Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The American military is really good at killing women and children


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
103 replies to this topic

#91 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:26 AM

Fiz:

Would you recommend military action be canceled in any given situation if even one innocent person was to lose his or her life in the process?


what are the other circumstances?

#92 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,701 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:39 AM

what are the other circumstances?


Circumstances don't matter - it's a question of principle. Reciprocating thus, can you think of any circumstances where military actions which could possibly result in the mortal demise of an Innocent would be condonable?

#93 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:58 AM

Circumstances don't matter - it's a question of principle. Reciprocating thus, can you think of any circumstances where military actions which could possibly result in the mortal demise of an Innocent would be condonable?

im sorry nothing is black and white and i don't see the point of playing this game.

#94 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,768 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:59 AM

im sorry nothing is black and white and i don't see the point of playing this game.


You've made it black and white with the IBC website. It doesn't count grey deaths.

#95 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:02 AM

You've made it black and white with the IBC website. It doesn't count grey deaths.


what?

#96 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:06 AM

i mean i know you're not smart at all g5 but you're comparing PhillyB asking me a vague hypothetical based on principles or morals or some higher code or something ludicrous like that to my article which criticizes the military strategy of the United States in an asymmetric war which uses civilian deaths as evidence.

can your puny little mind comprehend that difference? or are you so willing to jump into a argument with me from under someone's skirt that you didn't take the moment it would have required to fire up the neurons and see that you have NOTHING to add to the conversation and you don't understand it in the first place?

#97 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:04 PM

what?


Posted Image

#98 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:42 PM

i mean i know you're not smart at all g5 but you're comparing PhillyB asking me a vague hypothetical based on principles or morals or some higher code or something ludicrous like that to my article which criticizes the military strategy of the United States in an asymmetric war which uses civilian deaths as evidence.

can your puny little mind comprehend that difference? or are you so willing to jump into a argument with me from under someone's skirt that you didn't take the moment it would have required to fire up the neurons and see that you have NOTHING to add to the conversation and you don't understand it in the first place?


Why do liberals always resort to personal attacks and insults when being challenged? I mean, it's not just you, it's all of you. Not enough love from mommy? Too much from daddy? Help me out.

#99 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,768 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:45 PM

i mean i know you're not smart at all g5 but you're comparing PhillyB asking me a vague hypothetical based on principles or morals or some higher code or something ludicrous like that to my article which criticizes the military strategy of the United States in an asymmetric war which uses civilian deaths as evidence.

can your puny little mind comprehend that difference? or are you so willing to jump into a argument with me from under someone's skirt that you didn't take the moment it would have required to fire up the neurons and see that you have NOTHING to add to the conversation and you don't understand it in the first place?


Look genius...he simply gave you a hypothetical to see what YOU feel the outcome should be. Your response:

im sorry nothing is black and white and i don't see the point of playing this game


and my response was simply that YOU made it black and white when you introduced the Iraq Body Count as a measure of how evil the military are...when you couldn't even respond to his question. IBC knows nothing of grey (not black/white) deaths.

#100 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 02:20 AM

Look genius...he simply gave you a hypothetical to see what YOU feel the outcome should be. Your response:



and my response was simply that YOU made it black and white when you introduced the Iraq Body Count as a measure of how evil the military are...when you couldn't even respond to his question. IBC knows nothing of grey (not black/white) deaths.

where did i ever say the american military was evil

i don't believe in such silly notions go back to the sandbox

Why do liberals always resort to personal attacks and insults when being challenged? I mean, it's not just you, it's all of you. Not enough love from mommy? Too much from daddy? Help me out.


Htar you're a barely functioning sped go play with keys

#101 party_animal

party_animal

    Big Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 308 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 06:25 PM

i mean i know you're not smart at all g5 but you're comparing PhillyB asking me a vague hypothetical based on principles or morals or some higher code or something ludicrous like that to my article which criticizes the military strategy of the United States in an asymmetric war which uses civilian deaths as evidence.

can your puny little mind comprehend that difference? or are you so willing to jump into a argument with me from under someone's skirt that you didn't take the moment it would have required to fire up the neurons and see that you have NOTHING to add to the conversation and you don't understand it in the first place?


i haven't really checked out the main portion of this thread but i read the initial post. fiz, i highly encourage you to read COMISAF's recent "apology" for civilian deaths in afghanistan. hopefully you can decipher what's truly important out of his message.

keep in mind as you're reading it that this is a country that hasn't ever had a true census and the last census of any kind occurred in the 70's.

#102 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,701 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 09:30 PM

im sorry nothing is black and white and i don't see the point of playing this game.


That's because you'll automatically lose if you agree to play.

If you admit that there exists a scenario wherein the accidental death of an innocent is acceptable, outweighed by the necessity of military action which results in collteral damage, then your orginal post loses its moral high ground - as does, thus, your position, and you lose all your integrity in arguing it.

If you steadfastly insist that no, the risk of killing any innocent person is too irresponsible for any scale or reason of or for any military action, then you become a lunatic, as you've collectively decried U.S. military action in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI and WWII. No sane being would attempt this.

On a less confrontational note, Fiz, I'm bringing these arguements not out of any 100% assuredness over my own position - I'm trying to determine where I stand. These are important issues and I think it's important to look at all sides of 'em. As in most cases, it would seem the answer here stands somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, no?

#103 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:52 PM

That's because you'll automatically lose if you agree to play.

If you admit that there exists a scenario wherein the accidental death of an innocent is acceptable, outweighed by the necessity of military action which results in collteral damage, then your orginal post loses its moral high ground - as does, thus, your position, and you lose all your integrity in arguing it.

assuming i meant to establish a moral high ground and not an indictment of american military strategy in iraq

If you steadfastly insist that no, the risk of killing any innocent person is too irresponsible for any scale or reason of or for any military action, then you become a lunatic, as you've collectively decried U.S. military action in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI and WWII. No sane being would attempt this.

um i would gladly argue against US military involvement in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WW1. I would also point out all the needless civilian deaths in WW2.

#104 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,701 posts

Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:14 PM

assuming i meant to establish a moral high ground and not an indictment of american military strategy in iraq

um i would gladly argue against US military involvement in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WW1. I would also point out all the needless civilian deaths in WW2.


Artful dodge, but the indictment of U.S. military strategy in Iraq must be based on higher principle - which is what I'm trying to pinpoint, and what you're clearly dodging.

And the position stated earlier regarding arguing involvment in wars is really only contingent on the existence of one conflict which cannot be argued... given you've left out WWII on your list, which was on mine, the point stands.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com