Should Our Troops Be Expected To Die To Spare Iraqi Civilians?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. The war on terror has already shown us that existing international rules concerning treatment of detainees and illegal combatants are inadequate. The rules were written for a WW II type conflict, not for a situation where individual terrorist cells might have the means to take out entire cities.

    Now in the aftermath of the Iraq fiasco and the Israel-Hezhbollah conflict, we see that the rules concerning the protection of civilians are also inadequate. What is a civilized country to do when it is fighting terrorists or insurgents who use civilians as shields, who retreat to mosques or hospitals and use them as armories or who disguise themselves among the civilian population? All these actions are war crimes, but neither the media nor the international community seem interested, not when they can point the finger at Israel and the US and wail about civilian casulaties.

    Our choices seem to be to avoid these situations, thereby handing the terrorists a huge victory, fight with one hand behind our backs and expose our soldiers to needless risk or defy the media and international community and wage all-out WW II type war with scant regard for collateral damage. I believe how we answer this dilemma will have an enormous impact on our chances of success in this fight.
     

  2. You're reading off the liberal propaganda press. america and israel care about civilian casualties, NOT because they're humane. There are infinite incidences where it's been proven that Israelis do target civilians when their opponents are behind the civilians, as evidenced by the total flattening of numerous civilian housing projects in lebanon. The same goes for america.

    In the case of Israel, the propaganda of not targeting civilians is important because it has to mind the "feelings" of its host nations that send it Multiple Billions in grant money every year. If the Israelis are seen to blatantly target civilians ( like they normally do anyways ), the populations in the host countries will arise and change the leadership. And the new leadership might not be as "friendly" in terms of giving free Billions and arms.

    In the case of america, the the propaganda of not targeting civilians is important because of fragile puppet regimes that america has propped up in the region. If there are too many Iraqi civilian casualties, those regimes will be gone the next day. Case in point, america flattens entire villages in Afghanistan and no one cares. it doesn't even make the news. In Iraq there is so much arab media, that the news gets out even before it happens.

    Don't confuse the propaganda the liberal media feeds you as fact.