Bush's new "Snoop" Executive act

That is correct. Human life cannot be weighed because you come from a different country of origin. I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.

@TM:

That is correct. Human life cannot be weighed because you come from a different country of origin. I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.

too true. If i am a citizen of a country at war with another one, i will feel bad about their civilian casualties, but rather their civilians than our military or civilians become casualties. And if they lose a few civilians to end the war preventing more of my countrymen (and countrywomen’s) lives, well, although my gut feels squeamish, my head says que sera sera.

Name one situation we would have the need to kill “innocents” to protect our soldiers from getting killed.

@TM:

I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.

That’s was precisely my point. I didn’t say anywhere that American lives were more valuable than Japanese, but in times of war, the most important thing is protecting your own people. Japan was clearly the agressor, and it’s their own fault that they suffered so many casualities. The Japanese soldiers didn’t care if they died, as long as they killed American’s. Now how were we supposed to stop that? Bombing their city made a lasting impression on them, and they realized that they couldn’t beat us.

“Hiroshima
Nagasaki (sp)
Vietnam
Gulf War
Yugoslavia (1990s)”

In terms of strategic bombing this is a risk I’m willing to take (to save soldiers on the field), just as long as civilians weren’t the intentional targets (even with 1990’s Gulf War bombs did occasional miss their mark (you can also add Afgan if you want).

Yea, but how else to you stop an enemy who doesn’t care if they die?

make them care :)

WTF is wrong with talking to Stuffed Dogs! :) They are Awsome and there better then Real ones cus they dont poop, pee, bark, or make a mess!

and dont ever Diss Hans or Wolfgang again and if i ever catch u putting Bolshevik/Communist Pins in Wolf Gang again i will do more then hit u with a Coat Hanger!

and Falk how would u go about making them care? :roll:

Ewok, if i knew that i wouldn’t have placed a smiley at the end

LOL.

alrighty then :)

@Yanny:

So, according to you, its alright if we kill other innocents as long as it keeps our soldiers from gettng killed.

i don’t think i said that at all!!!

@Yanny:

So, according to you, its alright if we kill other innocents as long as it keeps our soldiers from gettng killed.

If your doing it to protected your “people” then I say, yes it is.

War is bad, no one has to have good feelings about it.

Why would I care for people in a far away land and not for people right in my own country.

No one gave a Shit about the "innocent’ people in Afghanistan before 9/11.
Suddenly, after 9/11 is hands across the desert for these people.

Now Im not saying dont care about the conditions that most of the population deal with , but if it comes down to theirs or ours…well there is absolutely no question.

And no I not saying go out of your way to kill them either.
Innocent lives always lost in modern warfare.

Colin Pow for 2004– I would vote for him! :wink: But for a Democrat, I dunno about that. Maybe he would be better off as a independent or Green Party (yeah, right! :D). I’m sure Colin hasn’t forgotten about what Clinton did to the military :x.

As for invading Iraq, I think President does have a good reason. Saddam is straving children in Iraq each day (and lets not forget about his war crimes against minorities and other political fractions). I remember that BC’s were forbidden only the Geneva Convention.