Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
|
Okay, but since we're fighting "unlawful combatants" it would seem to me that these rules don't apply. Even so, i don't understand how dropping bombs in places where you know civilians are present doesn't amount to a violation of the pricipal of distinction.
Quote:
|
we do. it's self-enforced for our our enemy's protection as well as our own when the tables are turned.
|
It's self enforced, meaning we only enforce it when we want to.
Quote:
|
think what you want, just don't think your opinion has any effect on the truth.
|
Likewise.
Quote:
|
very true. there is certainly a practical component as well as a moral component.
|
It's all practical. We only care about the lives of civilians when it is practical to do so. We hate killing civilians, right up until civilians cease to become civilians and start being "collateral damage".
Ask the civilians who've been killed by american forces in iraq.
Quote:
|
so which is it? you went from claiming there were no rules (last post) to the rules not making it more humane... even though it might?
|
What i meant is that there are effectively no rules, because the person who is willing to do what the other guy won't has an advantage. Rules are secondary to success.
Quote:
|
who is saying it isn't horrible? as unfortunate as having to fight with lethal force is... you must grant that there are more lawful and humane ways to practice and that there are despicable and cowardly ways to prosecute it.
|
Who is more humane? The soldier that hides behind the child or the soldier who shoot through the child? Any "humanity" we inject into war is either the result of more precise technology or part of the p.r. necessary for winning the war in the minds of americans.
How is dropping a bomb less cowardly than putting it on the side of the road?