Barbara Boxer Approved Code Pink Trip to Fallujah to Donate $600,000 to Extremists

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wow Paul, I guess you really are that ignorant. Sad really.

The only thing that's sad is the fact that you think you can dictate war by some silly accord/convention. The fact that you think you can ever win a war by following such silly rules of engagement set forth by other people.

War is meant to be brutal, bloody, deadly, and destructive.

I know hippies hate war, and frankly so do I. If I'm going to go to war though, you better damn well believe I'm not going to worry about what the enemy thinks about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. I'm going to blow them the hell off of this earth quicker than they have time to react. Because THAT is War.

[Heracles 417]

Paul, just because you think something is so, doesn't mean that it is. You are just wrong here. There is humanitarian aid during wars, despite your ignorance. You should check out the geneva convention, there are protected parties and there are restrictions on who you can and cannot target. If it happens as a bi-product of war, then I suppose that is an accident. But you cannot, as you suggest target civilians in war. Furthermore, the 4th geneva convention outlines what humanitarian support that you can and cannot provide during times of war.

Right, because Al Qaeda and co care about any Geneva convention. The Geneva convention should only apply when the other side abides. The Vietcong had a huge advantage by ignoring any convention.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The only thing that's sad is the fact that you think you can dictate war by some silly accord/convention. The fact that you think you can ever win a war by following such silly rules of engagement set forth by other people.

War is meant to be brutal, bloody, deadly, and destructive.

I know hippies hate war, and frankly so do I. If I'm going to go to war though, you better damn well believe I'm not going to worry about what the enemy thinks about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. I'm going to blow them the hell off of this earth quicker than they have time to react. Because THAT is War.

No paul, you're taking what I said out of context. You are delusional to think that it is acceptable to actually target civilians. The rules set in the geneva conventions do still apply, and are held. That is not to say that collateral damage doesn't occur, but to specifically target civilians is not how you conduct wars.

[Heracles 417]

I know hippies hate war, and frankly so do I. If I'm going to go to war though, you better damn well believe I'm not going to worry about what the enemy thinks about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. I'm going to blow them the hell off of this earth quicker than they have time to react. Because THAT is War.

The modern day enemies sure as hell do not care.

No paul, you're taking what I said out of context. You are delusional to think that it is acceptable to actually target civilians. The rules set in the geneva conventions do still apply, and are held. That is not to say that collateral damage doesn't occur, but to specifically target civilians is not how you conduct wars.

Actually it's Al Qaeda and co who are targeting civilians and using them as shields. America just gets all the flak for this.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The modern day enemies sure as hell do not care.

Actually it's Al Qaeda and co who are targeting civilians and using them as shields. America just gets all the flak for this.

The geneva convention is quite cut and dry about most aspects of war. However, it did not address non-conventional combatants, ie terrorists. From most of my reading, most don't feel that the geneva convention applies to terrorists, I actually agree. But, in times of actual war, like our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they do apply.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No paul, you're taking what I said out of context. You are delusional to think that it is acceptable to actually target civilians. The rules set in the geneva conventions do still apply, and are held. That is not to say that collateral damage doesn't occur, but to specifically target civilians is not how you conduct wars.

It's perfectly acceptable to target civilians. Remember, they are your enemies as well unless they have sought immunity/protection from you. War is a "with us or against us" thing. It's not a "oh well, they don't have guns so we can't bomb over there." - You have to send a message that you're willing to wipe them off the fact of the earth. You have to send a message that you are going to use any and all means necessary to kill them.

As I said, we could have been out of the middle east years ago. Our interests were never in Al Queada or the war though... They were in something much bigger and we need the land in one piece for that.

I know your "heart" makes it hard for you to see killing innocent civilians, but it doesn't change the fact that they are nothing but sheep for the slaughter. They are there to die and be used as weapons against those you are fighting. Do you honestly think that if soemone attacked us on US soil they would use the Geneva convention rules? You're extremely naive if you think so.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It's perfectly acceptable to target civilians. Remember, they are your enemies as well unless they have sought immunity/protection from you. War is a "with us or against us" thing. It's not a "oh well, they don't have guns so we can't bomb over there." - You have to send a message that you're willing to wipe them off the fact of the earth. You have to send a message that you are going to use any and all means necessary to kill them.

As I said, we could have been out of the middle east years ago. Our interests were never in Al Queada or the war though... They were in something much bigger and we need the land in one piece for that.

I know your "heart" makes it hard for you to see killing innocent civilians, but it doesn't change the fact that they are nothing but sheep for the slaughter. They are there to die and be used as weapons against those you are fighting. Do you honestly think that if soemone attacked us on US soil they would use the Geneva convention rules? You're extremely naive if you think so.

Paul, you're not only being willfully ignorant here, but now it's just obtuse and insipid. In actual war, the geneva convention still applies, despite your best protestations and flawed rationale. There are gray areas, like fighting terrorists which aren't covered which leaves us in uncharted territory.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you're not only being willfully ignorant here, but now it's just obtuse and insipid. In actual war, the geneva convention still applies, despite your best protestations and flawed rationale. There are gray areas, like fighting terrorists which aren't covered which leaves us in uncharted territory.

Do you not understand what war is? What the point of war is? The Geneva convention is a joke. The 'idea' of it sounds great and appeases people, but war is war. Death is what comes with it to all. The moment you start worrying about who lives and who dies, is the moment you lose.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Do you not understand what war is? What the point of war is? The Geneva convention is a joke. The 'idea' of it sounds great and appeases people, but war is war. Death is what comes with it to all. The moment you start worrying about who lives and who dies, is the moment you lose.

Paul, you really are absurd and dense. I guess critical thinking is yet another course not taught at Beck U.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you really are absurd and dense. I guess critical thinking is yet another course not taught at Beck U.

This is why I like you Rob. The moment you can't argue, the moment you don't have a valid point, is when you start the name calling and trolling. Love it. That happens quite often too.

[Heracles 417]

The geneva convention is quite cut and dry about most aspects of war. However, it did not address non-conventional combatants, ie terrorists. From most of my reading, most don't feel that the geneva convention applies to terrorists, I actually agree. But, in times of actual war, like our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they do apply.

It should apply to the point when the country was battling the Iraqi army, once that seized and these militias started fighting and dirty, it should be anything goes.

This is the exact reason the Vietcong were so successful, as they fought by no rules and did whatever it took. Whereas, had Americans used flame throwers, which were banned, then the jungles and underground tunnels would have been a lot easier to 'deal with'.

[The_Dude 1,142]

This is why I like you Rob. The moment you can't argue, the moment you don't have a valid point, is when you start the name calling and trolling. Love it. That happens quite often too.

Paul, when I stop arguing with you, it is because your ineptitude has reached critical mass point. You simply don't have a grasp of facts or rational thinking. What is the point of arguing with someone who doesn't seem to possess the capacity to actually debate? In this case, you simply have no clue.

LoL, it happens quite often that you are far too nescient to actually debate anything.

It should apply to the point when the country was battling the Iraqi army, once that seized and these militias started fighting and dirty, it should be anything goes.

This is the exact reason the Vietcong were so successful, as they fought by no rules and did whatever it took. Whereas, had Americans used flame throwers, which were banned, then the jungles and underground tunnels would have been a lot easier to 'deal with'.

I agree with the bold part, however, not the 'anything goes' bit. In actual formal war, the geneva convention still applies. It also applies during the occupation of a nation. When you add terrorists into that scenario, it becomes far more nebulous.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[Heracles 417]

I agree with the bold part, however, not the 'anything goes' bit. In actual formal war, the geneva convention still applies. It also applies during the occupation of a nation. When you add terrorists into that scenario, it becomes far more nebulous.

Think of it this way. If you and I were to have a fight, would it be fair that you have to use your fights while I get to bring swords.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

War should be the most despicable and diabolical thing that a nation would engage in.

Civilians too should pay the price for the their governments's folly. In that way only, would nations seek a better way to solve their differences. It's the price one pays for democracy.

For despots, however, instilling insurrection is a better option. Mao Zedong said, "Take the countryside, and the cities will fall by themselves."

If one reads Sun Tsu, one would realize:

1) Foreign campaigns are expensive, so an army must learn to forage. That is, don't destroy the enemies resources when you will need those resources later.

2) An enemy forced to fight to the death will fight to the death. Permit the enemy to surrender, and make them allies. "Feed them, tend to their needs, and give them back their chariots."

(Loosely quoted in both cases)

[Heracles 417]

Think of it this way. If you and I were to have a fight, would it be fair that you have to use your fists while I get to bring swords.

correction