Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

It's that kind of thinking that pisses me off so much, that just by being able to understand and explain something, the person explaining it automatically endorses it.

[Zangi]

You lost me at the part with "greater good" in it

I'm pretty sure their definition of "good" differs from mine

I'm pretty sure definitions can be plastered whatever way a person sees it.  So yea.

[10ebbor10]

war crimes are okay if they make strategic sense

got it

Look at recent history and tell me this isn't the case. The rules of war are only obeyed when they're in ones favor.

[Duuvian]

That's a slippery slope you're endorsing there.

[alway]

It's that kind of thinking that pisses me off so much, that just by being able to understand and explain something, the person explaining it automatically endorses it.

This.

[10ebbor10]

That's a slippery slope you're endorsing there.

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm merely stating a fact.

[Duuvian]

It's not really a fact though. Sure there are leaders who make shithead decisions that break the rules even when they aren't on the brink of defeat, like Phosphorus against civilians by Israel or torture in Guantanamo, but those were choice and not necessity.

It's more like they chose to add war crimes to their strategy even when they didn't have to.

Assad may be another argument; he might have felt he needed to use gas strategically. That was after the Libya intervention though and perhaps he thought the West would intervene and that he would have to liquidate his opposition as fast as possible. It turns out it was unnecessary due to support from abroad and was actually the cause of the closest call for Western military intervention against him.

In that instance it had the potential to hurt his cause much more than it helped it by most accounts.

All of those instances have created much more trouble than they are worth. While you are correct in saying war crimes were committed in recent times, I would argue they were not strategically valuable in that they were not necessary and in addition were in fact a detriment.

In either case though I would still venture to say, no, it's not okay to commit war crimes even when strategically valuable, especially if it is a matter of strategic convenience rather than the survival of millions so to speak. The lone exception I would say is perhaps a 'saving the world' example, where you nuke Racoon City. Unfortunately this brings my thoughts to the use of the atomic bombs upon Japan. As I have neither a time machine nor a dimensional transfer device I am forced to withold judgement of the choice to use that weapon; perhaps those people were nuked needlessly and a peace could have been reached or perhaps it saved a million people who would have died in the invasion of Japan and the subsequent first use and possible exchange of atomic weaponry against fellow humanity later in time than historically.

[Mech#4]

Eh, people like to bend the rules and exploit loop holes. Like in games and such, it doesn't specifically say that I can't do such and such, even if it really isn't that nice.

Spoiler: Bit of a ramble. (click to show/hide)

I remember reading for World War 1 there was actually laws against the usage of gas weaponry before the war started, however it was bypassed because it didn't say anything specifically against opening canisters which "just happened" to float gas over enemy lines. According to Wikipedia, the French were the first ones to use it, followed by Germany and Britain.

[penguinofhonor]

It's that kind of thinking that pisses me off so much, that just by being able to understand and explain something, the person explaining it automatically endorses it.

Maybe people should be more aware of context when they jump in with their "helpful" posts neutrally explaining something that everyone already knows. In a thread with so much active discussion, people are going to assume you're trying to participate in the discussion rather than stating pointless things for the sake of doing so.

[XXSockXX]

It's that kind of thinking that pisses me off so much, that just by being able to understand and explain something, the person explaining it automatically endorses it.

Maybe people should be more aware of context when they jump in with their "helpful" posts neutrally explaining something that everyone already knows. In a thread with so much active discussion, people are going to assume you're trying to participate in the discussion rather than stating pointless things for the sake of doing so.

Trying to neutrally explain stuff isn't pointless at all (I think I tend to do that sometimes). We are having a lot of discussions where some participants only know little about the actual matter, which tends to make the whole discussion a bit pointless. Maybe explanations need to be more recognizable as such, but without them we might end up arguing about non-issues and besides the point.

[penguinofhonor]

Some things need to be explained neutrally.  "Hamas is doing what they do because they think it's most effective" is obvious and does not need explained. Once again, awareness of context is key.

[DJ]

While you are correct in saying war crimes were committed in recent times, I would argue they were not strategically valuable in that they were not necessary and in addition were in fact a detriment.

If Serbs hadn't done ethnic cleansing, they wouldn't have got 49% of Bosnia's territory.

[Sergarr]

While you are correct in saying war crimes were committed in recent times, I would argue they were not strategically valuable in that they were not necessary and in addition were in fact a detriment.

If Serbs hadn't done ethnic cleansing, they wouldn't have got 49% of Bosnia's territory.

Derail ==> European thread.

[Sinistar]

Back on topic:

Hamas apparently ready for ceasefire as the funeral of killed Palestinian teenager draws closer

Meanwhile:
Iraq's Kurds push for independence referendum

30000 Saudi troop reportedly deployed along the Iraq borders

Last but not least - UK's top officials lack innovation, to copy Obama's dumb suggestion of arming moderate Syrian opposition when the time for anything like that is well past due Past UK's plan of training and arming Syrian moderate opposition revealed, it's late-time non-implementation still fails to make any difference.

[palsch]

Last but not least - UK's top officials lack innovation, to copy Obama's dumb suggestion of arming moderate Syrian opposition when the time for anything like that is well past due

The secret initiative, put forward two years ago, was the brainchild of the then most senior UK military officer, General Sir David Richards.

The plan itself was extensive and bold. They were going to extract Syrian fighters to bases in Turkey and Jordan, spend a year training them while forming a government-in-exile, then send the newly trained Syrian troops back in under cover of (presumably NATO) aircraft.