military tactics and morality

[Eric J in MN]

Suppose a few people are shooting and US soldiers, and then running into a mosque, and then come out to shoot at US solders, and run into a mosque again.

The mosque has hundreds of worshippers in it.

Is it moral to fire missiles at the mosque and kill 40 people?

If not, what should the military do?

[stellanoir]

1. get outta Dodge

I'm sorry. . .but I truly feel the military tactics and morality are mutually exclusive.

[kalian]

2. Let's talk morality and ILLEGAL INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

shall we...?
WHO is at fault?
WHO is occupying a country ILLEGALLY?
WHO is imposing their will on the local population?
WHO?!

Enough said. We need to pull out. Apologize to the world and
IMPEACH the motherf#$@% that sits in the WH. :mad:

[maggrwaggr]

3. the military should move to a place where being in a mosque

doesn't put the enemy at an advantage.

If the enemy is shooting from a mosque, move somewhere else.

Let them chase you. Then kill them.

[Jim__]

4. If a bank robber runs into your house and then holds your child in front

of him and fires at the police, what should the police do? Burn down your house? Shoot through your child? Back off and try to negotiate a settlement?

I know the military are not the police. Unfortunately, In Iraq, now, they are largely playing a police role. Bad, no win role, for the military.

So, how should the military handle the situation you describe? Shoot the gunmen when they come out of the mosque - that's when they're actually firing at the military in your scenario; or, go into the mosque after them. There are other options than a missile fired into a crowded mosque. If the other options are unacceptable, maybe we have no business being there.

[keithyboy]

5. Get the hell out of other people's country!!

Bring their butts home and try to quell the illegal immigrants coming into the country and crime wave that is soaring but kept quiet.

[brokensymmetry]

6. And, what's effective?

Does taking out the mosque eliminate the immediate problem, but build a greater one?

I think we face one of those defining moments in history. To win the war, we must adopt particularly brutal tactics. These will transform us, and the way the world perceives us. It is a path that, once taken, cannot be undone.

On the other hand, if we don't adopt the tactics mentioned above, we will surely lose. And that, too, will change us, and the way the world treats us.

We live in interesting times. Yikes!

[Karenina]

8. What do you consider

a "win" in this situation?

[brokensymmetry]

10. Fair question.

What IS a win? Personally, I think getting out with no more losses would be the best move.

However, "win" depends on perspective. One definition might be to eliminate all resistance within Iraq. Or it might be the installation of a friendly government that could control and suppress all resistance in Iraq - sorta like Saddam.

Either option would, I think, cost a great deal of blood and treasure. Would the oil be worth it? Again, personally, I think we'd be better off developing other energy solutions. It appears that * and company have a different view than I.

[mulethree]

7. use a tazer or teargas?

Seriously my friend came out of the army and went into the police and had a bit of a hard time seperating the two missions.

He ended up in a Brooklyn police precinct because they are allowed to be more authoritarian and physical, the population being largely poor and dark-skinned and conditioned to it. They keep those brooklyn cops away from legally aware, lawyer-hiring white folks in Manhattan.

Like two seperate police forces with different training as to respecting citizens, civil rights, stop and question, frisk, acceptable degrees of force etc.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. No, the Law of War is pretty clear on this

The religious property should be flanked and bypassed, fighters who emerge from there armed are fair game, but to attack the building is wrong, and has been since antiquity.