Take off the gloves

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

[Des-Bal]

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?

Of course because of terms of engagement an under armed terrorist often closes with soldiers to avoid an open firefight.

[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".

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.

Their civilians are non-combatants - unarmed, untrained and living in a society that is close to total collapse.

Your soldiers either volunteered or were conscripted, knowing full well what dangers are entailed by joining the military. They are armed and trained.

So now, are these unarmed civilians apparantly more deserving of death than your armed soldiers?

[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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

[North Suran]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

So you're essentially admitting that you are a hypocrite.

I think we're done here.

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

Let me rephrase. Do you think its fair game for them to use your standard?

[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.

Their civilians are non-combatants - unarmed, untrained and living in a society that is close to total collapse.

Your soldiers either volunteered or were conscripted, knowing full well what dangers are entailed by joining the military. They are armed and trained.

So now, are these unarmed civilians apparantly more deserving of death than your armed soldiers?

Yes because mine are mine. My duty is to them first if I can help the other guys then I'll do so by all means.

[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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

Let me rephrase. Do you think its fair game for them to use your standard?

Let me repeat. Of course.

[North Suran]

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.

Their civilians are non-combatants - unarmed, untrained and living in a society that is close to total collapse.

Your soldiers either volunteered or were conscripted, knowing full well what dangers are entailed by joining the military. They are armed and trained.

So now, are these unarmed civilians apparantly more deserving of death than your armed soldiers?

Yes because mine are mine. My duty is to them first if I can help the other guys then I'll do so by all means.

You cannot directly 'trade' civilians for soldiers.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

So you're essentially admitting that you are a hypocrite.

I think we're done here.

How is that done? You're either a hypocrite or your callous. If the time comes for me to decide between your finger and mine then I don't expect you to take it lying down and should someone come for my finger they can expect the same treatment.

[Andaluciae]

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?

Of course because of terms of engagement an under armed terrorist often closes with soldiers to avoid an open firefight.

Most of the Talibs usually avoid coming into contact with Allied soldiers. Usually opting for random mortar strikes or IED's. Not ninja-style attacking.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Their civilians are non-combatants - unarmed, untrained and living in a society that is close to total collapse.

Your soldiers either volunteered or were conscripted, knowing full well what dangers are entailed by joining the military. They are armed and trained.

So now, are these unarmed civilians apparantly more deserving of death than your armed soldiers?

Yes because mine are mine. My duty is to them first if I can help the other guys then I'll do so by all means.

You cannot directly 'trade' civilians for soldiers.

And I really hope I don't have to. If theres a sacrafice to be made then I'd rather they pay it.

[North Suran]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

So you're essentially admitting that you are a hypocrite.

I think we're done here.

How is that done? You're either a hypocrite or your callous. If the time comes for me to decide between your finger and mine then I don't expect you to take it lying down and should someone come for my finger they can expect the same treatment.

No, you're saying it is fair game to murder civilians if it saves your own soldiers, but you would object to an enemy applying this same philosophy.

Ergo, hypocrisy.

[Des-Bal]

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?

Of course because of terms of engagement an under armed terrorist often closes with soldiers to avoid an open firefight.

Most of the Talibs usually avoid coming into contact with Allied soldiers. Usually opting for random mortar strikes or IED's. Not ninja-style attacking.

Ninja-style may be an exaggeration but terrorist cells train their members to take out sentries and in ways to keep the enemy from engaging in earnest.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

So you're essentially admitting that you are a hypocrite.

I think we're done here.

How is that done? You're either a hypocrite or your callous. If the time comes for me to decide between your finger and mine then I don't expect you to take it lying down and should someone come for my finger they can expect the same treatment.

No, you're saying it is fair game to murder civilians if it saves your own soldiers, but you would object to an enemy applying this same philosophy.

Ergo, hypocrisy.

Thats not hypocrisy I do it and I expect them to be upset and if they tried the same with me I'd be just as upset.

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

Let me rephrase. Do you think its fair game for them to use your standard?

Let me repeat. Of course.

At least you're not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean that your standard isn't disgusting. What match are trained and equipped soldiers against unarmed civilians? What military objective to you gain by killing innocents? What goddamn MORAL objective to obtain?

Let me make a comparison. It's against US military and international law to take civilian hostages. How is threatening a nation to kill its citizens en mass (like using a nuclear weapon or conducting an air raid over a city) not essentially taking those people hostage?

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

So you're essentially admitting that you are a hypocrite.

I think we're done here.

How is that done? You're either a hypocrite or your callous. If the time comes for me to decide between your finger and mine then I don't expect you to take it lying down and should someone come for my finger they can expect the same treatment.

No, you're saying it is fair game to murder civilians if it saves your own soldiers, but you would object to an enemy applying this same philosophy.

Ergo, hypocrisy.

Except you're putting words into his mouth.

[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.

Would you have any problem with them using your standard?

Of course, I'd fight like hell. Thats the way it works if your looking for some kind of objective fairness you'll be disappointed. Killing one to save a thousand is always fair till you're the one. Human beings aren't robots capable of drawing a perfect line down the middle and saying that its fair for everyone.

Let me rephrase. Do you think its fair game for them to use your standard?

Let me repeat. Of course.

At least you're not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean that your standard isn't disgusting. What match are trained and equipped soldiers against unarmed civilians? What military objective to you gain by killing innocents? What goddamn MORAL objective to obtain?

Let me make a comparison. It's against US military and international law to take civilian hostages. How is threatening a nation to kill its citizens en mass (like using a nuclear weapon or conducting an air raid over a city) not essentially taking those people hostage?

When did this become about killing civillians, I said if thats what it came to I'd do it. I'm not even talking nuclear weapons I'm talking about simple things the hague convention bans.

[Andaluciae]

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?

Of course because of terms of engagement an under armed terrorist often closes with soldiers to avoid an open firefight.

Most of the Talibs usually avoid coming into contact with Allied soldiers. Usually opting for random mortar strikes or IED's. Not ninja-style attacking.

Ninja-style may be an exaggeration but terrorist cells train their members to take out sentries and in ways to keep the enemy from engaging in earnest.

Terrorist organizations have limited training capacity, and the skill required to kill a highly trained, well equipped, heavily armed and armored soldier is, needless to say, substantial. How many times have you heard of our infantry getting ninja'd over there, I mean, seriously?

[Des-Bal]

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?

Of course because of terms of engagement an under armed terrorist often closes with soldiers to avoid an open firefight.

Most of the Talibs usually avoid coming into contact with Allied soldiers. Usually opting for random mortar strikes or IED's. Not ninja-style attacking.

Ninja-style may be an exaggeration but terrorist cells train their members to take out sentries and in ways to keep the enemy from engaging in earnest.

Terrorist organizations have limited training capacity, and the skill required to kill a highly trained, well equipped, heavily armed and armored soldier is, needless to say, substantial. How many times have you heard of our infantry getting ninja'd over there, I mean, seriously?

Again I haven't seen anything ninja related but both domestic and afghan cells train in the use of Garrotte

Oh and Ironically everything you just said enforces a ninja-like background ninja were civillians trained in unconventional warfare to deal with enemies that were far superior in combat.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

[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?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

Because I'm aiming for terrorists.

That means its technically manslaughter.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

Because I'm aiming for terrorists.

That means its technically manslaughter.

I think you missed the point.

It's either war, or 'crime'. If it's a 'crime', it's not war.

The reason we don't 'take off the gloves' is because it's a nonsense. If we are attacked by Al Qaeda... who are we going to invade? We tried two different targets in the last ten years, and it turns out that freeform asymmetrical targets don't actually need to be limited to a nation.

[Neu Mitanni]

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?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

Because I'm aiming for terrorists.

That means its technically manslaughter.

Actually, you can wage total war against al-Qaeda. The problem is squeamish leadership that refuses to recognize what needs to be done and then do it.

[SaintB]

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?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

Keep in mind that one of their recruitment methods is to blow up schools, burn down fields, etc. in an attempt to leave people with the "choice" between joining them and starving to death. Are you suggestiung that perople forced into it like that should be massacred too?

First off, the whole "recruitment" theory is untenable in my view. Second, all the more reason to find and exterminate all AQ members, especially the leadership. Third, it's a false choice. 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. Fourth, if they're "forced" into it and happen to die, the responsibility for their deaths is on AQ, not us.

That's great logic, we might be killing them but its the enemy's fault.