|
Volkerball posted:It's also possible to not do something with righteous intent, that leads to even worse suffering. Case in point Srebrenica and Rwanda. But I don't see any of you guys jumping to take that into context. Just standing by "don't intervene ever" regardless of any particulars of any situation. For the record, I don't think supporting the Maliki government right now is a good idea, but I would like to remind everyone that 2 years ago, ISIS was a fraction of what it is now. It grew in the region defended by people who also were facing chemical weapons, starvation, and nonstop bombings and artillery strikes, and were unable to fend them off. The pros and cons of intervention at the time were a whole lot prettier than the ones we're facing now. Why do you want intervention so bad, and what do you think airstrikes are going to accomplish?
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Boon posted:Why do you want intervention so bad, and what do you think airstrikes are going to accomplish? I actually don't believe he wants intervention in Iraq now. But he did in Syria last year. He was one of the biggest boosters for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Every general, soldier, etc did not actually plan the war and had no say in it. I think we might be talking past eachother, here, because I don't disagree with you. My point is simply that the pressure to try and do something righteous (protect people from terrorists, give people democratic freedoms, etc.) can lend itself to support for imperialist actions, in response to Denzer's assertion that it's necessary to perform some kind of military intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Vernii posted:This is a dumb comparison because a helicopter can't take prisoners That's totally irrelevant, someone can come and pick up the prisoners later. What is relevant is whether helicopters can accept a surrender, and there is precedent that not only can aircraft accept a surrender, in fact the aircraft doesn't even need to be manned in order to do so. quote:The U.S. Navy originate the RQ-2A Pioneer program but the vehicles soon became operational with the U.S. Marine Corps as well as the U.S. Army. This Pioneer — No. 159 — is historic. It is the UAV to which Iraqi military personnel announced their surrender on Faylaka Island during the first Gulf War — history’s first instance of a military surrender to a robot. The aircraft was being used for damage assessment at the time after a battleship gunnery mission. quote:Internationally, Pioneer drones are perhaps most remembered for their role in the 1991 Gulf War, when a Pioneer launched by the Iowa-class battleship USS Wisconsin (BB-64) observed Iraqi troops on Failaka Island surrendering shortly after USS Missouri's attack on their trenchlines. When navy officials offered to transfer a Pioneer to the Smithsonian Institution, curators at the National Air and Space Museum specifically asked for the UAV that Iraqi troops surrendered to during the Gulf War.[2] The difference is that in 1991 the US was interested in accepting surrenders, whereas we were not interested in accepting surrenders during the second Iraq War. As such, the comparison between the behavior of the US military and that of ISIS is actually rather relevant. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Except the point was about ISIS executing surrendering soldiers, something that every army in the world has done. Yea, so? There's still a huge difference in scale and intent that you aren't taking into context with your dumb comparison. Paul MaudDib posted:That's totally irrelevant, someone can come and pick up the prisoners later. What is relevant is whether helicopters can accept a surrender, and there is precedent that in fact the aircraft doesn't even need to be manned in order to accept a surrender. An expendable drone isn't the same thing as a manned helicopter, and enemy troops on an island that's going nowhere are a hell of a lot different than insurgents who can flee back into the civilian population the first chance they get, which can happen if the helicopter is driven off station for even a minute. Vernii fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Yea, so? There's still a huge difference in scale and intent that you aren't taking into context with your dumb comparison. I'm intrigued what difference in intent you think exists between the two groups killing soldiers who have surrendered, because if your argument is that killing people who have surrendered because it's inconvenient to do otherwise is less bad than doing it because you hate their sect, I want to see you say it and still think what I said is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Vernii posted:An expendable drone isn't the same thing as a manned helicopter, and enemy troops on an island that's going nowhere are a hell of a lot different than insurgents who can flee back into the civilian population the first chance they get, which can happen if the helicopter is driven off station for even a minute. This is a really dumb argument because the helicopter actually stayed on station for a half hour while they consulted lawyers as to whether or not a helicopter could accept a surrender. Or to be more precise, whether anyone would get in trouble if we just murdered them instead. There's ample history of helicopters accepting surrenders, by the way. The Viet Cong were just as capable of disappearing back into the jungle, aircraft would just radio their location and soldiers would come and take them into custody. You're not raising some issue that no one has considered before, the difference is we're just a lot bloodthirstier than we were even 30 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You're not raising some issue that no one has considered before, the difference is we're just a lot bloodthirstier than we were even 30 years ago. I'm with you until this statement, which is a ridiculous statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
illrepute posted:I'm intrigued what difference in intent you think exists between two groups killing soldiers who have surrendered, because if your argument is that killing people who have surrendered because it's inconvenient to do otherwise is less bad than doing it because you hate their sect, I want to see you say it and still think what I said is dumb. Scale and intent, like I said. In the helicopter incident, operational concerns come first. The insurgents who tried to surrender to a helicopter just happened to be exceptionally unlucky that they weren't worth the trouble or risk involved. Killing a few people who aren't worth taking in or letting go is a hell of a lot different than a policy of accepting surrender and then shooting them later anyway because you genuinely never had any intent of taking prisoners in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Scale and intent, like I said. In the helicopter incident, operational concerns come first. The insurgents who tried to surrender to a helicopter just happened to be exceptionally unlucky that they weren't worth the trouble or risk involved. Killing a few people who aren't worth taking in or letting go is a hell of a lot different than a policy of accepting surrender and then shooting them later anyway because you genuinely never had any intent of taking prisoners in the first place Unlike the American helicopter crew, who called up their base while they hung around, inconveniently, to ask if they were interested in taking prisoners and were told "no."
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Unlike the American helicopter crew, who called up their base to ask if they were interested in taking prisoners and were told "no." Yea, still not nearly as comparable to what ISIS did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Yea, still not nearly as comparable to what ISIS did. Jesus, dude. "It's not comparable until the bodycounts match" isn't an acceptable answer here, you valued contributor to forum discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Yea, still not nearly as comparable to what ISIS did. It's still a war crime. quote:The Apache helicopter pilots killed both Iraqi men after being advised by a US military lawyer that they could not surrender to an aircraft and therefore remained valid targets. A leading military law expert consulted by the Guardian has questioned this legal advice. Playing the game of "which way to murder surrendering forces is the worst" is pretty stupid. It doesn't really matter whether you murder them right away or a day later. As a person who had surrendered, I doubt it would be much comfort that your murderers were a little more morally correct in the opinion of some forums poster. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Jesus, dude. "It's not comparable until the bodycounts match" isn't an acceptable answer here, you dumb idiot. I'd say it is. One is basically "These guys were just unlucky and unimportant" which sucks for them, certainly, but its still less than marching a couple thousand prisoners to their deaths because they were the wrong religion, and that taking them prisoner in the first place was only done to make it easier to kill them later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Nice selective quoting.quote:"The issue is not that ground forces simply cannot surrender to aircraft," he said. "The issue is that ground forces in such circumstances need to surrender in ways that are clear and unequivocal."
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Anyway this derail should've been over a page ago, because you've moved from "not comparable" to "not the same scale!" and "not the same method!" which, you're correct, the United States did not do exactly the same action down to the footwear and mode of travel, well spotted. The salient point the original poster made was that ISIS had killed surrendering soldiers, which was exceptionally bad. Except it's not exceptional, as we've painstakingly elaborated just for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Anyway this derail should've been over a page ago, because you've moved from "not comparable" to "not the same scale!" and "not the same method!" which, you're correct, the United States did not do exactly the same action down to the footwear and mode of travel, well spotted. I still hold that its not comparable. quote:Clearance to kill came back from an unnamed lawyer at the nearby Taji airbase. "Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets," the log entry says. Oh hey, look at that, one the reasons why aircraft don't accept surrenders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Vernii posted:I still hold that its not comparable. I understand that, it's just that reasons you've given are wrong, and here you've decided to just not bother. quote:Oh hey, look at that, one the reasons why aircraft don't accept surrenders. Except when they do, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Vernii posted:I still hold that its not comparable. Well, that's not what the lawyers (and the brigade CO, who was in the loop and approved the call) told the Apache crew, it wasn't the basis of the decision. Here's the incident report: quote:Date: 2007-02-22 11:47:00 The call wasn't made on the basis of the fact that they were running, it was the (incorrect) assertion that aircraft cannot accept surrenders, despite numerous instances of US forces accepting surrenders with aircraft. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Vernii posted:I still hold that its not comparable. They do actually, a lot, it's in fact a pretty convenient thing for everyone involved! The guys were told by the radio 'eh doesn't count, you can kill em if you want', them running was never brought up as a reason to engage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Comparing these ISIS conducted killings to the Apache shooting a bunch of guys is boggling my mind, one situation is probably an attempt at genocide while the other was murder, both very wrong but still not something that you can really call out to compare in an argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Vernii posted:I still hold that its not comparable. It's not our style. Style differences let us excuse a lot about the way we conduct ourselves. In this case there's not a lot to excuse, because our conduct has led directly to this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Oh boy, it sure is fun debating which war crimes are worse. The US has style, we outsource the worst of our war crimes to locals
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
What are the odds the ol' Shi'ia death squads get fired up soon and just start gunning down Sunnis because they're Sunni? Also, do you think these public executions of hundreds of soldiers will make the Iraqi Army a little less likely to surrender going forward?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Except the point was about ISIS executing surrendering soldiers, something that every army in the world has done. From my understanding they didn't gun down soldiers trying to surrender, they captured, disarmed, trucked to a ditch, and then shot over a thousand soldiers. That's the sort of poo poo that happened during WWII, it's not something "every army in the world has done," especially at that scale. Oh I forgot to add that first they sorted the soldiers out by sect and then they drove the ones belonging to the wrong one to the ditch and shot them. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Was what the USA did better, or worse than the Katyn Massacre? How about what ISIS did? What about if hypothetically every Soviet soldier involved was a helicopter? What about if hypothetically every Polish soldier involved was a helicopter? This is important for talking about Middle East news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Obsidius posted:Comparing these ISIS conducted killings to the Apache shooting a bunch of guys is boggling my mind, one situation is probably an attempt at genocide while the other was murder, both very wrong but still not something that you can really call out to compare in an argument. It rules how language is employed to dismiss the killing of surrendering fighters, here. Anyway, nobody is arguing that the death of a few people is anyway near as bad, or worse, than the killing of a whole lot more; however if you take some time to think about it I think you'll find that two incidents in which surrendering soldiers were killed are comparable in at least a few important ways, such as the fact that surrendering/surrendered soldiers/prisoners were both killed in them, and that these acts are bad as a consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:What are the odds the ol' Shi'ia death squads get fired up soon and just start gunning down Sunnis because they're Sunni? Pretty drat high and yes respectively. If anyone wants to vomit, Tony "Ratfucker" Blair just put up an essay saying that current events certainly don't have anything to do with anything that might have happened to 2003. http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Anyway this derail should've been over a page ago, because you've moved from "not comparable" to "not the same scale!" and "not the same method!" which, you're correct, the United States did not do exactly the same action down to the footwear and mode of travel, well spotted. The salient point the original poster made was that ISIS had killed surrendering soldiers, which was exceptionally bad. Except it's not exceptional, as we've painstakingly elaborated just for you. The "US" as in the US government, didn't do that. Some soldiers did. Same situation as Haditha. Dumb poo poo decision by a handful of people, and in a lot of cases, they were caught and payed the price for it. The US failed to maintain accountability in a lot of situations, but there's also a lot of people sitting in prison for the rest of their lives for crimes they committed against the Iraqi people. What happens to ISIS soldiers who stick their enemies heads on a pike? Jack poo poo. ISIS at a command level supports wholesale slaughter. It is part of their policy, and they applaud it. They use it to portray themselves as a barbarian horde to spread fear. Which is very similar to the US occupation because, This is seriously one of the most pointless, and irrelevant false equivalencies I've ever seen. Would you go to the holocaust museum and just randomly shout out THE US HAD CONCENTRATION CAMPS TOO
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Tony Blair is a sniveling poo poo? Is the sky blue as well?Volkerball posted:Would you go to the holocaust museum and just randomly shout out THE US HAD CONCENTRATION CAMPS TOO I'd be cool with a US atrocities museum, actually. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The "US" as in the US government, didn't do that. Some soldiers did. Same situation as Haditha. Dumb poo poo decision by a handful of people, and in a lot of cases, they were caught and payed the price for it. The US failed to maintain accountability in a lot of situations, but there's also a lot of people sitting in prison for the rest of their lives for crimes they committed against the Iraqi people. What happens to ISIS soldiers who stick their enemies heads on a pike? Jack poo poo. ISIS at a command level supports wholesale slaughter. It is part of their policy, and they applaud it. They use it to portray themselves as a barbarian horde to spread fear. Which is very similar to the US occupation because, The American government is responsible for the conduct of its soldiers. You're right, some soldiers did indeed do the thing, not the abstract entity that is the American government. If. you've gotten to the point where you believe that condemnation of human rights abuse by parties other than very-obviously-evil people is an endorsement of the aforementioned evil practices, there's not a lot more to say quote:This is seriously one of the most pointless, and irrelevant false equivalencies I've ever seen. Would you go to the holocaust museum and just randomly shout out THE US HAD CONCENTRATION CAMPS TOO 
illrepute fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The "US" as in the US government, didn't do that. Some soldiers did. Same situation as Haditha. Dumb poo poo decision by a handful of people, and in a lot of cases, they were caught and payed the price for it. The US failed to maintain accountability in a lot of situations, but there's also a lot of people sitting in prison for the rest of their lives for crimes they committed against the Iraqi people. What happens to ISIS soldiers who stick their enemies heads on a pike? Jack poo poo. ISIS at a command level supports wholesale slaughter. The brigade CO was absolutely in the loop in the Crazy Horse 18 surrender-murder incident, if your standard is "command-level support". And frankly I don't know of any reason any higher-level personnel would have disagreed with the call, it's not like the brigade CO was punished or anything either. We found out about that one because a low-level grunt stole a bunch of secret data and released it to the media, not because the US did the right thing. Nor are there really a whole lot of instances where such crimes were punished, except in the most exceptional instances (usually when it blew up so bad in the media/public opinion that someone had to take a fall over it). Even you note that fact ("the US failed to maintain accountability in a lot of instances"). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Tony Blair is a sniveling poo poo? Is the sky blue as well? It could actually be a pretty cool museum, but good luck getting it funded!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The American government is responsible for the conduct of its soldiers. Isn't that the entire point of respondeat superior?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Well, that's not what the lawyers (and the brigade CO, who was in the loop and approved the call) told the Apache crew, it wasn't the basis of the decision. Here's the incident report: So we again have another selective quote. quote:221233FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 REPORTS AIF GOT INTO A DUMPTRUCK HEADED NORTH, ENGAGED AND THEN THEY CAME OUT WANTING TO SURRENDER. At the time they were cleared to engage they had already reported that the truck was on the move again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Niedar posted:At the time they were cleared to engage they had already reported that the truck was on the move again. I know, right! They probably should have accepted that surrender and gotten parties on the move to take them in instead of hanging around overhead doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
I seriously, don't even know what the point of these equivalencies is. To argue that ISIS is no worse than the US or Maliki's government? If you think so, say so.To convince D&D posters that shooting surrendering soldiers is bad? To be contrary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
This last page is total poo poo just so you know 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Can you all just shut the gently caress up please?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 03:30
|
|