More evidence we are all becoming less civilized by the day:

[Rich]

So Alisa is referring to herself as British? How did you deduce that one?

She refererred to an article in a British newspaper regarding actions by British troops, and since her post was both accurate and a fair and balanced viewpoint we award her honouree membership of the British Empire

 

[Alisa]

So Alisa is referring to herself as British? How did you deduce that one?

Just to clarify the point, I was refering to "we" as the combination of British and American forces that are cooperatively using this weaponry in Afghanistan right now.

 

[Alisa]

She refererred to an article in a British newspaper regarding actions by British troops, and since her post was both accurate and a fair and balanced viewpoint we award her honouree membership of the British Empire

Thanks Rich

 

[dan-cat]

I think you misunderstood my comment. I should have added an eye roll or something to it. Obviously I don't think the use mustard gas is benign or civil.

Ok, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Alisa]

To imply that weapons are getting increasingly more uncivilised as time passes is to ignore this fact, IMO.

I am not implying that the weapons are getting increasingly more uncivilized. After all, I don't think a vacuum bomb is nearly as bad as a nuclear bomb, which we have had for decades. I will reiterate my point since it seems not to be clear. The very act of inventing new and horrible ways of killing people, and then changing definitions to circumvent existing laws in order to allow their use, is uncivilized. The original point had nothing to do with the comparitive civility of different types of weaponry.

 

[Rabbie]

Exactly my point. I am disagreeing with the sentiment that we are becoming more uncivilised by the day.

I am afraid that we are. After WW1 the use of gas was decided to be unacceptable and banned. Now our goverments seem to think that the use of weapons like Thermobaric bombs are acceptable. To me this seems to be a retrograde step and indicates a decline in civilised standards

 

[dan-cat]

I am not implying that the weapons are getting increasingly more uncivilized. After all, I don't think a vacuum bomb is nearly as bad as a nuclear bomb, which we have had for decades. I will reiterate my point since it seems not to be clear. The very act of inventing new and horrible ways of killing people, and then changing definitions to circumvent existing laws in order to allow their use, is uncivilized. The original point had nothing to do with the comparitive civility of different types of weaponry.

My original point was to respond to the debatable implication that we, as a race, are getting less civilised in comparison to the past.

I took it from this:
"More evidence we are all becoming less civilized by the day:"

If this is not the case then my point is mute.

 

[Rich]

I expected you to challenge without making personal remarks which I feel was uncalled for.

.

I feel the comparisons between the 20th and 21st centuries was uncalled for, we'll call that quits for now

You snip the line of history to suit your argument.

You brought history into play as a valid argument, not me

Far more brutal weapons have been used in the past

Assuming you're still talking about mustard gas, which ones?

and bans have been placed on them by the developed world

Has the US signed up to the land mine treaty yet?

 

[Alisa]

My original point was to respond to the debatable implication that we, as a race, are getting less civilised in comparison to the past.

I took it from this:
"More evidence we are all becoming less civilized by the day:"

If this is not the case then my point is mute.

Or moot as the case may be?

I think there is direct reverse correlation between the amount of time/effort/money/resources we spend blowing people up and our level of civilization. Civilized people have diplomacy. Barbarians have wars.

 

[dan-cat]

I am afraid that we are. After WW1 the use of gas was decided to be unacceptable and banned. Now our goverments seem to think that the use of weapons like Thermobaric bombs are acceptable. To me this seems to be a retrograde step and indicates a decline in civilised standards

This is why I compare to the past. From the article:

The MoD said: “We are conscious of the controversial aspects [of this weapon] but it is being used sparingly and under strict circumstances where it is deemed appropriate by the commander on the ground.”

This type of weapon is both controversial and limited in use. Ask yourself why and suggest to me an answer.

Now compare to the widespread use of gas in WWI. People who say that I'm living in the wrong century are in incorrect. I'm simply comparing the perceptions and attitudes towards brutal weaponry between the ages.

 

[dan-cat]

Or moot as the case may be?

Indeed.

I think there is direct reverse correlation between the amount of time/effort/money/resources we spend blowing people up and our level of civilization. Civilized people have diplomacy. Barbarians have wars.

So cuts in British defense budgets suggest an increase in civilisation rather than a decrease?

 

[ColinEssex]

Is this weapon any more barbaric then the nuclear one the US used or the napalm the US used?

Col

 

[redneckgeek]

Alisa,

I apologize for missing the sarcasm in the mustard gas statement. Sometimes a forum is can be a tough way to debate.

I see your point about our continuing to find new ways to kill people as being offensive. I wish it wasn't necessary, also.
Why do I say "necessary"? 25 years ago, carpet bombing was the norm.
It got your target, but also took out EVERYTHING else within 1/2 mile of the target. That's unacceptable today. So while we do continue to develop more ways to kill, we become more efficient (for lack of a better word) without all the collatoral damage.

If these weapons truly were against the Hague conventions, the (worthless) world court would've trumped up some charges by now.

BTW: Congrats on being accepted into the British Empire. God Save The Queen (We mean it, man!)

 

[redneckgeek]

Is this weapon any more barbaric then the nuclear one the US used or the napalm the US used?

Col

Col,
It looks like you're agreeing with the point dan-cat is trying to make.
Can it be? (just kidding)

 

[Rich]

God Save The Queen (We mean it, man!)

Oddly enough there are many in this country who don't share that sentiment

 

[ColinEssex]

Col,
It looks like you're agreeing with the point dan-cat is trying to make.
Can it be? (just kidding)

Daniella and I have agreed on things in the past. As I have with Kenneth.

Col

 

[Alisa]

Alisa,

I apologize for missing the sarcasm in the mustard gas statement. Sometimes a forum is can be a tough way to debate.

I see your point about our continuing to find new ways to kill people as being offensive. I wish it wasn't necessary, also.
Why do I say "necessary"? 25 years ago, carpet bombing was the norm.
It got your target, but also took out EVERYTHING else within 1/2 mile of the target. That's unacceptable today. So while we do continue to develop more ways to kill, we become more efficient (for lack of a better word) without all the collatoral damage.

If these weapons truly were against the Hague conventions, the (worthless) world court would've trumped up some charges by now.

BTW: Congrats on being accepted into the British Empire. God Save The Queen (We mean it, man!)

I find it hard to debate whether one horrific method of killing people is more or less acceptable than some other horrific method of killing people. Either way, we are killing people that don't deserve to die. It is really hard to find good numbers, because our media seems intent on not counting the 10s (or hundreds?) of thousands of casualties on the other side, but anecdotally, it seems that there is quite a lot of collateral damage and killing of innocents going on right now, despite these new weapons.

Also, one of the main points in the article is that they reclassified these weapons for the sole purpose of following the letter, but not the intent, of the law.

Doesn't make it right.

 

[Alisa]

So cuts in British defense budgets suggest an increase in civilisation rather than a decrease?

Isn't it funny how we call them "defense" budgets, when all we use them for is occupying and attacking other countries?
But to answer your question, yes, I would agree that a reduction in military spending would suggest an increase in civility.

 

[Alisa]

Is this weapon any more barbaric then the nuclear one the US used or the napalm the US used?

Col

I think you might have missed the post where I answered that before. I said:

I am not implying that the weapons are getting increasingly more uncivilized. After all, I don't think a vacuum bomb is nearly as bad as a nuclear bomb, which we have had for decades. I will reiterate my point since it seems not to be clear. The very act of inventing new and horrible ways of killing people, and then changing definitions to circumvent existing laws in order to allow their use, is uncivilized. The original point had nothing to do with the comparitive civility of different types of weaponry.

 

[redneckgeek]

It is really hard to find good numbers, because our media seems intent on not counting the 10s (or hundreds?) of thousands of casualties on the other side, but anecdotally, it seems that there is quite a lot of collateral damage and killing of innocents going on right now, despite these new weapons.

*sigh*

I hate to even broach the subject, but...
The mainstream media in the US would do anything they could to embarass the Bush administration. They would gleefully jump all over it if there was a single credible shred of evidence of 10's of thousands of civilian casualties.

I hold to my assertion that we are more "civilized" now than in previous wars - because of weapons like this. They are developed to help avoid collatoral damage.