MY question is would american's bomb a house with american children in it. Even if there are dangerous terriosts like al zaqari or osama inside. If not, why would they bomb a house with iraqi children inside? If its no, then my question is correct, iraqi's are worth less then american lives
Interesting moral dilemma. Certainly in WW II no thought was given to civilian casualities. Times have changed. I think in real life, a distinction would be made between innocent civilians and those aligned with al qaeda or insurgents. Of course, you have used the hypothetical of children to render that distinction moot, but in a war zone, collateral damage is inevitable. I recall reading an article which said that Clinton's CIA had isolated bin Laden at a remote training camp in Afghanistan and was prepared to assault the camp and hopefully grab him or at least kill him. There were children and families in the camp, although presumably belonging to terrorists. At the 11th hour, Clinton called off the attack because of the fear that children would be killed. I suppose you would agree with his decision, but most would now regard it as soft-headed.
But children by defination are innocent. They dont know better. By children I mean under the age of 7. And the nature of this war, is that its urban, and its more police action then any other thing. But in all honesty, would americans bomb a place they know americans civilians are living at. Like during the hieght of the iraq war, the americans knew saddam was using the place where the american reporters were living in, the hotel palestine as a safehouse operational center, it was an iraqi stronghold. Do you think the americans would have bomb the place. Not in a million years. Even if saddam was living in the hotel, a bombing would never in a million years be aurthorize. On the other hand, if saddam lived in a hotel, with 1000 iraqi civilians and children living inside, do you think the americans would hesistate for a second to not bomb it. They would say it was for the greater good right.
LOL sulong the diffrence, Im saying using bombs and other types of indirect weopens. that you know would kill both innocent and guilty life. Do you think in ruby ridge they would have bomb the place altogether that wouldnt risk any american soldiers life or do an assault that would risk an american soldiers life. My point in this thread there is clearly a distinction on the importance of american life over iraqi life. And duely so. An american soldier, has said an oath to protect americans, not iraqis. The US government has said an oath to protect americans , not iraqis. countries logicially put more worth on there own citizens. So why cant americans admit, in all honesty, if it means killing 500 innocent iraqis, to protect 1 american, its worth it. If osama was housed in a school house, do you think the americans would twitch at bombing the hell out of the place, no way. But if it was filled with american children, not in a million years.
The message should be (America or Iraqi): If you know there is a chance you ass might be blown up then do not hang out around your family. If I was in a situation where things could turn deadly and I knew I was being hunted, the last place I would be is around my family. But then again I actually care about the safety and well being of my family and do not want to see them get hurt by the consequences of my actions.
Yeah so your telling dirt poor people, who lost everything after you bomb their homes after war to move from whats left of their lives.
HMMM speaking of waco. Didnt the guys surround the place, and trie to negotiate. And i didnt see the fbi calling for airstrikes on the compound. Or throwing 1000 pound bombs into the compound.