Potus ???

[GarethM]

17 minutes ago, Mark J said:

So you agree that proportionality does have its place in warfare?

Thanks for that. Have a good day. 

No you soft in the head hippy.

 

Nuclear has nothing to do with proportionality, it's a big stick that stops any others from ever using theirs, effectively making them big paperweights.

 

So, they use the same tried and tested air/land & sea warfare and forever shall.

 

You're enemy does not care about you, rules, culture or hurty feeling as dead is dead.

Edited April 17 by GarethM

[GarethM]

Or to really dumb it down.

 

You've bought a factory fresh ms500i but the factory only weld on a 100" bar making it unusable.

 

Dave the competition down the road also bought the exact same saw.

 

Both of you know they work and can test everything except cutting a tree.

 

Does that mean you don't tell everyone you've got the biggest dick but can't use it or does it just become a wall ornament ?.

 

So you both resort to using the 200 & 261 like everyone else.

[Mark J]

6 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Or to really dumb it down.

 

You've bought a factory fresh ms500i but the factory only weld on a 100" bar making it unusable.

 

Dave the competition down the road also bought the exact same saw.

 

Both of you know they work and can test everything except cutting a tree.

 

Does that mean you don't tell everyone you've got the biggest dick but can't use it or does it just become a wall ornament ?.

 

So you both resort to using the 200 & 261 like everyone else.

Do you think the Israelis ongoing response to the Hamas attack is appropriate?  

[GarethM]

3 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do you think the Israelis ongoing response to the Hamas attack is appropriate?  

I have no skin in that particular game, but simplistically one is an elected government the other is a proscribed terrorist group.

 

Swap countries of Hamas for the Afghan Taliban, does your viewpoint change ?.

 

War is not a videogame, the first rule being there is no rules.

[Mark J]

24 minutes ago, GarethM said:

I have no skin in that particular game, but simplistically one is an elected government the other is a proscribed terrorist group.

 

Swap countries of Hamas for the Afghan Taliban, does your viewpoint change ?.

 

War is not a videogame, the first rule being there is no rules.

You seem to be equating Hamas with ordinary Palestinians. 

[GarethM]

No I'm equating Hamas with being terrorists, plain and simples.

 

Why do you read everything and seem to come to a conclusion that wasn't argued.

 

Next you'll be saying but they're not terrorists, just misguided yoofs drinking cider on the local park.

Edited April 17 by GarethM

[Johnsond]

2 hours ago, Mark J said:

Why should we (UK) have a ground army when we could just use our nukes?

Christ mark

Show stopper of a comment that. 

[Yournamehere]

43 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Christ mark

Show stopper of a comment that. 

Well. Yes it is.

If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met.

This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses.

Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised.

This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage.

This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims.

The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war.

 

*for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply

** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

[GarethM]

40 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Well. Yes it is.

If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met.

This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses.

Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised.

This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage.

This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims.

The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war.

 

*for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply

** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

You waffle on about proportional responses, ok so apply to the Taliban.

 

How are you going to explain suicide bombings ?.

 

You can't apply our rules of engagement to them blowing themselves up in a crowded market can you.

[Yournamehere]

1 minute ago, GarethM said:

You waffle on about proportional responses, ok so apply to the Taliban.

 

How are you going to explain suicide bombings ?.

 

You can't apply our rules of engagement to them blowing themselves up in a crowded market can you.

So sorry you think that waffle, Gareth; for myself, I thought it a succinct and well argued point; but Hey ho.

 

Ah! but then, everything is waffle to you isn't it? Have you ever wondered if the fault lies with yourself.

 

On the other hand it is nice (and refreshing) that you have replied without the usual impolite insults and unfounded assumptions. (I mean this in all seriousness: well done.)

 

As to suicide bombings: do you mean specifically as regards the Taliban and civilians or to include the Japanese suicide bombers and their military targets?

 

It is true, they are beyond the 'normal' rules of engagement (as I, a mere bystander would understand them) and that that is why they are considered an outrage.

 

As to their 'proportionality' (in the sense we are discussing here) I would have said that the Taliban's attacks on civilian targets are obviously at odds with concept/principle* of proportionality. Specificly because of the civilian target.

But the point still stands: The suicide attacks by members of the Taliban upon civilian targets is considered an outrage because of the concept of proportionality in war which they violate.

 

The Japanese suicide attacks are probably best left for another day actually - and another thread - this is already a mahoosive enough derail as it is.

 

Nice to be able to discuss a point in a civil manner, Gareth.

 

 

*I'm unsure how it is regarded: if there is a more suitable term, then use that

 

 

PS As to explaining them: wow, that would take a long, long time.