wow. Really? Lies and distortion are your only defense here?
THIS thread concerns the question of the legality of using specific weapons systems in combat as opposed to other systems. You've already conceded that the weapons platform itself is morally neutral.
Since you are continuing to force the discussion away from this topic, you are indeed hijacking the thread.
What "distortions" and what "lies" are in the above statement?
I commented on the OP from the start.
Then you took a left turn.
You started in with deflections about talking about other weapons when other weapons were not on topic.
Wrong.
The issue was the legality of a specific weapons platform, and you've already conceded that it makes no difference which platform is used, hence the illegality of the RPV is a nonsensical claim by the UN goons.
Do you agree or disagree that the use of a specific weapons platform, vis a vis RPV v F-18 is irrelevant and since the latter is legal so is the other?
That's the topic. You've already conceded this, are you constant?
No, atrocity is atrocity.
No. The word "atrocity" is a value-judgement.
Burning Tokyo and Kyoto and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were appropriate acts given the nature of the enemy we'd engaged. US troops were dying on the battlefield every damn day the Japanese refused to surrender. They asked for war, they got war. They didn't like it? Too bad, they got it anyway.
Atrocity is an absolute scale, it's not relative to something.
Nonsense.
Atrocity: An atrocious act.
Atrocious: Extremely evil.
Yeah, that looks pretty absolute to me. Of course, "extremely" and "evil" are both judgement terms, but what the hell, they must be absolute judgement terms.
Now, I for one find abortion to be atrocious, I'm betting that you're totally supportive of incubators murdering their babies. But since I say it's an atrocity, and you say that atrocity is an absolute, you must be wrong about abortion.
Now, let's get back to your hijacking of the thread....
You may engage in atrocity, you may even have an argument for doing so; but it doesn't take away from it. Nuking Japan was an atrocity as well. It was a horror brought to life that no one had even realized before. It's not to say there wasn't reason behind it. Or that we were wrong for doing so. But it's still a horrible event and a black mark upon humanity.
If we weren't wrong in nuking Japan, then it was the right thing to do. By definition, the right thing to do is not evil, and since atrocity is an extremely evil act, by definition nuking Japan was not an atrocity.
You probably should refrain from engaging in word games with me. I own a dictionary and it's loaded.
It most certainly did, we killed a lot of civilians. We destroyed a lot of life, mass destruction on that scale is atrocity.
Oh. Sheer volume is now the standard for defining atrocity. Well, abortion murders three million babies a year. You still want to claim abortion isn't an atrocity, or are you going to withdraw your claim that sheer numbers measure "atrocity"?
That too. And it can be perhaps argued that it was more brutal as instead of bombing indistinguishable people from up high, it was committed face to face.
No. The Death March was an atrocity because, by OUR standards, POW's fought honorably and once surrended are owed a certain bare minimum of care.
By the Japanese standards, men who didn't fight to the death in battle were cowards and were less than human. The battles up the Paciific were remarkable by the extremely low number of POW's captured by Allied forces. They got killed in battle or suicided.
Atrocity - it's subjective, not absolute.
Why not? Don't you like him? Don't you approve of the fact that he's refused to succor the US troops in Afghanistan?
So less you want to extend the same courtesy, piss off. You'll get treated as you treat others.
I can take it fine.
No it's not. You want me to be ok with the killing of 10,000's of people, civilans and innocents,
Again, that "innoncent" business. Don't you people learn anything from what I'm teaching you? :doh
Didn't those people initially die under Bush?
Some did, and I ragged Bush for his incompetence. But that's what I expect from liberals.
While I had initially supported Afghanistan as legitimate target
Still is.
And unless the job is done properly the only thing certain is that more terrorists will infest the place and someone will have to go back there sometime to do the job the liberals don't seem to be able to finish.
The places you propose bombing you merely define as "warzone" as to remove responsibility and guilt. But they are civilian areas. Apartment complexes, communities, etc. It's no war zone till you drop the bomb.
It is if our enemies are sheltering there.
Since no one is actively and deliberately targetting areas known to be lacking terrorists, what's your point?
Armies exist to defend sovereignty and freedom.
You mean like attacking the nation that murdered 3,000 citizens in a single morngin?
That's what our forces are doing in Afghanistan. All they need now is direction and a specific goal since the previous liberal allowed things to go to pot over there.
Not engage in offensive, occupational wars in lands not our own for causes not our own.
Well, that certainly doesn't describe the US actions in Afghanland in anyway, so let us know when the US is doing that, okay?
