[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

On 9/11, the civilians instead of the world trade centers were the targets. Don't attempt to make a moral equivalence.

I was responding to "this is really war. and in war there will be calateral damage. thats just life..." Callous, don't you think? I don't see how it can't offend 9/11 families. They took "collateral damage" in this war of terror (declared loud and clear by both sides well before 9/11), did they not? If we deny 9/11 caused collateral damage by insisting everyone rippled by a military action is a target, then our generals may as well just shut their eyes and stick pins in a spinning globe. Anyway, superart has explained himself, or not.

About moral equivalence. Well. Without first holding others to basic equality with oneself, and then rating their acts against one's own standards (or acts), how does one pass judgement? Do you "just know"? Does a little voice tell you? No, especially the worst of men deserve real justice in all its terrible comprehension of their place among us. You can't weigh them in isolation. Scales of Justice, you know? As it is we're helping them evade justice, and die not like judged human beings, but like lions, thanks to the moral cowardice of those who evade the scales themselves.

"Don't attempt to make a moral equivalence." Now you tell me why not, Lothar5150.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Freedom and democracy are the magic words. However, you don’t have to allow foreign-born people participate in your system.

But sovereign countries must allow foreign fighters, in the name of Freedom and Democracy? Revolutionary invaders plowing through borders for causes other than Freedom and Democracy are the bad guys?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The only obligation of a democratic election is to provide an opportunity to vote and participate. Individuals may chose not to participate, but that does not make the process illegitimate.

300,000 Sunnis out of Falluja will not make it to the local polling stations, or they will boycott the elections, but that will be their choice. Voting with their feet. Let's see if other Sunni cities "choose" not to participate, despite the best military efforts to convince them. Watch this unfold.

Wouldn't it be easier to employ specially constructed "stress position" polling booths in just the pro-Ba'ath party areas? This way voters could more simply "choose" whether or not to participate, and go back to their normal lives. This would cost little to all concerned, and, as you say, would not make the process illegitimate because the electorate had a "choice". No "WTF" please. I'm curious to see how this computes.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Wouldn't you rather shoot dead a few disobedient CBS cameramen than demolish an entire hospital of Iraqis? Surely this could have been arranged.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

WTF are you smoking.

You wanted to stop (unfavourable) propaganda broadcast from the hospitals, especially that bandied by liberal media. Neutralise just the broadcasts or neutralise the whole hospital along with staff and patients, liberal reporters, and perhaps rebels among them. Why can't you grasp this simple choice?

Let's pare it down then. Choose between sacrificing a few Americans in Iraq, vs. a few Iraqis (e.g. collateral damage). If you wish, you may imagine a crucial military objective is at stake, and one nationality or the other has to be sacrificed, civilians all. Don't deny this value. It looms over every strategic decision and a good many combat decisions too. Who is less expendable? The American or the Iraqi? If you answer just one of my questions, answer that one.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I'm sure one of our predators spotted the insurgents building deliberate defensive positions at the hospital. Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out.

"In what might mark the beginning of a major offensive to reclaim Fallujah, Iraqi special forces stormed the main hospital on the western edge of the city overnight, blindfolding some people and kicking down doors. No shots were fired."

...

"Several hundred Iraqi troops were dispatched into Fallujah's main hospital after U.S. forces sealed off the area. The troops held about 50 men of military age inside the hospital, but about half were later freed.

According to The AP, Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the injured but they refused.

"The American troops' attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance," he said by telephone. "But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance."

OK. And now the hospital's been taken. Combatants are defending the hospital. According to you, this sets conditions for "an old propaganda trick". I can just hear the suicide bomber's spokesman, after that hospital gets blown to bricks with a car bomb: "Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out."

Get it? In your confused efforts to rationalise this, you apologise for barbarism. I don't like them either, and it irks me America has become a champion of terrorist values.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Well you got a straight-talking Republic to the south, full of people who don’t bow or scrape to a queen, king or dictator…We are free people down here, I guess you will have to suck it up.

This is good and I admire it. Truly.

Originally Posted by unregistered

what I think is not relevant to its cause, process, or conclusion

I'm pretty sure you know. You understand macro-economics. You know your dollar.

You know the exit conditions.