You guys and your guns...

[Gallstones]

Remember, if the Merkins invade somewhere, and a kid gets shot, it's the kids fault for being in a war zone. Dumb kid!

Thank god we have the Brits to look up to because they never killed a child during war. And if one did I'm sure he at least shed a tear.

Sometimes the kid isn't "innocent".
Ever watch Good Morning Viet Nam?

If you carefully define an enemy combatant to be "anyone in our designated war zone that we shot" then you could probably claim never to have killed a civilian.

I take vicarious comfort in knowing that the Brits never inflict collateral damage.

[Clinton Huxley]

I was wondering when the patented CES tactic for derailing any criticism of the US would be deployed. Generally speaking, the people in this thread with the most blasé attitude to the death of foreign civilians are the Americans in the thread, so don't whine if you get a bit of flak for it. Here's an idea, if you don't want to get shot by a child in country X, don't invade country X. I doubt the blighter will turn up on your doorstep.

[Clinton Huxley]

Remember, if the Merkins invade somewhere, and a kid gets shot, it's the kids fault for being in a war zone. Dumb kid!

Thank god we have the Brits to look up to because they never killed a child during war. And if one did I'm sure he at least shed a tear.

Sometimes the kid isn't "innocent".
Ever watch Good Morning Viet Nam?

If you carefully define an enemy combatant to be "anyone in our designated war zone that we shot" then you could probably claim never to have killed a civilian.

I take vicarious comfort in knowing that the Brits never inflict collateral damage.

Feel free to quote where I claimed that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gallstones]

Remember, if the Merkins invade somewhere, and a kid gets shot, it's the kids fault for being in a war zone. Dumb kid!

Thank god we have the Brits to look up to because they never killed a child during war. And if one did I'm sure he at least shed a tear.

Sometimes the kid isn't "innocent".
Ever watch Good Morning Viet Nam?

If you carefully define an enemy combatant to be "anyone in our designated war zone that we shot" then you could probably claim never to have killed a civilian.

I take vicarious comfort in knowing that the Brits never inflict collateral damage.

Feel free to quote where I claimed that.

How about right here, where you imply that only when the US does it is it worth noting:

Remember, if the Merkins invade somewhere, and a kid gets shot, it's the kids fault for being in a war zone. Dumb kid!

So, when the Brits invade somewhere--as you have--and kids get shot and killed by British soldiers or bombs, is it the kids' fault then? Or is that only Merkins place blame and blame the kid.

And can you show with evidence that when the Merkins shoot kids as consequence to the activities of war that we are as callous as you allude?
And can you show evidence that no one else is as callous as that?

[JimC]

I was wondering when the patented CES tactic for derailing any criticism of the US would be deployed. Generally speaking, the people in this thread with the most blasé attitude to the death of foreign civilians are the Americans in the thread, so don't whine if you get a bit of flak for it. Here's an idea, if you don't want to get shot by a child in country X, don't invade country X. I doubt the blighter will turn up on your doorstep.

However, statements like this are another temptation for the usual, silly polarisation of debate.

It tends to force Americans towards a position (if they don't already occupy it) that "every military intervention by the US since WW2 has been both totally justified and utterly heroic"

The alternative, "Sandinista" position is "every military intervention by the US since WW2 has been both totally unjustified, imperialist in objective and utterly barbaric in nature"

The murky truth lies between, of course...

[Gallstones]

I was wondering when the patented CES tactic for derailing any criticism of the US would be deployed. Generally speaking, the people in this thread with the most blasé attitude to the death of foreign civilians are the Americans in the thread, so don't whine if you get a bit of flak for it. Here's an idea, if you don't want to get shot by a child in country X, don't invade country X. I doubt the blighter will turn up on your doorstep.

Wow.
Such clean hands.
I hang my head in shame.

[Clinton Huxley]

Jim, I think most of our more right wing Merkin members already occupy the position that every American war was a just war.

[mistermack]

MM, you will never understand.

I understand what death means. It's just as devastating for foreign people, as it is for New Yorkers.

I find an amazing double standard in most people. 911 was a terrible tragedy.
The invasion of Iraq was more like a ball game. Very little thought or concern given to the innocent people killed.

And nobody mentions all the people the vets have killed. Soldiers kill and get killed.
When they come home, people completely wipe the first bit from their minds, as if it just doesn't exist.

It's welcome home heroes, not welcome home killers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MM, you will never understand.

I understand what death means. It's just as devastating for foreign people, as it is for New Yorkers.

I find an amazing double standard in most people. 911 was a terrible tragedy.
The invasion of Iraq was more like a ball game. Very little thought or concern given to the innocent people killed.

And nobody mentions all the people the vets have killed. Soldiers kill and get killed.
When they come home, people completely wipe the first bit from their minds, as if it just doesn't exist.

It's welcome home heroes, not welcome home killers.

True, we didn't get a welcome home. As for the rest, you don't matter, not at all.

[JimC]

Jim, I think most of our more right wing Merkin members already occupy the position that every American war was a just war.

One or two maybe, but I think you do many a disservice - they would see at least some aspects of US military adventures over the past 50 years as being morally ambiguous...

And the other side is that there have been some pretty vital benefits to various US military postures over the years...

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_REFORGER

[Clinton Huxley]

Jim, I think most of our more right wing Merkin members already occupy the position that every American war was a just war.

One or two maybe, but I think you do many a disservice - they would see at least some aspects of US military adventures over the past 50 years as being morally ambiguous...

And the other side is that there have been some pretty vital benefits to various US military postures over the years...

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

I specified the more right wing Merkins.

[JimC]

Jim, I think most of our more right wing Merkin members already occupy the position that every American war was a just war.

One or two maybe, but I think you do many a disservice - they would see at least some aspects of US military adventures over the past 50 years as being morally ambiguous...

And the other side is that there have been some pretty vital benefits to various US military postures over the years...

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

I specified the more right wing Merkins.

Of which only a certain proportion would be utterly absolutist about the US being the only light in an evil world...

[Clinton Huxley]

If the US had gone isolationist in the 50s, you may well be speaking Russian now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_REFORGER

The US would never have let such a lucrative export market as W. Europe fall to the Reds....