Started by Quick Karl, June 10, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: albrecht on September 22, 2014, 08:46:17 PMFrankly, I don't understand the big-picture morality issues involved in bombing campaigns (Why nukes ok, but not biological? Why ok Dresden or fire-bomb Toyko but then Muslims, being so much more "peaceful" than Germans or Japs, need such selective, targeted strikes? What difference morally between land-based or submarine nukes? And if you are going to kill lots of people why science methods helping to target are worse: like neutron-bomb, targeted biological, or chemicals, and are those more evil than any type of bombs or just plain throat-cutting civilians? And the whole-thing about hollow-points and dum-dums being illegal in war but DU rounds etc are ok? I can shoot deer with a hollow-point, or a robber, but not some enemy in an actual war trying to kill me?)
Quote from: albrecht on September 22, 2014, 08:46:17 PMNot quite as "cool' as the original Gulf War (recall watching that a bar and all those cruise missiles coming in. Wow. Or even as Gulf II: The Revenge-Shock and Awe.) But, I imagine less "imbedded" reporters with cameras to show the scene. I hope they kill them all. Let Allah, peace be upon him, sort them out. I say also let Assad take more action, it is, after all, still his country legally. (Though I won't be surprised if an errant missile goes wrong to help take care of that little foreign policy problem. Recall Clinton bombing the Chinese Embassy during the opposite campaign in Serbia? Siimilar anti-Soviet motives- in that case supporting the most radical Islamic elements and criminal gangs. whereas here we at least seem to be against the most radical Islamic elements, though Obama's pledge to arm some rebels and radicals is indeed worrying. Recall KLA, Al Qeada, his Muslim Brotherhood support, etc. )Frankly, I don't understand the big-picture morality issues involved in bombing campaigns (Why nukes ok, but not biological? Why ok Dresden or fire-bomb Toyko but then Muslims, being so much more "peaceful" than Germans or Japs, need such selective, targeted strikes? What difference morally between land-based or submarine nukes? And if you are going to kill lots of people why science methods helping to target are worse: like neutron-bomb, targeted biological, or chemicals, and are those more evil than any type of bombs or just plain throat-cutting civilians? And the whole-thing about hollow-points and dum-dums being illegal in war but DU rounds etc are ok? I can shoot deer with a hollow-point, or a robber, but not some enemy in an actual war trying to kill me?)
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 22, 2014, 09:17:26 PMBecause since WW2 the UN has been formed and international law formulated. Look it up; I can't be arsed to explain all the details.
Quote from: albrecht on September 22, 2014, 09:40:07 PMAre you a complete idiot or just misinformed? DUM-DUMs, the stuff you lot used to use in various colonial campaigns (and also hollow-points) were banned by the Hague Convention in 1899 (one of several Hague Conventions, I admit, but still for a supposedly educated man you are quite stupid on many occasions. Those later conventions and protocols also banned chemical (though violated in WWI, as you should know) but many years prior to the vaunted UN you like so much! The UN didn't even exist then! And those conventions were even before the First or Second World War (you will, no doubt, recall the United Nations fought the AXIS in the Second one and out of this comes the UN and why it was designed as it was.) But, again, laws and protocols broken, by both sides even in WWII but especially by the NAZIs and Soviets (but also by us to an extent)- so much for conventions and protocols! (Yes, there were later Hague Convention, like the Apostile one, -which I bring up because Obama's documents do not comply with it.) But you keep mentioning Geneva? That was AFTER the Second War and simply responded and amplified the original conventions and protocols (but, like even post-Geneva, nobody really was respecting them. Still.)And, what is worse, from a maritime island you think that the UN and WWII caused international law and treaties? You don't even know your own history and especially of maritime law, treaties, and history etc (heck, they developed before much Common or Civil Law even and MUCH before your loved UN, EU, or even WWII!)I know you EU lot seem to think all of Europe, and apparently the UK included, are just one big-whole country but you don't even know the difference between the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, Geneva Protocol, and the HAGUE CONVENTIONS, both of which have several! At least you should know from the CITY name that they are different. No wonder you lot no longer make your own laws and regulations but have people in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg decide them for you! Magna Carta, Common Law, be damned. Let the Eurocrats decide, after all if a supposedly educated person doesn't know difference between Geneva or The Hague! Or between different wars and treaties and international organizations (or even a BASIC timeline at least!?) Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with their own affairs like voting, law, and regulation.ps: But, frankly, I doubt many Americans would know (though ones though the university or older should know, or at least determine by CITY NAME and TIMELINE the basic course of events in war treaties.) And, at least for now though, we refused the first round of the internationalist scheme in LON and still have some decent political opposition to the UN (even though it is, unless until very recently, an Anglo-American vehicle in many ways) and have not, yet, given away our democratic process to foreigners.
Quote from: VtaGeezer on September 22, 2014, 09:26:42 PMI hope there won't be an orgy of reprisals by the ISIL butchers tomorrow.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 22, 2014, 09:14:03 PMFive predomanently Sunni Arab countries involved against an extreme Sunni terrorist group. This has taken some seriously softly softly behind the scenes negotiations. Isn't Obama a Sunni Muslim? Allegedly. It's also interesting that Assad has pretty much been disregarded in this. He hasn't asked for this the way the Iraqi's requested assistance. Next few days will frame the next few months. WW3 is a possibility and will please the hawks no end. Careful what you wish for.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 22, 2014, 09:48:21 PMOh I was answering the 'big picture' question. Not just dum dum bullets.
Quote from: bateman on September 22, 2014, 10:28:57 PMF22s finally get to go out & play.
Quote from: FightTheFuture on September 22, 2014, 10:34:13 PMI applaud the President for doing the right thing by pulverizing ISIL's Syrian-based assets. It's a big step in the right direction. I also applaud the president for cobbling together the surrounding Arab states into an effective coalition.I still believe ground troops will be necessary, but...tonight is a good night and President Obama deserves a lot of credit.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 22, 2014, 10:41:17 PMBoth upset the equilibrum.
Quote from: FightTheFuture on September 23, 2014, 01:46:22 AMVictory by any means. You do what you must. Period.
Quote from: Little Hater on September 23, 2014, 06:25:57 AMYes. It's always struck me as strange that there are 'rules' in war.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on September 23, 2014, 12:56:00 AMWorth noting Albrecht that Britain didn't even need an active war to circumvent the Hague Convention. They developed the Mark VII .303 cartridge specifically to deform and pitch violently on impact creating a full metal jacket bullet that behaved like a hollowpoint in 1910 for no real reason other than more effective killing rather than maiming in whatever war might come along.I don't particularly care that they did that in light of the modern world where "killing terrorists" is what we're supposed to be doing. It would be much more effective if we used hollowpoints, so I think the Hague Convention is outdated. That said, the Mark VII cartridge and the Hague Convention was definitely not an area where the British can lecture everyone on standards and conventions.
Quote from: albrecht on September 23, 2014, 11:03:21 AMYes, I know. What is so odd is that this British guy didn't even know the differences between major treaties or even a basic time-line of events. They like the UN so much over there they think the UN invented and drew up every treaty, protocol, or agreement. Strange.
Quoteps: one used to be able to find, quite commonly, good surplus Enfields over here but I haven't seen them around in a decade or more. Shame. Fun gun but heavy! Now all one still sees in the cheap surplus market are various and sundry Mausers (still decent weapons depending on mfg.) But I recall bunches of Enfields for, as I recall, $60 covered in cosmoline, sight unseen. My friend got one and I think we spend more money degreasing- and then buying .303 ammo- than it cost for the gun. But it was fun to shoot, but can't imagine carrying that around in the field for weeks! Heavy.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 23, 2014, 11:26:11 AMHow did you draw the conclusion 'this British guy' (Presumably you meant me) didn't know? Basically I couldn't be arsed as it was a wall of text I didn't want to wade through. And even if I could be arsed you'd have picked holes in it, so is there any point? No, no really. Tomorrows chip paper. I got my RAF marksman badge with a Le Enfield. 11 pounds without magazine as I recall. Still the basis for the British sniper rifle.
Quote from: albrecht on September 23, 2014, 11:32:52 AMGood for your service and marksmanship. Seemed heavy to me but and, ignoring ammo costs and initial cleaning, a fun gun. Haven't seen them in a while around, though. Maybe surplus has dried up?My point was that you claimed it was the Geneva Convention, and even weirder the UN, that banned DUM-DUMs (and other expanding bullets) when anybody, at least if stating an opinion, should know they were banned in warfare by far earlier treaties- made in a different city even- and much prior to the UN!! I know you lot love the UN, EU, etc but don't try to claim they accomplished every treaty, protocol, or law! Usually they just expanded earlier ones. If you don't know facts, than don't make random, uninformed comments.
Quote from: VtaGeezer on September 23, 2014, 12:11:37 PMI'm lost. Someone please draw an association between ISIS, F22 airstrikes and .303 Enfields for me. I may need it for Trivial Pursuit 2014.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 23, 2014, 12:19:10 PMI wish I knew. It's all to do with various conventions, treaties, protocols and such....anyway, if you look (Cont pp94)
Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on September 23, 2014, 12:44:01 PMNot sure. F22s are the wrong planes to deal with ISIS. They must just be using the opportunity to make it look like all those tax dollars were worthwhile.