NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone else feel like theres no such thing as non-combatents? Please let me explain myself before you all go nuts. People are always saying "you can't hurt women and children", and I agree with the children part to a point: in Vietnam, the Middle East nowadays, and the the Eastern European countries during the 90s, children were used as human es and soldiers, and when they start to do that they become nothing more then enemy soldiers just like the Adolf youth in ww2. Also, I'm sick of people saying you can't harm women in war. They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse. You can't have it both ways. Also, in theory, even those opposed to war are still part of the war effort by the fact that they get involved in the economy. If you destroy the enemy's populace then they have no people to make war goods, no one to enlist as reinforcements, and the economy and thus the enemy, collapses. Am I the only one who sees the military value of this strategy?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to see if anyone agrees with me on something which has been bothering me for a long time, because we can't cluster anymore because many people don't think as I do, are there any people who do?

Does anyone else feel like theres no such thing as non-combatents? Please let me explain myself before you all go nuts. People are always saying "you can't hurt women and children", and I agree with the children part to a point: in Vietnam, the Middle East nowadays, and the the Eastern European countries during the 90s, children were used as human es and soldiers, and when they start to do that they become nothing more then enemy soldiers just like the Adolf youth in ww2. Also, I'm sick of people saying you can't harm women in war. They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse. You can't have it both ways. Also, in theory, even those opposed to war are still part of the war effort by the fact that they get involved in the economy. If you destroy the enemy's populace then they have no people to make war goods, no one to enlist as reinforcements, and the economy and thus the enemy, collapses. Am I the only one who sees the military value of this strategy?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to see if anyone agrees with me on something which has been bothering me for a long time, because we can't cluster anymore because many people don't think as I do, are there any people who do?


Do you also agree with the use of torture to extract information from prisoners?

Unless the woman or child is holding a weapon you shouldn't shoot. Yes, there are noncombatants. Some people are in a war zone just because they happen to live in the location where the war is being fought.

Unless the woman or child is holding a weapon you shouldn't shoot. Yes, there are noncombatants. Some people are in a war zone just because they happen to live in the location where the war is being fought.
I'd like to change that just a tad. Unless the woman, man or child is holding a weapon, you shouldn't shoot. Men are not automatically combatants either. There should always be a clear distinction between combatants and noncombatants.

I've always got annoyed by the fact that women and children seemed to get singled out in situations like this. We are all humans - men, women and children. No one should intentionally harm another human being, regardless of their status. If another harms them in the first instance, however, then as far as I'm concerned it's fair game to retaliate, whoever the original assailant was.

There are noncombatants, and I wouldn't shoot them. However, I would force able-bodied civilians to do labor for our army (building new roads through rough terrain, reparing bridges, laying pontoons, digging trenches, repairing communications, etc.) under threat of imprisonment without trial.

There are noncombatants, and I wouldn't shoot them. However, I would force able-bodied civilians to do labor for our army (building new roads through rough terrain, reparing bridges, laying pontoons, digging trenches, repairing communications, etc.) under threat of imprisonment without trial.
That should go over well. Way to win those hearts and minds dude.

I think this thread raises a very good point. Soldiers on the front lines are considered combatants, because they are engaging in armed combat with the intent to kill the enemy. They do this because they want to protect the nation or group they are fighting for. However, each nation that fights a war is indebted to its economic system to support the war, almoast more than they are to the soldiers who actually fight it. Thus, workers fruther the aims of their country by working for the war effort in factories, etc. These persons, unless they work for a job that has no effect on the war or are unemployed, should be considered combatants because they fruther the war effort. Fruthermore, when one country goes to war with annother, they are naturally committed to winning. If winning the war necessitates removing the economic sector through militancy, so be it. If a war is not of enough importance to win at all costs e.g. attacking anyone who opposes you, it's not important enough to begin in the first place.

There are noncombatants, and I wouldn't shoot them. However, I would force able-bodied civilians to do labor for our army (building new roads through rough terrain, reparing bridges, laying pontoons, digging trenches, repairing communications, etc.) under threat of imprisonment without trial.

Damn and I thought the US thought slavery was a bad thing. I can see you would have risen quickly through the ranks in the Japanese army during WWII.

That should go over well. Way to win those hearts and minds dude.

If it's the kind of war that actually involves occupying a territory and keeping it for your nation, who cares? You have to beat down their will to fight, and keeping civilians under your control will definitely limit partisan efforts. Plus, it keeps them from working for the enemy's economy if they're in your labor camps.

I wouldn't try it in Iraq, though. That would be a bad idea. :p

Damn and I thought the US thought slavery was a bad thing. I can see you would have risen quickly through the ranks in the Japanese army during WWII.

Well, they'll be released when the war is over. Gradually. If you're going to occupy an area permanently, you have to take drastic measures. The civilians will resist your efforts, and keeping them under tight control is necessary until all vestiges of their former regime are gone.

I'd rise fairly quickly through Caesar's ranks, and Julians, and quite a few other conquerors.

Well, they'll be released when the war is over. Gradually. If you're going to occupy an area permanently, you have to take drastic measures. The civilians will resist your efforts, and keeping them under tight control is necessary until all vestiges of their former regime are gone.

I'd rise fairly quickly through Caesar's ranks, and Julians, and quite a few other conquerors.

I agree. You need to convince the citizeny that they are better off under your rule, and smack them down if they try and rebel. Use the captives to do dangerous and unwanted jobs and allow your true citizens do better jobs, and gradually assimilated the enemy people into your own populace as you break down their will, eliminate their leaders, and brainwash them to follow you and renounce their former loyalty.

Unless the woman or child is holding a weapon you shouldn't shoot. Yes, there are noncombatants. Some people are in a war zone just because they happen to live in the location where the war is being fought.
Add some men to that list as well

This day in age being a woman does not make you a non combatant …

So yes they do exist (non combatant) but its not automatically “women and children” anymore

Does anyone else feel like theres no such thing as non-combatents? Please let me explain myself before you all go nuts. People are always saying "you can't hurt women and children", and I agree with the children part to a point: in Vietnam, the Middle East nowadays, and the the Eastern European countries during the 90s, children were used as human es and soldiers, and when they start to do that they become nothing more then enemy soldiers just like the Adolf youth in ww2. Also, I'm sick of people saying you can't harm women in war. They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse. You can't have it both ways. Also, in theory, even those opposed to war are still part of the war effort by the fact that they get involved in the economy. If you destroy the enemy's populace then they have no people to make war goods, no one to enlist as reinforcements, and the economy and thus the enemy, collapses. Am I the only one who sees the military value of this strategy?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to see if anyone agrees with me on something which has been bothering me for a long time, because we can't cluster anymore because many people don't think as I do, are there any people who do?


There's a slight difference, though, between the Hitler Youth and child soldiers in somewhere like Vietnam or Iraq. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, the USA intervened in both Iraq and Vietnam. They brought war to the countries in question. Hitler exported war. Whilst, no, child soldiers is not a good thing, in any country, if your country was invaded by - say - the Communists during the Cold War, would you have objected to your 13/14 year old son or daughter joining you to fight back? Or, indeed, invaded by the Nazis? If your opponent *makes* it total war (such as happened in Vietnam - "we have to destroy the village to save it" et al), why be surprised when the total war aspect is brought back upon you? And furthermore, it's a bit weaselly then to use their response to your total war as justification for...your total war.

Germany, as i said, different kettle of fish. There we are talking massive state indoctrination, and exportation of war.

I agree. You need to convince the citizeny that they are better off under your rule, and smack them down if they try and rebel. Use the captives to do dangerous and unwanted jobs and allow your true citizens do better jobs, and gradually assimilated the enemy people into your own populace as you break down their will, eliminate their leaders, and brainwash them to follow you and renounce their former loyalty.

Exactly. The goal isn't to get the enemy to like you, it's to win. If you're going to take over something, do what needs to be done to avoid problems later on. Assimiliation is the first priority after the invasion is successful and defenses are established. Freedoms (if at all) should be restored on a reward-punishment basis, and all rebels should be crushed without reservation.

There's a slight difference, though, between the Youth and child soldiers in somewhere like Vietnam or Iraq. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, the USA intervened in both Iraq and Vietnam. They brought war to the countries in question. exported war. Whilst, no, child soldiers is not a good thing, in any country, if your country was invaded by - say - the Communists during the Cold War, would you have objected to your 13/14 year old son or daughter joining you to fight back? Or, indeed, invaded by the s? If your opponent *makes* it total war (such as happened in Vietnam - "we have to destroy the village to save it" et al), why be surprised when the total war aspect is brought back upon you? And furthermore, it's a bit weaselly then to use their response to your total war as justification for...your total war.

Germany, as i said, different kettle of fish. There we are talking massive state indoctrination, and exportation of war.

Toche (yea I know I misspelled it but you know what I mean). I understand the point you are making, however, I feel that the difference becomes null and void, when you think that these people are using their youth as weapons. Instead of giving these children the love they need at a young age, they are giving them a mp5 and c4. I just think that is despicable. And when the older populace begins to teach the entire young generation that blowing everything up and sho0ting people is acceptable forms of behavior, then that generation is nothing more then a microcosm of the older population, and now you are fighting against multiple generations of enemies, now however, you have enemies who don't know why they are fighting or who have been lied to and radicalized into insanity (case in point: Palestinian youth). When this happens, you need to eliminate all the enemy, for no matter their age they are now enemy combatents, and after you win, let them start over with a new generation which is not taught this anger and war, but instead is taught to just deal with the way their society is now.

-snip- Random Insanity -snip-

So then, you would agree the Al Queda attack on the World Trade Center was justified then? Because, by your own logic; it is.

I would, however disagree with your assertions.

The purpose of warfare is not "to win".... Such a "to win" mentality is that of a punk-child; whose mental capacity still has much to be desired. Very similar to Saddam, Hitler, Stallin, Mao, etc. (My you have some interesting people in simalarity to you).

The purpose of warfare is to suceed in an operative goal. "Winning" is not generally the "Goal" of a war. The goal is based upon a primary ideal. That ideal should be a consistent through the ideals expressed by the waring faction.

While in the particular aspect of American ideal Government == people. Such an extrapolation does not work in all aspects in dealing with foreign powers. Especially those foreign elements operated by Tyranical Autocrats; who use force to subdue their populace.

As such, in american mentality (and ethics; which you seem to be in total lack of); considering the life of the people paramount; as well as their protection; when engaged in combat; should execute the same ideal. That is, those not directly in service of the government; should be protected by our own forces (as we ourselves espouse in our own ideals) in the act upon the hindering of the foreign power in opposition.

That said, non-combantants, are just that; citizens of a foreign power, who live in oppression under said powers control. And when hostilities are handled; should be afforeded the same rights, and privilidges by our government; as we afford to one another. And in all cases should be worked with, and assisted in the tearing down of the foerign power, as the war closes.

The being said: such should not be interned in camps, treated as abject slaves, or slaughtered in mass; under some pretense of "winning". It shows you have no honor, no integrity; and no place in service beside me in any conflict. If you were, I'd shoot you myself....

Toche (yea I know I misspelled it but you know what I mean). I understand the point you are making, however, I feel that the difference becomes null and void, when you think that these people are using their youth as weapons. Instead of giving these children the love they need at a young age, they are giving them a mp5 and c4. I just think that is despicable. And when the older populace begins to teach the entire young generation that blowing everything up and sho0ting people is acceptable forms of behavior, then that generation is nothing more then a microcosm of the older population, and now you are fighting against multiple generations of enemies, now however, you have enemies who don't know why they are fighting or who have been lied to and radicalized into insanity (case in point: Palestinian youth). When this happens, you need to eliminate all the enemy, for no matter their age they are now enemy combatents, and after you win, let them start over with a new generation which is not taught this anger and war, but instead is taught to just deal with the way their society is now.

I agree to a point. I mean, if someone came at me with a gun, wouldn't matter if they were 6,16 or 60...being an utter coward who wants to LIVE then any moral stance i have goes out the window somewhat. Yeah, i agree to a point.

But, i hope, you are talking about "defending against", right? Rather than "targeting"? Because once you start talking about targeting, then it all goes out the window. If a 12 year old with an Uzi hoves into view, i don't think it's particularly immoral for a soldier to shoot him or be shot (whether the soldier should be there, different moral ball game, we can argue about that one forever). I hope you do mean that, instead of "lets just go into a warzone and shoot everything that moves"

I agree to a point. I mean, if someone came at me with a , wouldn't matter if they were 6,16 or 60...being an utter coward who wants to LIVE then any moral stance i have goes out the window somewhat. Yeah, i agree to a point.

But, i hope, you are talking about "defending against", right? Rather than "targeting"? Because once you start talking about targeting, then it all goes out the window. If a 12 year old with an Uzi hoves into view, i don't think it's particularly immoral for a soldier to shoot him or be shot (whether the soldier should be there, different moral ball game, we can argue about that one forever). I hope you do mean that, instead of "lets just go into a warzone and shoot everything that moves"

Nonononono, I don't subscribe to the "attack anything that moves" style of warfare, only when there is a credible threat in the mind of the soldier is it ok to open fire. I apologize if I didn't get the across before as clearly as I had hoped.

So then, you would agree the Al Queda attack on the World Trade Center was justified then? Because, by your own logic; it is.

Never would I say such a thing.


The purpose of warfare is not "to win".... Such a "to win" mentality is that of a punk-child; whose mental capacity still has much to be desired. Very similar to Saddam, , Stallin, Mao, etc. (My you have some interesting people in simalarity to you).


First of all, you can quit with the suggestions that I am like those evil dictators, because I am not. However, I do follow a somewhat Sun Tzuian and Maccieavellian attitude towards warfare. You don't fight a war unless you want to win. You and I differ on what it means to "win". I see winning as ending all enemy resistance and having your victory uncontested soasto remove any and all future problems to your victory. To each his own.


The purpose of warfare is to suceed in an operative goal. "Winning" is not generally the "Goal" of a war. The goal is based upon a primary ideal. That ideal should be a consistent through the ideals expressed by the waring faction.


Incorrect. Look at military history thoroughout time, the idea of total warfare is not a new one, nor has it been sparingly used at all.


As such, in american mentality (and ethics; which you seem to be in total lack of); considering the life of the people paramount; as well as their protection; when engaged in combat; should execute the same ideal. That is, those not directly in service of the government; should be protected by our own forces (as we ourselves espouse in our own ideals) in the act upon the hindering of the foreign power in opposition.


Excuse me? Just because I have a different opinion then you does not mean I lack ethics, it just means I view things differently. If you wish to have a thoughtful discussion then quit with the remarks, this is at least the second one in this post from you. That said, citizens may not be DIRECTLY in the employment of the Government, however because of the fact that they are members of the society the State is responsible for them, so they are INDIRECTLY at least in the employment of the State. They recieve benefits from the State, pay taxes to the State, and, in a democracy or republic, they ARE the State. Therefore in all cases if you break the will of the citizens you will break the enemy State, for even the most insane dictator will admit that without the citizens there is no power nor economy nor military. The easiest and fastest way to win a war is to end the enemy populace. You are looking at this from a moral standpoint and only that. I am looking at it from a moral and a militaristic standpoint, so I see the value in this line of thought.


That said, non-combantants, are just that; citizens of a foreign power, who live in oppression under said powers control. And when hostilities are handled; should be afforeded the same rights, and privilidges by our government; as we afford to one another. And in all cases should be worked with, and assisted in the tearing down of the foerign power, as the war closes.


Excuse me? Not all "citizens of a foreign power" "live in oppression". Think for a moment you were a German invading France in ww2. Do you think the French live in oppression? Or how about the English? Are they oppressed? No, they never thought that. They disagreed with democracy but not for a moment thought those people were oppressed! Before you start rattling off comments like you did, try and put yourself in more positions then just the modern pacifist american. And as for rights? They have no rights other then the ones we decide to give to them when they are conquered. If they resit, you limit their rights, if they capitulate, you grant them more rights. Assimilation is the key.


The being said: such should not be interned in camps, treated as abject slaves, or slaughtered in mass; under some pretense of "winning". It shows you have no honor, no integrity; and no place in service beside me in any conflict. If you were, I'd shoot you myself....

You are, once again, calling me the equivilent of one of those horrible dicators of the 20th century, and I am growing weary of this. NEVER will I support genocide or any other form or mass kiling under ANY pretense or reason. I have honor, I have integrity, and I am thinking of joing the Army ROTC because of my high respect for the American military. I will restate what I said before, simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am a dispicable person who enjoys watching people die. Now, retract your slanderous remarks and have a intellegent debate, or don't retract them, I will report you, and then we can have a intellegent debate, its up to you.

A person with a weapon is a Combatant.
A non-child without a weapon that provides "aid & comfort" to one or another side is a Partisan.
A child without a weapon or an "impartial" adult without a weapon is a Non-Combatant.

Combatants may be shot.
Partisans may be detained & questioned.
Non Combatants may only be questioned nicely.

Any Questions?

Does anyone else feel like theres no such thing as non-combatents? Please let me explain myself before you all go nuts. People are always saying "you can't hurt women and children", and I agree with the children part to a point: in Vietnam, the Middle East nowadays, and the the Eastern European countries during the 90s, children were used as human es and soldiers, and when they start to do that they become nothing more then enemy soldiers just like the Adolf youth in ww2. Also, I'm sick of people saying you can't harm women in war. They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse. You can't have it both ways. Also, in theory, even those opposed to war are still part of the war effort by the fact that they get involved in the economy. If you destroy the enemy's populace then they have no people to make war goods, no one to enlist as reinforcements, and the economy and thus the enemy, collapses. Am I the only one who sees the military value of this strategy?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to see if anyone agrees with me on something which has been bothering me for a long time, because we can't cluster anymore because many people don't think as I do, are there any people who do?

There's a word for this kind of thinking: Genocide.

As a former soldier, when I read this sort of material, It makes me ill. Soldiers on the whole, if they're worth anything at all, tend to view genocide as vile, dirty, and evil-and they should. Collateral damage is hard enough to live with when it's unintentional-when it becomes deliberate policy, it's impossible to endure for the vet in peacetime who saw/participated in it in wartime.
Point being: you don't make war on a People.

War is, from the perspective of an effective military, controlled violence. Your method requires no control, but it guarantees also that you must finish the massacre or face later consequences-there can be no peace, no end.

There's a word for this kind of thinking: Genocide.

As a former soldier, when I read this sort of material, It makes me ill. Soldiers on the whole, if they're worth anything at all, tend to view genocide as vile, dirty, and evil-and they should. Collateral damage is hard enough to live with when it's unintentional-when it becomes deliberate policy, it's impossible to endure for the vet in peacetime who saw/participated in it in wartime.
Point being: you don't make war on a People.

War is, from the perspective of an effective military, controlled . Your method requires no control, but it guarantees also that you must finish the massacre or face later consequences-there can be no peace, no end.

You people don't get it do you? Im not advocating genocide. What I am saying is, hit cities with heavy industiral and munitions factories from 20K feet and don't worry about what happenes. After the war you can debate if what you did was ok, but if its a choice between hitting enemy cities, hurts their citizens, and ending the war quickly, or to not do that, only hit military targets, and have a prolonged war in which more of our people die, I pick the first one. Look at it from a economic standpoint. As long as the enemy has citizens to draft, as long as they have citizens to create munitions and rebuild bunkers etc., then the war will go on and on and on. But if you take away that ability from the enemy then the war ends quickly. Genocide is when you annihlate massive amounts of people AFTER the fighting is over, except for the Jews in Germany which was horrible. What I'm saying is, do what is necessary to end the war quickly, eliminate those still within the population who would incite gurrilla warfare, and then help the people to rebuild under your rule. We're seeing that same thing now in Iraq and Afgainistan. We went in, we took out the enemy government, and now we are hunting down insurgents. Granted, we arent going after regualar citizens in Iraq, but we did in Japan in ww2, look at the nukes and the fireb0mbing of Japenese cities. This isnt unheard of in warfare, and for the last time IM NOT ADVOCATING GENOCIDE! GOT IT?!

Also, I'm sick of people saying you can't harm women in war. They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse.

Huh? Do you actually have sufficient evidence of a good number of cases of women in the military refusing to risk their necks? I personally can't recall a single incident of such.

A person with a weapon is a Combatant.
A non-child without a weapon that provides "aid & comfort" to one or another side is a Partisan.


No, surely a partisan is a combatant without a uniform: either an irregular with a weapon or a saboteur? Otherwise medical staff would be labelled as partisans.

Huh? Do you actually have sufficient evidence of a good number of cases of women in the military refusing to risk their necks? I personally can't recall a single incident of such.

Mear typo. Some do, but many don't get the chance to refuse because the Liberals go insane if a women gets hurt in the military. Remember PFC Jessica Lynch? Remember the insanity surronding that? And she didn't even die! Men die but no one seems to give a hoot, but if a woman died on the front lines? The outraged shrieks would be heard in the next galaxy, and you know it!

You people don't get it do you? Im not advocating genocide. What I am saying is, hit cities with heavy industiral and munitions factories from 20K feet and don't worry about what happenes. After the war you can debate if what you did was ok, but if its a choice between hitting enemy cities, hurts their citizens, and ending the war quickly, or to not do that, only hit military targets, and have a prolonged war in which more of our people die, I pick the first one.

Not only are you proposing a hideously inefficient way of waging war, but also creating a false dichotomy which is not backed up by historical precedent. Did saturation bombing of civilian areas serve to shorten WWII? Nope, if anything it lengthened the conflict as the resources were allocated to such campaigns in the hope that they would force countries to acquiesce, but actually what happened was that less focus was then placed upon neutralising the enemy's military forces directly. Take the Battle of Britain as an example - the Luftwaffe targetting London or industrial centres instead of directly military targets such as airfields gave the Royal Air Force the winning hand.

Mear typo.



Pretty substantial typo:

"They demand equality in the military but when it comes time for them to risk their necks they refuse."

So your fingers slipped and instead of writing 'there is a media circus' you wrote 'they refuse'? Oh yes, I see how that could easily have happened.


Some do, but many don't get the chance to refuse because the Liberals go insane if a women gets hurt in the military. Remember PFC Jessica Lynch? Remember the insanity surronding that? And she didn't even die!

That whole affair was had much more to do with the American media sniffing around a new kind of news story, rather than an imaginary case of watching the 'Liberals go insane'.

Men die but no one seems to give a hoot, but if a woman died on the front lines? The outraged shrieks would be heard in the next galaxy, and you know it!

Such is not the case in Israel for example.

Not only are you proposing a hideously inefficient way of waging war, but also creating a false dichotomy which is not backed up by historical precedent. Did saturation ing of civilian areas serve to shorten WWII? Nope, if anything it lengthened the conflict as the resources were allocated to such campaigns in the hope that they would force countries to acquiesce, but actually what happened was that less focus was then placed upon neutralising the enemy's military forces directly. Take the Battle of Britain as an example - the Luftwaffe targetting London or industrial centres instead of directly military targets such as airfields gave the Royal Air Force the winning hand.

For the most part you are correct, although I still disgree with you I admit your points are valid. However, I must point out one thing you said which is false. There is historical prededent. The Roman Empire. The Muslim invasions of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The British Empire in Ireland. Need I go on?

There's a word for this kind of thinking: Genocide.

As a former soldier, when I read this sort of material, It makes me ill. Soldiers on the whole, if they're worth anything at all, tend to view genocide as vile, dirty, and evil-and they should. Collateral damage is hard enough to live with when it's unintentional-when it becomes deliberate policy, it's impossible to endure for the vet in peacetime who saw/participated in it in wartime.
Point being: you don't make war on a People.

War is, from the perspective of an effective military, controlled violence. Your method requires no control, but it guarantees also that you must finish the massacre or face later consequences-there can be no peace, no end.

Sorry Cadillac but the decision to target civilians in war is not genocide, even though it may be just almost as tragic. Targeting civilian population centers is a major move but it is not designed to eliminate an entire people, it is the difference between limited conventional warfare and all out war. The goal is not the elimination of an entire race, it is the elimination of the enemies ability to wage war through extreme violence and the only defense against it is retaliation in kind. There is a very clear difference between the two.

To the OP
Are you seriously implying that people should be killed simply for being citizens of a certain nation? If you follow that chain of thought, then any attack on anything is right. Do you think 9/11 was justifiable? After all, all of those innocent people were "Helping the economy".

That whole affair was had much more to do with the American media sniffing around a new kind of news story, rather than an imaginary case of watching the 'Liberals go insane'.

Are you kidding? The media was having a fieldday because they hoped to be able to use it as political against Bush and the war. You give Liberals more credit than they deserve. Using sad circumstances, exaggerating them, or making them up, is neither below them nor uncommon in the media. Example? The media report about the Koran being flushed down the toilet. Never happened. But it got people mad at the military, mad at Bush, and mad at Gitmo,which is what they wanted, and they couldn't have cared less that people died during protests in the Middle East because of it, as long as they got their political points.


Such is not the case in Israel for example.

Which is why I hold Israel in the highest regard, America should be more like them, I've been saying that for years.

There is historical prededent. The Roman Empire.

Won territory by the policy of divide and rule and then facing down opposing armies of enemy combatants on the battlefield. Lets pluck an example from the air of the way they treated non-combatants... Boudicca? Flogging her and raping her daughters led her to unite the Iceni and other tribes in open revolt against the Romans - yes, the final victory went to the empire, but their maltreatment of civilians was the spark which prolonged the conflict in this case rather than shortening it.

The Muslim invasions of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

These I will pass on: can you provide examples of their attacks on non-combatants?

The British Empire in Ireland. Need I go on?

End result of atrocities commited against civilians: 800 years of armed struggle leading to the loss of the majority of Ireland from the Empire and an ongoing conflict in the rest of Ireland which is currently described by its participants as not being a 'ceasefire' but instead 'a temporary cessation of military activities'.

To the OP
Are you seriously implying that people should be killed simply for being citizens of a certain nation? If you follow that chain of thought, then any attack on anything is right. Do you think 9/11 was justifiable? After all, all of those people were "Helping the economy".

Try reading the entire thread, I already answered this. The answer is NO. I am a proud American and supporter of the war against extreme islam.

No, surely a partisan is a combatant without a uniform: either an irregular with a weapon or a saboteur? Otherwise medical staff would be labelled as partisans.Unarmed, uniformed medical staff would be Partisans. Non-Uniformed medical staff providing medical services to only one side would be Partisans. Medical staff providing non-discriminatory medical aid are Non Combatants.

Same rules apply.

If they aren't armed, don't shoot them. Avoid collateralizing them if at all possible.

Try reading the entire thread, I already answered this. The answer is NO. I am a proud American and supporter of the war against extreme islam.

Apologies, a rash reaction from me there, I've just seen so many sickening moralisations recently.

Unarmed, uniformed medical staff would be Partisans. Non-Uniformed medical staff providing medical services to only one side would be Partisans. Medical staff providing non-discriminatory medical aid are Non Combatants.

Same rules apply.

In which case your simple definition needs a tweak.

Are you claiming that if you gave medical attention to a fallen soldier from your side, then you would be a 'Partisan'? How are we to define people who only have the opportunity to aid one side?

If they aren't armed, don't shoot them. Avoid collateralizing them if at all possible.

Agreed.

These I will pass on: can you provide examples of their attacks on non-combatants?


Yes I can. When the Ottoman Empire was expanding they conquered many people, most of whom were Christians. They took a "convert or die" approach to them. I forget the exact term for them, maybe someone else remembers it, but basically the children of conqured Christians were taken, made into soldiers, and sent into battle first to get slaughtered before the Muslim troops entered battle. Any who resisted the nce of Islam in the Ottoman controled lands were excuted or torutured into submission. There are other examples, many of which date back to Mohammad himself and are written in the various Muslim holy books depicting the wanton carnage inflicted upon those conqured by the Islamicits.

Yes I can. When the Ottoman Empire was expanding they conquered many people, most of whom were Christians. They took a "convert or die" approach to them. I forget the exact term for them, maybe someone else remembers it, but basically the children of conqured Christians were taken, made into soldiers, and sent into battle first to get slaughtered before the Muslim troops entered battle.

If you are in a position in a certain piece of territory to carry out such a procedure, then you have already 'won' that territory from the actual combatants, and as such thus doesn't really relate to your initial argument.

There are noncombatants, and I wouldn't shoot them. However, I would force able-bodied civilians to do labor for our army (building new roads through rough terrain, reparing bridges, laying pontoons, digging trenches, repairing communications, etc.) under threat of imprisonment without trial.

So, for example in Iraq, in order to bring democracy to a people you suggest using them as slave labour?

Tactics like that are one of the reasons why people still bear a grudge against the Japanese, even sixty years after the fact.

If you are in a position in a certain piece of territory to carry out such a procedure, then you have already 'won' that territory from the actual combatants, and as such thus doesn't really relate to your initial argument.

Oh but you see it does, for the Christians were trying to rebel. The Ottomans knew that there were far too many Christians to fight in a gurrilla war, so they hunted down their leaders, executed them, pick ones out at random to execute and tourtue so as to keep them in check, and then take them and use them as fodder. They understood the necessity of assimilation by choice or by force, but assimilation none the less. Now, don't get me wrong, I am NOT supporting what they did, but mearly giving an example where this line of thinking can be taken to an extreme. I believe this line of thinking ends when true fighting between two or more official armies of two or more soverign nations ends, and then comes the time of trying to turn the populace to your way of thinking through the use of the least force possible, reserving force only for those who attack your new governement in that land or who preach rebellion and instability, much as what is happening in Iraq today with the insurgents.

Yes I can. When the Ottoman Empire was expanding they conquered many people, most of whom were Christians. They took a "convert or die" approach to them. I forget the exact term for them, maybe someone else remembers it, but basically the children of conqured Christians were taken, made into soldiers, and sent into battle first to get slaughtered before the Muslim troops entered battle. Any who resisted the nce of Islam in the Ottoman controled lands were excuted or torutured into submission. There are other examples, many of which date back to Mohammad himself and are written in the various Muslim holy books depicting the wanton carnage inflicted upon those conqured by the Islamicits.

You are talking of Janissaries, who were the children of Christians. That is a correct point.

However, your point about the Ottoman Empire is incorrect. At no point did they take a "convert or die" posture. Which is why large portions of the Balkans, despite being under Ottoman rule for close on 600 years, remain Christian. And is why the Greek Orthodox inhabitants of Cyprus preferred being ruled by the Ottomans than by the Catholic Venetians, who *did* take a convert or die approach. Sorry to burst your bubble there, but you are 100% incorrect. In fact, pre The Enlightenment, the best place to live if you were a religious dissenter was under Islam.

Gender, and even age, has nothing to do with being a combatant ot non-combatant. Destroying the infrastructure seems a valid objective, whereas destroying civilians (non-combatants) in order to cripple production is wrong.

"Non-combatant is a military and legal term describing civilians not engaged in combat. It is distinguished from other protected persons, such as medical personnel (who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their medical function) and soldiers who are hors de combat (regular soldiers that are incapable of performing their military function, such as a downed pilot). It is also distinguished from unprotected persons: people who are fighting but are not members of a regular armed force and who therefore do not enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions." -Wikipedia

"A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

-Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
-or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
-or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." - Wikipedia

Are you kidding? The media was having a fieldday because they hoped to be able to use it as political against Bush and the war. You give Liberals more credit than they deserve. Using sad circumstances, exaggerating them, or making them up, is neither below them nor uncommon in the media. Example? The media report about the Koran being flushed down the toilet. Never happened. But it got people mad at the military, mad at Bush, and mad at Gitmo,which is what they wanted, and they couldn't have cared less that people died during protests in the Middle East because of it, as long as they got their political points.




Which is why I hold Israel in the highest regard, America should be more like them, I've been saying that for years.
Wow. I'm seriously doubting that you're old enough to remember three years ago. Republicans for the most part jumped on the Jessica Lynch story in order to drum up support for the war. Fancy video, remember? No actual need for her to be rescued, remember? Why would the left (who are mostly against this war) want to make up a story about soldiers doing such an awesome job?
You're weird.

NAS rebels = walking contradiction

he supports groups like the IRA but not the PLO

anyway, yeah, hes totally wrong about the muslims. it was actually the christians who took the "covert or die" approach. Historically, Muslim conquerors were, in fact, the most tolerant, almost always allowing religious freedom.

To his credit, though,He does have a very in-depth understanding of the world ... circa 500 BC

Damn! I mean to vote Yes!

Also, in theory, even those opposed to war are still part of the war effort by the fact that they get involved in the economy. If you destroy the enemy's populace then they have no people to make war goods, no one to enlist as reinforcements, and the economy and thus the enemy, collapses. Am I the only one who sees the military value of this strategy?
Of course there is a difference between soldiers and civilians! It's just wrong to gratuitously target civilians when it's the enemy military machine that should be wiped out. That's not to say that I don't accept the inevitability of civilian casualties in war; I just think that enemy soldiers are more legitimate targets than civilians.

anyway, yeah, hes totally wrong about the muslims. it was actually the christians who took the "covert or die" approach. Historically, Muslim conquerors were, in fact, the most tolerant, almost always allowing religious freedom.
Actually, Muslims were more rapidly imperialist and murderous in their conquest of the Middle East and North Africa in the 8th century than Christians. But it's true that they were more religiously tolerant than Christian governments in Europe.

Mear typo. Some do, but many don't get the chance to refuse because the Liberals go insane if a women gets hurt in the military. Remember PFC Jessica Lynch? Remember the insanity surronding that? And she didn't even die! Men die but no one seems to give a hoot, but if a woman died on the front lines? The outraged shrieks would be heard in the next galaxy, and you know it!
did you miss the part where when jessica lynch was captured, her good friend lori piestwa DIED?

"According to U.S. military records, 33 female soldiers--three in Afghanistan and 30 in Iraq--have been killed since operations started in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003." http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/ (more now, that article was from march)

did you miss the part where when jessica lynch was captured, her good friend lori piestwa DIED?

"According to U.S. military records, 33 female soldiers--three in Afghanistan and 30 in Iraq--have been killed since operations started in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003." http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/ (more now, that article was from march)
Shrieks outrageously at the next galaxy over.

Never would I say such a thing.

Except, you already did.

Bu definition; the Al'Queda made an assult upon an "enemy" civilian group to render harm to the economy; direct assault upon the populous; which you; but your own reasoning considered valid.

In this case, if you were infact reasinging and logical, there are two choices:
1. You think it's wrong for the enemy to target your own civilian populous; but ok for you to do so to theirs.
2. You consider the enemies own engagement of your civilian populous as valid as your recapitulated engagement.

If 2, you're at least consistent. But no better than Hitler, Stalin, Saddam or Bin Ladden.
If 1, you're a hypocrit; and not operating from logical reasoning to begin with.


First of all, you can quit with the suggestions that I am like those evil dictators, because I am not. However, I do follow a somewhat Sun Tzuian and Maccieavellian attitude towards warfare. You don't fight a war unless you want to win. You and I differ on what it means to "win". I see winning as ending all enemy resistance and having your victory uncontested soasto remove any and all future problems to your victory. To each his own.

1. It's not a suggestion: it's a statement of fact. You're logic parellels their own. And you get classed with them; because that is in fact what you are; despite your fraudulent claims to the contrary.
2. Don't even try to assert your adherence to Sun Tzu, or any application of the 'Art of War'... You're very mention of engaging civilians is anathema to Sun Tzu's own philosphy; which set prinicples guidelines to warfare to keep it out of the civilian realm. Opposed urban combat; and encouraged remaining away from cities.
3. Your opinion has no place in my army.


Incorrect. Look at military history thoroughout time, the idea of total warfare is not a new one, nor has it been sparingly used at all.

The idea of Total Warfare is not new; no....It is however new to, and incompatible with our ideas as a Republic.

You take your philosphy into this Republic's service; and I guarantee you will be spending significant portions of your life at Ft. Leavenworth Kansas.


Excuse me? Just because I have a different opinion then you does not mean I lack ethics, it just means I view things differently. If you wish to have a thoughtful discussion then quit with the remarks, this is at least the second one in this post from you. That said, citizens may not be DIRECTLY in the employment of the Government, however because of the fact that they are members of the society the State is responsible for them, so they are INDIRECTLY at least in the employment of the State. They recieve benefits from the State, pay taxes to the State, and, in a democracy or republic, they ARE the State. Therefore in all cases if you break the will of the citizens you will break the enemy State, for even the most insane dictator will admit that without the citizens there is no power nor economy nor military. The easiest and fastest way to win a war is to end the enemy populace. You are looking at this from a moral standpoint and only that. I am looking at it from a moral and a militaristic standpoint, so I see the value in this line of thought.

We do not engage people; we engage foreign states. I'd at least conceed your idea; if our enemies were viable Republics.

Your "opinion" is illegal; and therefore unethical. And will get you nowhere; except locking into some military prison; for the criminal you're setting yourself up to become.


Excuse me? Not all "citizens of a foreign power" "live in oppression". Think for a moment you were a German invading France in ww2. Do you think the French live in oppression? Or how about the English? Are they oppressed? No, they never thought that. They disagreed with democracy but not for a moment thought those people were oppressed! Before you start rattling off comments like you did, try and put yourself in more positions then just the modern pacifist american. And as for rights? They have no rights other then the ones we decide to give to them when they are conquered. If they resit, you limit their rights, if they capitulate, you grant them more rights. Assimilation is the key.

No, but the ones we have engaged; and continue to do so; are. Which is the point.

You can take your ignorant thought of "pacifism" and shove it up your hind-end. I'm a combat veteran; which swore an oath; that you're setting yourself up to break; before you've even uttered it.


You are, once again, calling me the equivilent of one of those horrible dicators of the 20th century, and I am growing weary of this. NEVER will I support genocide or any other form or mass kiling under ANY pretense or reason. I have honor, I have integrity, and I am thinking of joing the Army ROTC because of my high respect for the American military. I will restate what I said before, simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am a dispicable person who enjoys watching people die. Now, retract your slanderous remarks and have a intellegent debate, or don't retract them, I will report you, and then we can have a intellegent debate, its up to you.

I don't want you in my military, son. Your opinion is not compatible with the principles of this Republic, nor with the oath you are going to have to swear; I hope you are geared up for your courts-martial that you will end up being under.

I'm not retracting anything. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck; then, it's likely a duck. As long as you repeat the exact same logic of people like Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Bin Laden; be prepared to be camped in with them.

Total Warfare has no place in the service of this Republic. And is both incompatible with it; and opposed to it.

If you think I will idly stand by, while you adopt philosphies which seek to destroy this country, under some lying pretense of "nobility", and "integrity"; you had better think again. Your philosphy is not noble, nor integral with the principles, and oath of office necessitate to service in the forces of this Republic.

Engaging non-combatant civilians; whether under your own recognisance; or under order; will lead you to nothing but an Article 92 hearing and courts-martial. I hope you're ready for that Big Chicken Dinner in your future...

In which case your simple definition needs a tweak. Are you claiming that if you gave medical attention to a fallen soldier from your side, then you would be a 'Partisan'? Yes, but in a good way. :p
How are we to define people who only have the opportunity to aid one side?Still Partisans... but as long as they are unarmed, there is no reason to do more than temporairly detain them for questioning (good Intel saves lives on both sides). Never penalize anyone for providing Medical Assistance, but don't give up the opportunity for Intel either.

I forget the exact term for them, maybe someone else remembers it, but basically the children of conqured Christians were taken, made into soldiers, and sent into battle first to get slaughtered before the Muslim troops entered battle.

Sounds like you mean the Janissaries, but you seem to have a few misconceptions regarding them. They were deliberately recruited from christian children, however they were not used as cannon-fodder - they were in fact the elite soliders of the Ottoman empire and formed the bodyguard of the sultan. Janissaries weren't forced to convert to Islam, either, although most did. They eventually gained so much political power that the corps had to be forcibly disbanded.