IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Check the rhetoric on that one.
A targeting officer who decides where a missle should be delivered doesn't have perfect information about the target, but tries to act responsibly based on his training and the information he does have.
No one is talking about "perfect information". The discussion is about sending a cruise missle against a building with children in it.

His objective isn't to deliver a missile into an area containing children.
I doubt that many people get up in the morning and say to themselves "today, my objective will be to NOT kill any children".

What part of "high explosives" do you not understand?

The blew up a stadium here, recently. They used high explosives. It was in an urban area.

Do you know how much EFFORT and PLANNING they put into making sure that no one was around?

His objective is to see that a target is destroyed.
And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed.

But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children.

I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present.
Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY.

If, however, the enemy has intentionally placed civilians in a high-value military target, one that must be destroyed for the success of the mission, then the military would have little choice.
Nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. No one had YET brought up human shields. But you just had to in an attempt to justify your position.

No. No human shields. No children tied to tanks.

I'm talking about putting a cruise missle into downtown Baghdad where we KNOW there are innocent civilians.

Want to try to stay on topic?

How do you handle the real-world case in which military targets and civilians and civilian infrastructure are co-mingled?
Duh!!! Isn't that the topic under discussion? Did you manage to MISS that?

The US wants to invade Iraq.
The US is talking about sending HUNDREDS of cruise missiles into Baghdad.
There WILL be children killed.

So nice of you to join the conversation. Maybe you could read some of the thread?
New I'll try one more time....
before calling it quits.

Brandioch: And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed.

But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children.

Scott: I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present.

Brandioch: Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY.


And stadiums are often in cities. Your point?

Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them. Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy.

Cities are big. Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities. Bomb delivery and missiles are getting more accurate. Just because, someone somewhere in the Pentagon has proposed using 400 cruise missiles on Baghdad's infrastructure and military targets doesn't mean that the US is going to be deliberately targeting children.

You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children. I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties. It will be very difficult though. Especially if "human shields" are present - something you don't want to talk about.

I don't think our military is stupid enough to use cruise missiles if something smaller will do the job. E.g. IIRC, they took out a lot of the power grid the last time using carbon fibers dropped over the power lines...

That's about it from me on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Don't bother trying to confuse the issue.
And stadiums are often in cities. Your point?
Funny. I was using the example of high explosives being used in a city to demolish a stadium as an example of how responsible someone has to be when high explosives are used in a city.

And all you managed to get out of that was that a stadium was in a city.

Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them.
Yes. That is correct.

Incomplete, but correct.

Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy.
Again, correct, but incomplete.

Cities are big.
And water is wet and fire is hot and you're just going to continue filling in irrelevent details, aren't you?

Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities.
Yep. You are.

Have I ever said that cities weren't big? Have I ever said that children were uniformly distributed in them? No and No.

I guess it is too much to ask you to stay anywhere close to on topic, isn't it?

You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children.
Seem to believe? Have you missed the ENTIRE POINT of this thread?

I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties.
Cute.

They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children
-but-
They will be TRYING to minimize casualties.

Isn't that cute? It's trying to play semantic games. You swapped "casualties" for "killing children". Here's how you SHOULD have written it.

They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children
-but-
They will be TRYING to minimize killing children.

Then you can see the flaw in your logic.
New We're not firing at a city
A 5-megaton "city buster" would be "firing at a city". Carpet bombing would be "firing at a city". Cruise missiles are so expensive because they are designed to take out a target. A single building. Nothing else. So, we're not targeting "a city". We're targeting a very particular area in a city, a place where children or women or civilians MUST NOT BE PRESENT. Saddam has a lot of police and security force to keep "the rabble" away from his palaces and bunkers. I just don't see Saddam's headquarters filled with children happily running around. Centries all over the place, plainclothes walking the stree - yes. But not children.
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
New Re: We're not firing at a city
May I refer you to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78102|THIS]?
New try this one for context
[link|http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02spring/butler.htm"|this one]
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New If Saddam has half a brain,
he already has procedures in place on how to make sure Baghdad population survives w/o power or water for as long as he needs to win this war. It's not our problem to ensure that Baghdad population has fresh water and light, it's Saddam's problem. As long as we don't blow civilians up with high explosives, I think it's a fair game. It's war, after all, not diplomacy.

(Mind you, I don't think that this particular war is justified. We should not start it. But I hate the PC way of waging war in general.)
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
New Re: If Saddam has half a brain,
But you said "We're not firing at a city".

You just shifted your position.
New We're firing at very specific building in a city
Buildings in which civilians have no business whatsoever. Buildings that have ample security perimeters manned by guards whose job is to keep "the rabble" (aka civilians) out. We pay alot of money and attention to limit the damage to those buildings only. If Saddam cared the rat's ass about civilian population, he would have expanded the security perimeter by a few blocks and kept everybody out. We made our list of targets abundantly clear. If Saddam fails to take steps to protect his population, it's his fault.
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
New Heard a lengthy analysis yesterday of our 'Tactical Plan'
(natch the unClassified version. Natch.) This from a woman just back from Iraq, looking over the situation now re civilians, medical care, basic human needs -- after 12 years of embargo. "All Systems" are weak; there is little 'food storage for future' -- most sell the allotments from legit. oil sales ("Given them" by the "beneficence of Saddam"). Proceeds from such sales == the only means of purchasing meat (for just one thing). Yada & yada - she covered a huge amount of ground, by speaking concisely and intelligently about What she Saw.

All water in Iraq is electrically pumped. Our conducting chaff over powerlines - is so obvious it may be made into a Disney movie. People are trying to store water in 'bladders' against the likelihood nay certainty -- that much of the country's infrastructure shall be placed out of operation, and the likelihood that MONTHS shall elapse before a semblance of correction.

We may 'prevail' in this first strike. But there will be many thousands of civilian collateral damage (that euphemism to gag anyone) - from dysentery to a raft of other utterly predictable consequences. The techno details of our marvellous destructive capability - demonstrate Where we place most of our focus, right after 'selling things' that need [oil].

We are about to unleash a nightmare atop all the above duct-taped together civilian milieu. The US shall be Hated as never before. And Dubya's peculiarly bucolic and abrasive personality is the obv Focus for all that Rage. (We have no idea how many -and soon- are the next candidates on the Repo Hit List leading to WW-III.. with just a small next miscalculation).

If Saddam cares not for the civilian population (?) Obviously we care even less. Whatever that says about US and our lust for control of [oil], at any cost. No "yes, but..s" will be able to counter the post-First Strike Tee Vee evidence.


Unless.. Congress acquires some guts and aborts.


Ashton
New Maybe caution will prevail
and we will refrain from bombing power plants. But... Country's infrastructure is a legitimate target in a war. That's why a) we should not start this war and b) Saddam should do what he is told, up to and including exile. Militarily, he has no options. The only thing that allows him to remain defiant is his total disregard to Iraqi population's suffering. But then, that's nothing new. See "sanctions".
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
     Neither peace nor justice - the truth about the protestors - (marlowe) - (56)
         That's what you civilians don't understand. - (Brandioch) - (54)
             They also don't understand warlordism. - (tseliot) - (53)
                 Target "the people?" - (marlowe) - (52)
                     I forgot about the M16 the little vietnamese girl carried - (boxley) - (48)
                         I'm claiming there will be no more civilian casualties... - (marlowe) - (47)
                             Dont mistake me for a non warring party - (boxley) - (45)
                                 Big difference when you're on invasion rather than defense. - (Brandioch)
                                 Dead babies in the streets is a price... - (marlowe) - (43)
                                     This is what is called a "principle". - (Brandioch) - (42)
                                         sorry 2. Im for going in also -NT - (boxley) - (41)
                                             I want to you post that. - (Brandioch) - (40)
                                                 nice try - (boxley) - (39)
                                                     A generation that doesn't understand death. - (Brandioch) - (38)
                                                         Paying what price - (boxley) - (37)
                                                             F***ing cop out Bill - (dmarker) - (1)
                                                                 what copout? You believe that kicking a baby to death - (boxley)
                                                             "One is murder, the other is killing." - (Brandioch) - (34)
                                                                 Lost cause here Brandi - he just doesn't get it ... - (dmarker) - (3)
                                                                     How far away from a War is - far enough? (new thread) - (Ashton)
                                                                     Nice try no cigar - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         WTF? - (Brandioch)
                                                                 when was the last time the US was invaded - (boxley) - (29)
                                                                     NATO. Our allies. - (Brandioch) - (28)
                                                                         kettle pot, puke away - (boxley) - (27)
                                                                             Wow, a 100% content free post. - (Brandioch) - (26)
                                                                                 the priciple of qickly sidetepping valid points? - (boxley) - (13)
                                                                                     I think the opposite has been claimed. - (Brandioch) - (12)
                                                                                         When did I ever argue otherwise? - (boxley) - (11)
                                                                                             Here's a link that you might have forgotten about. - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                                                 we are getting ready to kill kids and you are wrong - (boxley) - (9)
                                                                                                     Awww, does it hurt when you're shown to be wrong? - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                                                                                         No need to apologise or capitulate, - (boxley) - (7)
                                                                                                             I do neither. And you've shifted your position. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                                                                 puke away, you just shifted YOUR position - (boxley) - (5)
                                                                                                                     Cute. But I can post references to your posts. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                         I did post a reference to that and you ignored it - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                             Make all the claims you want to. The proof is delivery. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                         Oh Christ, the magic man returns!! self referencing proves! - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                             Careful, you'll wake the Merlin - Paris, France. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 Information isn't perfect. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                                                                     Check the rhetoric on that one. - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                                         I'll try one more time.... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                             Don't bother trying to confuse the issue. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                         We're not firing at a city - (Arkadiy) - (7)
                                                                                             Re: We're not firing at a city - (TTC) - (6)
                                                                                                 try this one for context - (boxley)
                                                                                                 If Saddam has half a brain, - (Arkadiy) - (4)
                                                                                                     Re: If Saddam has half a brain, - (TTC) - (3)
                                                                                                         We're firing at very specific building in a city - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                                                                             Heard a lengthy analysis yesterday of our 'Tactical Plan' - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                                 Maybe caution will prevail - (Arkadiy)
                             Hey, in 150 years, they'll all be dead anyway. - (Brandioch)
                     Already been stated. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                         Is it possible for some of us to - (dmarker) - (1)
                             :) - (Brandioch)
         The exactsame dissembling occurred re Vietnam demonstrations - (Ashton)

Before such superhuman attainments of sustained triviality one stands in something like awe.
283 ms