Canada

[spacemonkey]

If not for the USA, Mexico would slam into Canada and make a Himalayan type mountain chain from about the Great Lakes west to the Pacific.

[Philly]

I'm not sure what Saz is getting at here. He says we would never strike a hospital with enemy combatants in it because there would be civilian casualties. He has harped on the specific question of a hospital. Yet we all know that our drones make strike after strike trying to take down combatants despite knowing that civilians are often in the vicinity of the strike. If we really placed such a high premium on avoiding civilian casualty, we wouldn't do this. Our military knows that drone strikes kill lots of civilians and they do it anyway. Now, Saz, what exactly is it about a hospital vs. a market or a wedding or a house that makes us suddenly prioritize civilian lives at all cost?

[Saz]

[Philly]

You've already noted that international law is inconsequential here. But that irrelevant international law aside, you seem to also feel that there is a significant moral distinction between hospitals and other civilian targets. I'm not sure I see it. Sure, it sucks to destroy a hospital especially in a war torn area, but if you'll launch a drone at a crowded market with 50 civilians walking around because you think you'll be able to take out 3 enemy combatants, then putting 20 civilians lives in danger to get 10 is certainly not any worse. Maybe if it was a daycare or something and you could surmise that you'd be killing a bunch of children, but beyond that, I don't think killing an innocent civilian lying in a hospital bed is any more or less moral than killing one who is out buying something to eat.

[Saz]

[Philly]

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying it's fine to bomb a hospital. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying that bombing other targets sure to have a high civilian count in the vicinity is no more acceptable. I get that there is precedent here for agreeing to protect medical facilities and the wounded, but if you're saying that MORALLY, 10 dead innocents who were walking through a market is not as bad as 10 dead innocents who were inside of a hospital, I can't get with that. We will strike a hospital any damn time we feel the need to blow up someone inside of it. They may not openly admit that we were intentionally targeting a hospital, but face it, if they really wanna take out a guy who has taken refuge in a hospital and they determine that blowing it up is the best tactical option, they're gonna say f**k it and shoot, then play dumb about it. This is shitty, but so is blowing up a few dozen civilians who aren't in a hospital and saying "Yeah, we droned that area full of civilians, but hey, we think there were terrorists in there too". At least they have enough shame to lie about it with the hospital.

[Saz]

Nah, I still think the 10 dead innocents is worse because a hospital is known to be and assumed to be a place of protection and one that is off limits. It's not a huge moral distinction for me, my main issue is that we signed treaties saying we wouldn't do this and then do it anyway for minor f**k tactical issues.

[exploited]

[spacemonkey]

War is the stupidest game man plays. And as long as man plays that game, man is stupid.

[John Galt]

lmao

canada abstained from the UN vote today about jewusalem, but was originally planning on voting against. it decided to change to abstention in protest of TRUMP making threats about denying countries aid if they voted for the resolution