Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Israel attacks Lebanon, leaving many dead
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
...Since Democrats are more moved by emotion and less by logic.
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'm more of a middle Democrate/Republican hybrid.
If it was to me...emotion doesn't mean shit to me. I see that picture and nothing happens for me. Facts and results matter. Not pictures or feelings.
There's one main problem with this: You aren't there. This isn't a flame against you, it's a more "generic" you that applies to all people.
But there are plenty of people who have been there. Witnesses galore, and they all say the same thing.
Allies, friends, enemies, neutral observers, fellow fighting men. To a man. Journalists even have pictures of bombs landing on their heads. We don't need to be there.
Now I understand about giving the enemy an advantage, no quarter need be given on my account, but in a war of occupation bombing the locals isn't helping. If you want to win, this is not the way.
Which is why the other armies in theatre have very strict rules about engaging the enemy. But the U.S. doesn't, it operates under the principle that a U.S. life is more important than a foreign life. Americans operate a shoot first policy at checkpoints and on convoys. No officer is required to identify a target before engagement. Given these lax rules of engagement it is no suprise that the number of accidents is consistently proportionally higher than the forces of other nations patroling the same places. It's institutionalised.
A soldiers life < a civilians life. This is why we hold them in the highest honor.
While I agree with most of your post, the last part is opinionated. I don't know your nationality, but as an American I value an American life, soldier or not, as above that of an Iraqi. Do I hate Iraqi's? No. But as an American I see my own people as more important (to me...not racially superior, but more important to me) than I do a foreigner who has nothing to do with me.
Besides, if you were a soldier or one of their officers, would you value the life of Foriegn Civilian #728384 or that of Johnny, your best friend for the last 2 years.
Officer or not, Johnny has a job to do and a war to win.
Unlike the locals he volunteered to put himself in harms way, and hopefully people like myself have equiped him with as many advantages as money can buy to help even the odds back in his favour.
Fair enough point, and I agree for the most part. But the "you aren't there" factor comes back. As you would agree things aren't in black and white and you need to consider the "human" element to these situations.
Job or not, you wouldn't let your buddy die over some guy you didn't know that's a potential enemy. If you say otherwise...well, I won't believe you :P
And when I say "potential enemy" I don't mean some civilian you KNOW is a civilian. I mean the guy you aren't sure about that's approaching your checkpoint and isn't slowing down. But, hey, maybe he doesn't know or has an emergency. Or he could trying to kill you.
Consider it.
While it is instinctive for him to place his own life and the lives of his comrades above those of strangers in the immediacy of danger, to actually do so without discipline puts himself and his comrades at greater risk in the long term.
As you rightly point out this goes against obvious instinct which is why we have extra tight rules of engagement and disciplinary systems outside of the military chain of command.
It's no besmirch on the individual troops involved in these kind of scenrio's, as you rightly say you would have to be there to judge each one on it's own merits. I don't find fault in any of the troops, not even for atrocities. Thats what happens when people are in those kinds of enviroments. If you have the balls to fight you have to take the good with the bad.
Which doesn't mean a low game can't be raised.
N.B. On your given scenario at the checkpoint, the "you aren't there factor" applies to you also.
And calling out that you were only 'following orders', doesn't help you either. The US, UK, France and USSR together made that quite clear in the Nuremberg Trials.
And calling out that you were only 'following orders', doesn't help you either. The US, UK, France and USSR together made that quite clear in the Nuremberg Trials.
Yes but this is completely moot in the current wars we are fighting. You can't say "Oh, he shot a civilian," because in the wars now the soldier can just as well say "Oh, I shot a terrorist."
And using my previous example, you can't say it was a terrorist OR a civilian when its a car driving towards a checkpoint, and not slowing down or following protocol as is expected. Is it attacking, or does the driver just not know? No one knows except the driver, so what do you do? Shoot, or risk the car blowing up next to you at the checkpoint?
Is it murder if its a terrorist that COULD have been a civilian?
It is it murder if it is a civilian that COULD have been a terrorist, but you had no way of knowing?
The problem with such military laws if they deal in black and white. This is great for conventional wars that were fought back when the laws were made. The current state of war in the Middle East, however, is more of a hazy shade of grey.
Military Law has a habit of not doing it's job and covering things up. All the big Iraq scandals were totally ignored by military law until discovered. Self policing is subject to the natural dehumanisation that occours in war. Morality drifts.
The problem with military law alone is that it does not have a system of redress outside the military chain of command, so if the order comes from on high, it can never be addressed.
In order to exact a higher standard from their troops many countries have signed up to the ICC, although absolutely hated by the troops, it provides a means of complaint outside of military structure so that a private can take his issues to the top without obstruction and so that locals or any other person can bring troops to book for transgressions real or percieved. Their actions are more accountable, officers stand trial beside the rankers.
If you don't hold your troops to high standards, they won't operate to them.
.
Sneaking back on topic I have actually been quite impressed by Israeli discipline and targetting so far in this engagement. I'm not sure how long it will last but I thought they had recognisably not lost the plot so far. Of course this may degenerate over time, especially with the inclusion fo reservist troops at the frontline.
So there is some sanity in this thread
(Don't take that too seriously guys, it was more of a joke).
As for the Israeli claims that they are warning the population to move away from the warzone, that too is both deeply ironic and border-line war crime. Ironic, for how exacly is the civilian population to withdraw into safety when the roads, railraods and bridges have been bombed to impassability? Border-line war crimes, because displacing civilians in war is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism is a crime., not an act-of-war. Arrest them, put them through the mills of justice like any other criminal and incarcerate them for life. By declaring them military targets you glorify them and their actions as brave resistance against whatever. By executing them you glorify them as martyrs for the faith.
I think it's already a success. Hizbollah will think twice before attacking next time.
Israel has demanded a heavy price that will affect all of their lives for years to come. Every one in Lebanon, friend and foe has had a little refresher course in what happens to bad neighbours.
If they got away with it scot free, they would rapidly do it again. There must be a price. Israel is exacting that price.
If Israel did not attack, the cycle of violence would not stop, it would continue, but in the next phase the heavy casualties would be Israeli not Lebanese.
Bearing in mind that all the money we give to Israel is spent on weapons, what do you think the palestinians and Lebanese would buy with it. Backing the other side in this war won't stop it, it will just change who is most likely to win.
No. Hezbollah might think twice, as you say, but another organization will spring up. All Israel is doing is creating martyrs. It has not carried out this war smartly. Its killing too many civilians, creating too many martyrs. More terrorists will keep on springing up. Their strategy, or "price", is not effective at all.
Israel seems to be following in America's footsteps in the art of starting the wrong wars.
There were other solutions. As I said, we should have given aid to Lebanon or Palestine. I'm sure the UN has ways of monitoring how the money is spent. We could have set up a puppet government in Lebanon, and drove out Hezbollah under a different guise.
There were much smarter ways of handling this war. Israel is following the one percent doctrine, like America did; any action is good action, to them.
As for the Israeli claims that they are warning the population to move away from the warzone, that too is both deeply ironic and border-line war crime. Ironic, for how exacly is the civilian population to withdraw into safety when the roads, railraods and bridges have been bombed to impassability? Border-line war crimes, because displacing civilians in war is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism is a crime., not an act-of-war. Arrest them, put them through the mills of justice like any other criminal and incarcerate them for life. By declaring them military targets you glorify them and their actions as brave resistance against whatever. By executing them you glorify them as martyrs for the faith.
Terrorism is a technique of war.
A way of fighting. All armies use it and have done since the dawn of time. War isn't a game.
As for Arresting them, that might be a little difficult as there are thousands of them, they are heavily armed and they don't seem to want to come quietly. However if you really wish to arrest them, go ahead. I'll watch you do it.
I am not familiar with any Geneva convention against the displacement of citizens, If you don't mind, I'd like to call you out on that one. I've had a little browse on Google but come up blank, any chance of a link so that I might educate myself better.
I agree it's an endless cycle of violence when pursued in this way.
The American's had the same problem with the Japanese in 1945. In the end they solved it by a disproportionate use of force. I doubt that anything less will convince the people of the middle east either.
Both of your suggestions have been tried and it hasn't worked so far. Lebanon has a puppet democracy and has been receiving western Aid. The conditions of this aid was that they use their own military to patrol Hesbollah controlled areas themselves. This was all agreed in U.N. resolution blah blah blah. Sounded good at the time. Sometimes there just isn't a political solution. You have to let war run it's course.
As for the Israeli claims that they are warning the population to move away from the warzone, that too is both deeply ironic and border-line war crime. Ironic, for how exacly is the civilian population to withdraw into safety when the roads, railraods and bridges have been bombed to impassability? Border-line war crimes, because displacing civilians in war is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism is a crime., not an act-of-war. Arrest them, put them through the mills of justice like any other criminal and incarcerate them for life. By declaring them military targets you glorify them and their actions as brave resistance against whatever. By executing them you glorify them as martyrs for the faith.
Yes, you're right. It would obviously be MUCH better and reduce casualties if they didn't tell people where they are attacking and to leave. This way, when the bombs drop and missiles fly, there are as many civilians around as possible who aren't expecting the attack. This way, though, they at least aren't displaced. Just dead.
That's a great idea.
American extremists dont strap bombs to thier themselves and walk into the middle of a crowded market full of innocent people. American extremists dont kidnap civillians and soldiers and use them in an attept to free other extremists to that they have more men to strap bombs to themselves.
People seem to think that this sort of thing is an Isreal vs whoever thing.
Somalian muslim extremists are declaring war on ethiopians for aiding the somalian government.
Iranian president has made it clear that he want nuclear weapons to destroy isreal.
Lebonese politicians claim that hezbalah attacks isreal because of isreali ocupation of lebonese land. Land that hasn't been occupied for 6 years now.
Syria provides trade routes into lebanon.
Isreal agrees to pull troops out of the gaza strip and palanstine agrees to blow up isreali soldiers and civiliians for giving them what they wanted.
Dimplomacy hasn't worked in the middle east for 50yrs and will never work as long as the muslim extremist that run those contries are allowed to operate with immunity from the rest of the world. This isn't about occupation. This is about a jewish state in the middle of the worlds largest population of muslims, muslims who don't even like each other I might add. The only solution that would make lebenon, palenstine, syria, iran, liberia, and whoever else happy, would be the removal of the country of isreal. How many times do they have to tell the world so plainly as they do. The middle east can not have piece as long as there is a jewish controlled country in the middle east. This war has been 50 yrs in the making and its about damn time that isreal is doing what the rest of the world has been to scared to do.
The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 2)The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields. (Protocol I, Art. 51)
The third paragraph includes displacement of civilians. So, if Israel wants Hezbollah out, they can't just drop bombs on houses, no they have to physically go in and sort them out. Anything else war crime. The Hague is quite busy already.As for terrorism being used as a military tactics, that too is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. So since they were instituted armies and commanders who use it, tend to find themselves declared criminals and executed. Nuremberg and its Japanese equivalent come to mind.
Arrests are never easy, thus you pay taxes so propfessional policemen can do it. Many criminals are heavily armed and few go wilingly, yet justice somehow still seems to work.
Ironically, the UK has a few days ago sent an official complaint through its ambassador to Israel. The UK demands that any glorification/memorials regarding the Irgun attack on the King David Hotel be stopped and that Israel recognize it as an act of terrorism. The UK had declared Irgun a terrorist organisation. It had declared the bombing of the King David Hotel an act of errorism. Israel has chosen to ignore all that. The leader of Irgun Menachem Begin still made it to be prime minister. Just shows you the typical development: yesterday's terrorist is today's freedom fighter is tomorrow's head-of-state.
I hope its not all Americans that stupid. This article is 10 years old. http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Terrorism.html
Learn more about your history first.