How much would a border fence cost? Would $182,000,000 be a good start?

I have lied about absolutely NOTHING in this thread - or anywhere else here, for that matter. again... if known civilians are within the CEP of the weapon system, then they are in the bullseye. If they wanted to use a weapon system that was more discriminating that could walk into a restaurant and only kill one person, they could have used one. (do you really think that we didn't have black ops assets on the ground?) They chose not to do so. In other words, if the target was not to kill everyone in the restaurant, why did they chose a weapon system that would do precisely that? Civilians were targets whether you care to admit it or not. Again. if we had wanted to kill Saddam and used, instead, a small tactical nuke, it would have killed him and 50K civilians in the surrounding area. Suggesting that they were just unfortunate casualties that we did not plan to kill... that we had actually hoped that the nuke would only kill ONE person and miraculously spare the thousands living within its CEP is pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Why then, is a cruise missile attack that is aimed at a restaurant and the adjacent apartment building any less ridiculous? We target civilians. Shock and awe targeted civilians. Cruise missiles aimed at restaurants target civilians. You are the liar here, certainly not me.

 

Listen, kicking and screaming while being caught in a lie just makes you look sad. Define enemy target. Then define Civilian Casualty.

If they have the same definition, you're right. If they do not, then I am right and your lies have been confirmed.

- - - Updated - - -

Shock and Awe's mission is not classified, the targets were: Members and operators in Saddam's Republican Guard.

Where does it say that the civilians were the targets? LOL!

Another lie you've just stated.

 

you said that civilians who are killed in a military operation are called "casualties", and as a military man, I know that the term casualty does not simply refer to civilians and it does not solely refer to deaths. I would have thought that if you, as a supposed Army Soldier were to chide me on failing to use the word correctly, that you would have been able to do so yourself. In the military, when WE use the word "casualty", it is usually defined as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)

And AGAIN... if civilians are known to exist within the kill radius of the weapon being used against the enemy, they fall within the target. Shock and awe was over a thousand combat air missions and nearly 500 cruise missile strikes. Civilians were inside all of those target areas.

Again, if Saddam had been visiting an orphanage, or a children's hospital, or a kindergarten, would we have put a cruise missile into those facilities in order to get him? Of course not, because the bad PR for killing babies is even worse than the bad PR for killing adult civilians who did nothing wrong other than try to find a nice quiet place to have dinner.

 

I figured you'd deflect. It's been your M.O.

Can you show us in any OpOrder (operational order) where the target is listed as a civilian. Provide me with the target Op. If you cannot, you will once again be faced with the title of Liar. You're digging yourself in such a deep hole there is no hope.

 

again... a silly distinction without a difference. When civilians are known to be residing within the kill radius of a missile or a bomb, and we drop it anyway, they are targets just like the one military enemy sitting in the midst of them. If we had not wanted to kill all the diners in the restaurant, we would have not used a weapon that was designed to kill them all.

How long were you (or have you been) in uniform?

 

So you're saying, you refuse to show me an instance where the target is listed as "innocent guy at home", or "innocent guy sitting next to a terrorist"? Do you agree that Operational orders state the target as a known terrorist? If you disagree that the target is NOT the terrorist, rather the target is merely civilians, please provide sources that state the target as innocent civilians rather than the terrorist (or Saddam). Once again, you'll deflect and lie, we know how this goes. I know you can't provide me with what I'm asking, because you made it up.

- - - Updated - - -

I was in the Army for 7 years in total. Are you now questioning my service record? Stooping pretty low, are we? My service has nothing to do with you lying about targets.

 

do you even KNOW what the phrase "distinction without a difference" means?

The target was the restaurant where we THOUGHT Saddam might be dining. We picked a weapon that would kill everyone in the restaurant. We didn't know what table he would be sitting at, so every table in the restaurant was within the target area. Every civilian in the restaurant was within the target. The "targets" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were munitions plants. Do you think we would have dropped a nuclear weapon on those cities because we wanted to destroy the machinery in those plants and not the civilians working in them or the civilians living next door to them? We dropped a weapon that decimated an entire city and the civilian deaths were unintended? Can you even say that with a straight face?

 

I am not questioning your service record in the least. I am questioning what you learned while in uniform. I was in uniform from June of 1968 until September of 1993. It seems to me that I learned a bit more during my tenure than you did during yours.

 

We dropped a weapon that we knew would kill the enemy. The enemy was the TARGET. The civilians were called "casualties". Which is what I've been saying this whole time with a completely straight face.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems you need some higher education since you can't distinguish "target" from "casualty". What I learned in uniform is 100% irrelevant to this conversation. We're talking about the targets. I don't care about your history, nor my own. The OPorders never read "kill everyone in restaurant" like you believe. In fact, they list the target's name, and that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

And now that I'm finished being a jerk, thank you for your service.

 

Is the right willing to pay for that fence by ditching our Drug War, or is it really just another government program blah...blah...blah, that will have to be maintained as much as bridges and other infrastructure.

 

the cruise missile strike was designed to kill everyone in the restaurant. that's a fact. and you misuse the military term "casualty", which I find odd. The term I think you are looking for is "collateral damage". And thank you for your service as well.

 

The Power to enact letters of marque and reprisal should be viewed as a requirement whenever our federal Congress, assembled, cannot justify wartime tax rates to the Poeple to prosecute any alleged war.

 

Agreed, build a 20ft fence, they'll bring a 21ft ladder.

 

I believe a better question is, how much money can we make through our Commerce Clause with Commerce at our border?