Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, May 22, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Again, again, again. It never ends.
I seem to remember similar excuses offered up by the VJ to the KVM in Kosovo!!!!
I suspect it happened in other wars, WW2 for example.
Guess we'll just have to stop fighting, scrap the military and be nice to everyone.
Of course it happens all the time. And as long as you're on the 'winning' side you're pretty safe from justice.
And if the taliban were hiding amongst the civilians as claimed, the guilty are indeed dead, along with those they put into the line of fire. Nice chaps eh.
'Orrible thing war, isn't it. Just make sure you're on the 'winning' side, or of a senior enough rank to push blame downhill.
War happens. Sh1t kills. or something like that
Or following the GC, which my understanding has rules against hiding armed forces amongst non-combatants and again if I remember correctly clearly states that by deliberately doing so the taleban are breaking the GC (nothing new there). If the villagers let the taleban in willingly and helped them then they become combatants, although I would be surrpised if a village had the capability to defend themselves if armed 'militants' (terrorists, illegal combatants, what ever) turn up and demand sanctury.
At least thats how I understand it, not being a lawyer I'm sure I've missed some important parts, so .. no, the US could lose this and still be in the 'right' of it. Thats if there were combatants in that village and if they were using it as a base of ops.
The Taliban signed the GC???? When did that happen?
In fact when did any Terrorist sign the GC? And since when have the septics cared who they bomb?
Yes, yes. I appreciate all that. I haven't got my point across at all. Ignoring the fact that the Taleban haven't signed the GC, and never likely too either, as AF1771 points out - why is it that when the VJ acted against KLA terrorists/insurgents they were condemned, discussed in the UNSC, bombed and then summoned by the ICTY? Either it's right, or it's wrong, or it depends on whether your on the 'winning' side or not!
And even if it's OK tactically, it's best not to upset your 'partners' strategically:
Precisely the same argument the Serbs used to justify the attacks on Srebrenica and the other UN "Safe Areas" a decade or so ago too. Like Merkator said, how the action is ultimately viewed depends greatly on who wins.
I think this is more to do with following certain niceties and Karzai trying to convey the impression to the country that he's actually running the place and has some say in what NATO does.
And if their claim was right, that the UN "safe areas" where being used by Bosnian militia as base of operations , they had a point, the UN had allowed (as the controlling authority) the areas to become legitimate targets (could it be argued the UN was in breach of the GC?). That didn't excuse the killing of non-combatants they commited but would have excused the attack itself.
How the action is ultimately viewed usually depends on what kind of spin the news put on it , given the current climate most probably 10 years from now it will be "US butchers thousands of civilians over night in mass genocide against innocent babies!".
Again and again we seem to miss the real issue here - did this action recruit more enemies than it killed ? If it did we're going to lose no matter how many bodies we stack up. This war will be won or lost in the information battlespace, not by kinetic actions. Until we accept this and make sure that every kinetic action has a positive impact in the information war we're never going to win.
Couldn't agree more.
Separate names with a comma.