Take off the gloves

[Andaluciae]

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.

That is if you even get it into the poor sap.

[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?

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

Afghanistan is a bit larger than an oil fire so proportionatley speaking it sounds totally justified.

[North Suran]

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.

Nah; it's more of a "Cutting off the finger of someone else's hand before your lose a finger".

[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.

Afghanistan is a bit larger than an oil fire so proportionatley speaking it sounds totally justified.

The analogy has derailed.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom.

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

[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?

A three pointed bayonette actually just has a slightly raised edge where the flat normally is, its no more difficult to remove but the wound is difficult to treat and

almost always fatal.

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.

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

[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.

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.

iz need statisticz

[North Suran]

The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom.

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

They have to fight and die for their right to die.

*nods*

[North Suran]

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

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

As opposed to those other, non-lethal bayonettes which just tickle you?

[Des-Bal]

The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom.

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

Yes, being tortured, killed, or having their loved ones killed. Not much of a choice I admit but my horrible selfish view is that if you try to kill my people I am going to kill you. This is not television I don't care about your backstory.

[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?

A three pointed bayonette actually just has a slightly raised edge where the flat normally is, its no more difficult to remove but the wound is difficult to treat and

almost always fatal.

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.

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

Except for the fact that bayonets have been obsolete, especially single-purpose bayonets, since New Orleans. They're a shock weapon to be used in an advancing formation, against a defending formation. So, tell me, why would I want to use three pointed bayonets?

[Des-Bal]

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

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

As opposed to those other, non-lethal bayonettes which just tickle you?

No, the wound from a two bladed bayonette is very clean, it can usually be treated by a field medic a jagged wound can't be stitched or bandaged easilly and usually results in death.

[Krazniastan]

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.

Agreed.

The lowest estimates I've heard 1 million American causalities and 10 million Japanese dead in a ground invasion. Nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima did save lives.

[Tkdkidsx2]

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!"

Not necessarily, as war is on a different scale, and has laws to go along with it. Few cases of murder and rape have laws governing how to perform said acts, unless one is paid to commit these acts. Also, war crimes take place during a war, so there is a bit of difference there as well... unless you kill someone while you rape them... or vise versa....

[Buffett and Colbert]

The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom.

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

Yes, being tortured, killed, or having their loved ones killed. Not much of a choice I admit but my horrible selfish view is that if you try to kill my people I am going to kill you. This is not television I don't care about your backstory.

What an enlightened way to go about things.

[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?

A three pointed bayonette actually just has a slightly raised edge where the flat normally is, its no more difficult to remove but the wound is difficult to treat and

almost always fatal.

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.

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

Except for the fact that bayonets have been obsolete, especially single-purpose bayonets, since New Orleans. They're a shock weapon to be used in an advancing formation, against a defending formation. So, tell me, why would I want to use three pointed bayonets?

Bayonettes are still employed, the M-4 carbine is specially modified to have a bayonette affixed.

[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?

A three pointed bayonette actually just has a slightly raised edge where the flat normally is, its no more difficult to remove but the wound is difficult to treat and

almost always fatal.

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.

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

Except for the fact that bayonets have been obsolete, especially single-purpose bayonets, since New Orleans. They're a shock weapon to be used in an advancing formation, against a defending formation. So, tell me, why would I want to use three pointed bayonets?

Bayonettes are still employed, the M-4 carbine is specially modified to have a bayonette affixed.

The M9 bayonet, though, is a slashing blade, and a last ditch weapon. The tri-blade bayonet is a stabbing blade. Stabbing bayonets have gone the way of the dinosaur.

[Des-Bal]

The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom.

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

Yes, being tortured, killed, or having their loved ones killed. Not much of a choice I admit but my horrible selfish view is that if you try to kill my people I am going to kill you. This is not television I don't care about your backstory.

What an enlightened way to go about things.

I apologize if I don't have the time to establish commitees to interview every terrorist and tell me what individual level of force is justified and then radio back to my soldiers taking sniper fire and tell them if their allowed to shoot back. My terms of engagement are Engage.

[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?

A three pointed bayonette actually just has a slightly raised edge where the flat normally is, its no more difficult to remove but the wound is difficult to treat and

almost always fatal.

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.

A three pointed bayonette actually has a raised edge on the flat, like that of many swords, the only real difference is the wound is almost always fatal.

Except for the fact that bayonets have been obsolete, especially single-purpose bayonets, since New Orleans. They're a shock weapon to be used in an advancing formation, against a defending formation. So, tell me, why would I want to use three pointed bayonets?

Bayonettes are still employed, the M-4 carbine is specially modified to have a bayonette affixed.

The M9 bayonet, though, is a slashing blade, and a last ditch weapon. The tri-blade bayonet is a stabbing blade. Stabbing bayonets have gone the way of the dinosaur.

I believe CQB still has plenty of use for a sharp under the ribs.

[North Suran]

Do you LISTEN to yourself? Do you honestly think that facing the prospect of torture, death, or death of loved ones provides for a CHOICE in such matters?

Yes, being tortured, killed, or having their loved ones killed. Not much of a choice I admit but my horrible selfish view is that if you try to kill my people I am going to kill you. This is not television I don't care about your backstory.

What an enlightened way to go about things.

I apologize if I don't have the time to establish commitees to interview every terrorist and tell me what individual level of force is justified and then radio back to my soldiers taking sniper fire and tell them if their allowed to shoot back. My terms of engagement are Engage.

You seem to have a rather narrow point of view regarding what constitutes a non-combatant.

[North Suran]

Bayonettes are still employed, the M-4 carbine is specially modified to have a bayonette affixed.

The M9 bayonet, though, is a slashing blade, and a last ditch weapon. The tri-blade bayonet is a stabbing blade. Stabbing bayonets have gone the way of the dinosaur.

I believe CQB still has plenty of use for a sharp under the ribs.

When, pray tell, would this mythical bayonette be of any use?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I apologize if I don't have the time to establish commitees to interview every terrorist and tell me what individual level of force is justified and then radio back to my soldiers taking sniper fire and tell them if their allowed to shoot back. My terms of engagement are Engage.

If a soldier is in the direct line of fire, he is entitled to use lethal force for his protection. The source of the danger can be taken out. But using disproportional force and targeting civilians is against international standards and should be against a human being's moral code. If an insurgent or someone of the sort is detained, then you most certainly have time for those little committees you talked about, otherwise known as military commissions or trials.

[Krazniastan]

The M9 bayonet, though, is a slashing blade, and a last ditch weapon. The tri-blade bayonet is a stabbing blade. Stabbing bayonets have gone the way of the dinosaur.

The M-9 can be used as a stabbing bayonet. Its more of a field knife or combat blade than a true bayonet however.

[Jenrak]

What functions as part of a legitimacy to go to war against an opponent is the fact that you are right in your actions to go to such a war. The moral rights are also part of that; empires have fallen into disfavour because of phenomenons such as ideological terrorism and tactics such as Satyagraha were developed. The erosion of legitimacy is an oft moral problem for larger forces, so someone going on the defensive is not wise to stoop themselves to the level of their enemies. What good are we, if part of our reason to fight is to combat the monstrosity of our enemy's nature? If we are monstrous as well, then we've lost a part of that legitimacy.

A part of the Vietnam War's eventual loss was a factor of this legitimacy. It didn't matter that we were winning the battles; application of mass bombings, village murders by the wide-scale and use of biological and chemical weaponry without well-backed arguments for such a thing eroded support for the American war effort. It went from a war of ideologies pressed into a civil war into a sham because part of why we were there in the first place became pointless.

Furthermore, taking off the gloves are never a good tactic in wars where the enemies are unequal in their power. If we are stronger than the opponent, we do not use their tactics. They use their tactics because they are the weaker opponent. They cannot express their ideals, desires or goals without using these tactics. However, we can. If we can, we cannot do it. This is the theory of the relativity of weapons. When we have weapons aimed at us, we take a defensive stance. If we are stronger, we don't use their tactics. If vice versa of situation, then vice versa of power.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Nah; it's more of a "Cutting off the finger of someone else's hand before your lose a finger".

Is it wrong that I would willingly cut off your finger to save my finger? I have no objections to trading ten of their civillians for one of my soldiers and that ratio seems hyperbolic by comparison to the actual cost.