The War on Terror - Page 3

October 19th, 2004  
Originally Posted by Big_Z
lol, what did China talk about Tiawan? Get your point straight.
October 20th, 2004  

Topic: LEAD with LEAD

Lead and the rest of the world will follow! The following is from The American Dream, What Is It?

"The rest of the world has watched us become the driving force for the whole human race. They know freeing the individual and making the government serve at the consent the governed has established us as the worlds leader."

We can not wait for the rest of the world to agree, they will follow when we are successful.
October 20th, 2004  
True, but that quote is a good reason why most countries dont like the US.
October 20th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
Originally Posted by Big_Z
True, but that quote is a good reason why most countries dont like the US.
I remember a really important history lesson about this matter. As WWII formed, the US made sure to keep out of world affairs by practicing isolationism. "Let the world deal with its own problems" was the motto of my country. I will save the details, but the world could not solve its own problems and the US was dragged into a life and death struggle to save the world. With the help of our allies, we were able to win the war.

The world did not have the spine to deal with Hitler and Japan then nor does the world have much of a spine for terrorism today. Thank God for our allies for sticking it out with us. There is an old army saying, "Lead by example."
October 20th, 2004  
The world we live in will be different and worse off without the US.

October 20th, 2004  
Haganah staged attacks on British troops (among others) stationed in what is now Israel.
Better call them insurgents or combatants then hey?

Huh? Attacking troops is not terror. PLO insurgents shooting at IDF troops and killing them is not terror. Its Gurrila Warfare. And I see nothing wrong with it. However, when you attack civilians on purpose in order to achieve political goals, than its terror. The Jewish underground that attacked civilian targets is ETZEL. Even they did it only on a few occasions, and always warned before the explosives were detonated. Still, they were terrorists. And if I may remind you, the Jewish population and the Hagana did notaproove of these actions, and even gave up some ETZEL members to the Brits.

This is offtopiic. If you wish to further discuss it, Im very willing, but open a new topic in Military History...
October 20th, 2004  
Often it is just too hard to distinguish Civilians from Military personel.

Can you call a Soldier without military uniform a Civilian?

Or you mean: When a soldier is not on uniform and is not holding his weapons then he is civilian and nobody is allowed to kill him?

Also, without support of Civilians there will not be any military operations possible at all.

The point is:
When a nation is at war, both her Civilians and Military personel are at war at the same time.
October 20th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
I disagree 100% with your reasoning.

Civilian Targets

The World Trade Centers
Cafes in Isreal
Schools in Russia
Theaters in Russia
Trains in Spain
Subways in Japan

Military Targets

The Pentagon
All troops
Govnerment buildings
Military aircraft.

"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol"

That is straight from the Geneva convention

In war, civilians are going to die. It is the specific targeting of civilians that is illegal
October 20th, 2004  
Geneva convention, yes, Geneva convention says this and that.

But in practices, during Korea and Vietnam wars, USA troops simply killed A LOT OF civilians, they simply said: they cannot distinguish civilians from militaries, maybe they don't care at all.

The issue is (again):
Your nation is at war, so both your civilians and militaries are ONE, supporting your nation's war, if not ALL of the people, at least the majority of the people.

Also, in "democracies", civilians have RIGHT to stop wars, don't they?

Also, if your nation wins the war, your civilians will benefit from this winning, if your nations loses the war, your civilians will pay for the price too.

Also, fact is: many civilians PRODUCE or HELP to PRODUCE the weapons for their militaries to KILL enemy.

SO: if you want nobody to suffer from the war, better stop the war.
October 20th, 2004  
Mark Conley
hmm well the way i see it a combatant can be identified from a non-combatant easily...

If they have a gun in their hand..they are a combatant.

if the people were found in the war area unarmed..and the guns been been found a few feet away..well i guess they would be unarmed combatants.

if they had no weapons at all..found in a war zone where they could be shot or killed..well either they are a non-combantant that couldn't move very fast..wouldn't move very fast...weren't where they belonged...or were totally in the dark about what was going on.

personally..i find the asian or eastern people to very intelligent and knowledgable. so the last answer ain't in the equation.

i believe that in this case of korea..there were absolutely no innocent people on either side Flying Frog.