas. Taliban CANNOT take control of all of Pakistan and India knows it but they are a tool to weaken Pakistans military which would serve many of NATO and Indian interests but to say Taliban could somehow come to Islamabad and overthrow the government..that is not possible.

Not necessarily overthrow the Government in a bloody coup but the fact that Osama Bin Laden was living in Pakistan in a manner that logic would suggest Pakistan Government and Military would have known he was there only further adds to long concerns that memebrs of the Pakistan Government and Military are sympathetic to the Taliban. The Fear is that the Government could become controlled or influenced by these forces if they are not already.

As for the Situation changing, Well it hasn't. After the capture of Bin Laden there was a raid on a Pakistani Militarty base and this was just one of many attakcs that have been going on in the last 2 years

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

mattisgod01

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear. These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

Evidently you do not, in fact, see what I'm saying. It's a hypothetical question intended to test the limits of the rationale being used in this thread. Please, address the hypothetical on its own terms. If the UK government discovered a Real IRA cell nestled in Manhattan and the US government failed to act, thus prompting the UK government to bomb the neighborhood where this Real IRA cell is known to be would the resulting American civilian casualties then be acceptable "collateral damage"?

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

worlock77

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear. These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

Evidently you do not, in fact, see what I'm saying. It's a hypothetical question intended to test the limits of the rationale being used in this thread. Please, address the hypothetical on its own terms. If the UK government discovered a Real IRA cell nestled in Manhattan and the US government failed to act, thus prompting the UK government to bomb the neighborhood where this Real IRA cell is known to be would the resulting American civilian casualties then be acceptable "collateral damage"?

Your Hypothetical question is trying to oversimplify another situation with the attempt to point out peoples hypocrisy so i'm not going to answer it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear. These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

mattisgod01

Evidently you do not, in fact, see what I'm saying. It's a hypothetical question intended to test the limits of the rationale being used in this thread. Please, address the hypothetical on its own terms. If the UK government discovered a Real IRA cell nestled in Manhattan and the US government failed to act, thus prompting the UK government to bomb the neighborhood where this Real IRA cell is known to be would the resulting American civilian casualties then be acceptable "collateral damage"?

Your Hypothetical question is trying to oversimplify another situation with the attempt to point out peoples hypocrisy so i'm not going to answer it.

What a cop out.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Evidently you do not, in fact, see what I'm saying. It's a hypothetical question intended to test the limits of the rationale being used in this thread. Please, address the hypothetical on its own terms. If the UK government discovered a Real IRA cell nestled in Manhattan and the US government failed to act, thus prompting the UK government to bomb the neighborhood where this Real IRA cell is known to be would the resulting American civilian casualties then be acceptable "collateral damage"?

worlock77

Your Hypothetical question is trying to oversimplify another situation with the attempt to point out peoples hypocrisy so i'm not going to answer it.

What a cop out.

Its not a cop out, You know full well that most people on this forum would say that your hypothetical situation would be unjustified and the reason for this isn't hypocrisy. There is alot more angles and issues to consider relating to the Topic specifics then your Hypothetical situation allows.

My personal view on Collateral damage is that no innocent civilian deaths are acceptable but in war they are unavoidable. Whether you agree or disagree with war people need to understand that war will result in civilian deaths. When people support a war they should be fully aware of this and and when people protest a war they shouldn't act like 0 civilian casualties is a realistic expectation or demand. To simply brush civilian deaths aside as "Just part of war" is also very unproductive both to the war and to the way a civilized nation views war, we should always try to avoid deaths and should always be upset when they occur.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Your Hypothetical question is trying to oversimplify another situation with the attempt to point out peoples hypocrisy so i'm not going to answer it.

mattisgod01

What a cop out.

Its not a cop out, You know full well that most people on this forum would say that your hypothetical situation would be unjustified and the reason for this isn't hypocrisy. There is alot more angles and issues to consider relating to the Topic specifics then your Hypothetical situation allows.

My personal view on Collateral damage is that no innocent civilian deaths are acceptable but in war they are unavoidable. Whether you agree or disagree with war people need to understand that war will result in civilian deaths. When people support a war they should be fully aware of this and and when people protest a war they shouldn't act like 0 civilian casualties is a realistic expectation or demand. To simply brush civilian deaths aside as "Just part of war" is also very unproductive both to the war and to the way a civilized nation views war, we should always try to avoid deaths and should always be upset when they occur.

Then any war based upon CHOICE is unacceptable to begin with.. This war could have been avoided..

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

What a cop out.

sSubZerOo

Its not a cop out, You know full well that most people on this forum would say that your hypothetical situation would be unjustified and the reason for this isn't hypocrisy. There is alot more angles and issues to consider relating to the Topic specifics then your Hypothetical situation allows.

My personal view on Collateral damage is that no innocent civilian deaths are acceptable but in war they are unavoidable. Whether you agree or disagree with war people need to understand that war will result in civilian deaths. When people support a war they should be fully aware of this and and when people protest a war they shouldn't act like 0 civilian casualties is a realistic expectation or demand. To simply brush civilian deaths aside as "Just part of war" is also very unproductive both to the war and to the way a civilized nation views war, we should always try to avoid deaths and should always be upset when they occur.

Then any war based upon CHOICE is unacceptable to begin with.. This war could have been avoided..

I think Sun Tzu said something along the lines of "If the cost of going to war outways the rewards from winning it then the war is already lost" And i think the War on Terror applies perfectly to this, I don't know the answer to that question though.

Simply to say that any war of choice is unnaceptable is over simplistic as many wars that have been (Atleast in my opinion) justified have still been a choice. However there have been far more wars throughout history that have been unjustified, just about all of which have been a choice and not a necessity.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Its not a cop out, You know full well that most people on this forum would say that your hypothetical situation would be unjustified and the reason for this isn't hypocrisy. There is alot more angles and issues to consider relating to the Topic specifics then your Hypothetical situation allows.

My personal view on Collateral damage is that no innocent civilian deaths are acceptable but in war they are unavoidable. Whether you agree or disagree with war people need to understand that war will result in civilian deaths. When people support a war they should be fully aware of this and and when people protest a war they shouldn't act like 0 civilian casualties is a realistic expectation or demand. To simply brush civilian deaths aside as "Just part of war" is also very unproductive both to the war and to the way a civilized nation views war, we should always try to avoid deaths and should always be upset when they occur.

mattisgod01

Then any war based upon CHOICE is unacceptable to begin with.. This war could have been avoided..

I think Sun Tzu said something along the lines of "If the cost of going to war outways the rewards from winning it then the war is already lost" And i think the War on Terror applies perfectly to this, I don't know the answer to that question though.

Simply to say that any war of choice is unnaceptable is over simplistic as many wars that have been (Atleast in my opinion) justified have still been a choice. However there have been far more wars throughout history that have been unjustified.

Thats great but we aren't talking about the stretches of history.. This is the 21st century, we have a UN.. We have open diplomatic channels to every one.. Morality supposedly played a huge role in going over there to begin with, in "helping people".. IN fact its one of the main things to get the public on the government side with said wars.. But all too often we have seen that most countries, especially the Security Council has little care for human life inless they are under some kind of precious resource or are poltiically important.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Then any war based upon CHOICE is unacceptable to begin with.. This war could have been avoided..

sSubZerOo

I think Sun Tzu said something along the lines of "If the cost of going to war outways the rewards from winning it then the war is already lost" And i think the War on Terror applies perfectly to this, I don't know the answer to that question though.

Simply to say that any war of choice is unnaceptable is over simplistic as many wars that have been (Atleast in my opinion) justified have still been a choice. However there have been far more wars throughout history that have been unjustified.

Thats great but we aren't talking about the stretches of history.. This is the 21st century, we have a UN.. We have open diplomatic channels to every one.. Morality supposedly played a huge role in going over there to begin with, in "helping people".. IN fact its one of the main things to get the public on the government side with said wars.. But all too often we have seen that most countries, especially the Security Council has little care for human life inless they are under some kind of precious resource or are poltiically important.

It may be the 21st Century but the reasons for going to war havn't changed, If the US thought it would be more costly to win the war then to not fight it then they would not go to war, They may have been wrong in their decision. I think we are making the same point here, it does just come down to caring for ones own interests and countries do not go to war unless they have something to gain, Whether it be Stability, oil, peace or just victory over ones enemy then most of the time they will not get involved. The Few times the UN or Western Nations have become involved in conflicts with very little self gain it turns into a disaster which further adds to their reluctance to get invovled at all.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder just how far the "well terrorists are hiding with the civilians so civilian deaths are acceptable" like of thinking extends. Let's say the UK government recieves infomation about a Real IRA cell hiding out in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. They infor the US government, but, for whatever reason, the US doverment fails to act in a manner that satisfies the UK government, so the UK decides to bomb the area where this Real IRA cell is known to be located. Are the resulting deaths of American civilians then acceptable?

I see what you are saying but its kind of a different situation. People need to keep in mind that Pakistan is bordering on a failed state and that vast sections of it are under Taliban control and not even the Pakistani Military or Police dare to enter out of fear. These Territories (Mostly Bordering Afghanistan) are a massive recruiting and training hub that creates more problems and posses more of a threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people then it does for the West but thats not to downplay the impact it has on the War in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a Nuclear power and if they prove they are incapable of dealing with the situation in their nation then the international community has an obligation to do it for them with or without their full support.

Evidently you do not, in fact, see what I'm saying. It's a hypothetical question intended to test the limits of the rationale being used in this thread. Please, address the hypothetical on its own terms. If the UK government discovered a Real IRA cell nestled in Manhattan and the US government failed to act, thus prompting the UK government to bomb the neighborhood where this Real IRA cell is known to be would the resulting American civilian casualties then be acceptable "collateral damage"?

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Then any war based upon CHOICE is unacceptable to begin with.. This war could have been avoided..

sSubZerOo

I think Sun Tzu said something along the lines of "If the cost of going to war outways the rewards from winning it then the war is already lost" And i think the War on Terror applies perfectly to this, I don't know the answer to that question though.

Simply to say that any war of choice is unnaceptable is over simplistic as many wars that have been (Atleast in my opinion) justified have still been a choice. However there have been far more wars throughout history that have been unjustified.

Thats great but we aren't talking about the stretches of history.. This is the 21st century, we have a UN.. We have open diplomatic channels to every one.. Morality supposedly played a huge role in going over there to begin with, in "helping people".. IN fact its one of the main things to get the public on the government side with said wars.. But all too often we have seen that most countries, especially the Security Council has little care for human life inless they are under some kind of precious resource or are poltiically important.

"If, in the next place, we keep once more to the pure conception of war, then we must say that its political object properly lies out of its province, for if war is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfil our will, then in every case all depends on our overthrowing the enemy, that is, disarming him, and on that alone. This object, developed from abstract conceptions, but which is also the one aimed at in a great many cases in reality, we shall, in the first place, examine in this reality." (Clausewitz) This has NOT changed.