"Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"

I said that bombing a civilian
target with a nuke and killing thousands of civilians is a war crime.

Only if the military significance of striking said target is outweighed by the
civilian casulties. Who decides this? The victors, so if you strike a
predominantly civilian target (with conventional or nuclear weapons) and you
lose, you better hope you've got some good "data" to back up your call.

Do you understand now?

Uhh, you're the one who appears entirely clueless on this subject.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

cypher745 wrote:
Rats,


It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a communist.
Is it true?

I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

C'mon.....you're better than that. Please don't sink to his level; it's really
not necessary.

George Z.

"cypher745" wrote in message om...
Rats,
It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a communist.
Is it true?
I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

Now you've gotten me curious: Just what do his political convictions
have to do with his opinion about a means of waging war, or his
apparent hatred of the US? It is quite possible to not take political
beliefs to the point where they become automatic grounds for a holy
war against all those of opposing views.

I'm also forced to note that the way in which you refer to socialism
and communism implies that these views of the world are somehow
shameful. Am I reading too much into it, or is this true?

Rob

"cypher745" wrote in message
m...
Rats,


It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a
communist.
Is it true?

I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

Thank you.


Sure you didn't mean to use alluded? Otherwise your comment makes no sense.

Tex

I most certainly did intend use alluded. Serves me right for staying up till
3 am. I apologize for the confusion.



"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"cypher745" wrote in message
m...
Rats,


It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a
communist.
Is it true?

I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

Thank you.


Sure you didn't mean to use alluded? Otherwise your comment makes no
sense.

Tex

My statement,that I was just trying to understand his point of view, meant
just that.

I believe I have been nothing but respectful of my Kiwi friend. I was not
being judgmental. I was trying to understand his contention that the wars in
Korea, Viet Nam and to a lesser extent Iraq were unjust.


"cypher745" wrote in message
m...
Rats,


It has been eluded to on this board that you are a socialist or a
communist.
Is it true?

I only ask, because I am trying to understand your point of view.

Thank you.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:00:49 -0600, "S. Sampson"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

By that criteria, I'll still say little or no "carpet bombing" in SEA.

If you limit it to iron. The most common carpet bombing in Vietnam
was the defoliant chemicals.

Maybe there's a more correct term, as "bombing" seems to signify
explosives, rather than biological weapons.

It is a giant leap of language to translate defoliants into
"biological weapons"--In fact a slightly (but only slightly) lesser
assault on language would be to label defoliants as "chemical
weapons".

But, the essential assault is the implication that an herbicide is
somehow homicidal. When you kill the dandelions in your lawn with a
broadcast herbicide, are you somehow guilty of a version of genocide.

I certainly don't want to get into the debate about long term health
impacts of excessive exposure to Agent Orange, but I think we can all
agree that immediate physiological impact on humans (or even
livestock) from Agent Orange exposure was non-existant.

And, I don't think application of a "weapon" that doesn't have an
effect on the enemy for more than twenty years is tactically sound.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:34:32 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


Bombing the rain forest, as the B-52s did in Vietnam, is a bit of a
stretch but would probably qualify since the intention wasn't to hit
any specific thing on the ground, but to make areas of the ground
uninhabitable.

I'll disagee with that conclusion. Arc Light strikes were designed
against specific concentrations of enemy troops or supplies. Selection
of a target for an Arc Light strike was done by field commanders who
either had contact with enemy forces or intel to identify location of
enemy forces.

Had there been an intent "to make areas uninhabitable" the pattern of
Arc Light strikes would have been a lot more apparent.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:16:11 +1300, "Rats" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Does one of the last major IJ Naval bases, and an army division with
headquarters count?

http://history1900s.about.com/librar.../aa072700a.htm

Read this you American ignoramus.

I read it. It is an historical recounting of the two attacks. (Let me
note that your personal characterizations of posters to the thread
lend very little to your argument. Try to stay with unemotional facts,
and listen occasionally rather than rant.)

Note Ed Rasimus' post elsewhere in this thread. (If you don't care to,
the digest answer is, you have no argument.)

Read the above link and then come back and argue. I suspect you will have no
arguments.

I found nothing in the article to indicate a war crime or an intent to
do anything other than end the war without further incredible loss of
lives. A bit of study might disclose to you that the two bombs
resulted in fewer casualties than several other conventional
campaigns.

Soldiers have a duty to die. That is what they are there for. Civilians do
not ask to be bombed.

So, you are implying that I failed in my duty?

While civilian casualties and collateral damage are to be avoided,
they also are inevitable. That's one superiority of democracies over
other governments--the civilians get to have an input in the decision
on whether or not to engage in a war.

Once engaged, however, the obligation is to end the war conclusively
as quickly as possible.


I didn't say anything is better than nuclear. I said that bombing a civilian
target with a nuke and killing thousands of civilians is a war crime. Do you
understand now?

Bombing military targets and civilian operated industrial centers is a
necessary part of war. Failing to win the war is a crime.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:10:06 +1300, "Rats" wrote:


Rubbish. Soldiers have a duty to "die for their country". Innocent civilians
don't. As a soldier myself


RU ********. If you were what you claimed, then you'd be wholly aware of
article 28 of the 4th convention

"The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations."


I was ready to kill the enemy soldier and to die
at his hands if I failed. Dropping nukes on a civilian population is a war
crime.

Oh really ? Care to quote the audience the chapter and verse on that.


Do you hear any complaints from me regarding precision guided missiles?


Of course you will detail the stocks of precision guided missiles to hand
in 1945.

If I am out of line with that statement I apologize. But I don't think I
am.

You are.

Could I ask where you are from and why it is that you hate the US?

I am from NZ and I do not hate the US as much as I pity the fools

Ohh, it does 'Mr T' impressions also.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.