Take off the gloves

[Arresyl]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

[United Russian State]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Well if you're smart, you use your "fire" to put out the other person's fire.

But yea, stupid people always get burned while playing with fire.

[Galloism]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Shh. It sounds stupid when you say it like that.

[Nuevo Imperio Espanol]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Well if you're smart, you use your "fire" to put out the other person's fire.

But yea, stupid people always get burned while playing with fire.

OK, got me there. But, aren't those Soldier Grunts and Politicians pretty stupid sometimes?

[Greed and Death]

Yes we should respect the laws of war, however note my interpretation of them is very limited.

[Euroslavia]

Condoms.

Let's at least try and stay on topic, eh? I've noticed a decent amount of your posts haven't really had much to do with the discussion at hand. Keep that in mind when you decide to hit that reply button.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Is war not a great atrocity? Why not commit atrocities in a massive atrocity?

[Tkdkidsx2]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

Yep, I learned that a couple of years ago, when I was watching... oh crap... I just got facts from a cartoon show...

[North Suran]

Is war not a great atrocity? Why not commit atrocities in a massive atrocity?

That's akin to saying, "Aw Hell, I've already committed murder - may as well do a little rape too!"

[Krazniastan]

Some of them we, (the US) abide by. Others we extend to our enemies even though the laws don't apply to them.

I'd support the official issuing of JHP's for use in the M-9, M-11, and various .45's the military is using, and wouldn't think too much on allowing those captured fighters not wearing a recognized uniform to be executed as spies and saboteurs instead of treating them like a uniformed enemy.

I said official issuing of the JHP's, because unofficially they are already in use in pretty substantial numbers overseas, due to the better terminal effects than the NATO specification 124 gr ball (FMJ) and the US standard 230 gr ball (FMJ) round.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Is war not a great atrocity? Why not commit atrocities in a massive atrocity?

To make it less of an atrocity?

[Varazhdin]

Hey, I asked this question allready before...!!

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Don't mistake relaxing the enforcment of the Hague convention with random killing sprees. I'm talking about using weapons that are otherwise illegal against enemies that don't follow those laws. The law should protect only those that follow it.

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Don't mistake relaxing the enforcment of the Hague convention with random killing sprees. I'm talking about using weapons that are otherwise illegal against enemies that don't follow those laws. The law should protect only those that follow it.

what kind of thing do you have in mind?

we are already having quite a PR problem with the afghans due to collateral damage. dont we need to continue keeping it to a minimum?

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

so in your mind it is GOOD to kill civilians in order to stop those who kill civilians?

what is the difference between you and them?

Good and Evil are entirely subjective, you don't know which side you're on until someone wins.

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Don't mistake relaxing the enforcment of the Hague convention with random killing sprees. I'm talking about using weapons that are otherwise illegal against enemies that don't follow those laws. The law should protect only those that follow it.

what kind of thing do you have in mind?

we are already having quite a PR problem with the afghans due to collateral damage. dont we need to continue keeping it to a minimum?

I'm talking about teflon coated bullets, incendiary rounds, three pointed bayonets, weapons that we can't use against people with no inhibitions about strapping a bomb to a child and sending him into an embassy.

[Big Jim P]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Worked in WW2: See strategic bombing.

[Andaluciae]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

Yep, I learned that a couple of years ago, when I was watching... oh crap... I just got facts from a cartoon show...

It's most common with intense oil fires, where they literally set off a bomb, hoping to snuff out the flame.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Worked in WW2: See strategic bombing.

It working=/=it being right.

[Des-Bal]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

Yep, I learned that a couple of years ago, when I was watching... oh crap... I just got facts from a cartoon show...

It's most common with intense oil fires, where they literally set off a bomb, hoping to snuff out the flame.

Yes, and if the oil fire is particularly large why shouldn't I be permitted to use a particularly large bomb?

[Andaluciae]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Don't mistake relaxing the enforcment of the Hague convention with random killing sprees. I'm talking about using weapons that are otherwise illegal against enemies that don't follow those laws. The law should protect only those that follow it.

what kind of thing do you have in mind?

we are already having quite a PR problem with the afghans due to collateral damage. dont we need to continue keeping it to a minimum?

I'm talking about teflon coated bullets, incendiary rounds, three pointed bayonets, weapons that we can't use against people with no inhibitions about strapping a bomb to a child and sending him into an embassy.

Three pointed bayonets, like all other bayonets, sound pretty frickin' useless.

[North Suran]

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

Yep, I learned that a couple of years ago, when I was watching... oh crap... I just got facts from a cartoon show...

It's most common with intense oil fires, where they literally set off a bomb, hoping to snuff out the flame.

Yes, and if the oil fire is particularly large why shouldn't I be permitted to use a particularly large bomb?

So by your logic, the most justified response to 9/11 would be to nuke Afghanistan?

Right.

[Andaluciae]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Not if you handle it carefully.

What's sad is that really is a tactic for fighting literal fires. Something about the fire consuming fuel and oxygen, causing it to burn out. Fascinating, really.

Yep, I learned that a couple of years ago, when I was watching... oh crap... I just got facts from a cartoon show...

It's most common with intense oil fires, where they literally set off a bomb, hoping to snuff out the flame.

Yes, and if the oil fire is particularly large why shouldn't I be permitted to use a particularly large bomb?

Because even the largest oil fires only require a few pounds of TNT, nothing more.

[North Suran]

Don't mistake relaxing the enforcment of the Hague convention with random killing sprees. I'm talking about using weapons that are otherwise illegal against enemies that don't follow those laws. The law should protect only those that follow it.

what kind of thing do you have in mind?

we are already having quite a PR problem with the afghans due to collateral damage. dont we need to continue keeping it to a minimum?

I'm talking about teflon coated bullets, incendiary rounds, three pointed bayonets, weapons that we can't use against people with no inhibitions about strapping a bomb to a child and sending him into an embassy.

Three pointed bayonets, like all other bayonets, sound pretty frickin' useless.

Especially since you're going to have a Hell of a time yanking it back out.

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Worked in WW2: See strategic bombing.

It working=/=it being right.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic, but more civillians were killed in the preceding firebombing campaigns and an overland assault would have been tantamount to genocide. I submit that massive loss of life prevented a much larger catastrophe. I suppose thats an issue of cutting off the finger before you lose the hand.