The way this is presented, those objecting had a clear standard that I think is (on some level) reasonable: they refuse to fight in a war involving the death of civilians. Now, I think that's a bit naive, because all war involves the death of civilians, but it seems a clear place to draw the line.
It's particularly important to me that the rights of people to refuse to participate in a war for their own reasons, whether religious or not, whether outside observers consider them to be rational or not, be protected.
This was hardly a mass protest; can't see why it was a newsworthy item. But I'm personally glad to see it.
Re:Protect civilians
darobin on 2003-04-01T09:33:27
Same thing for my grand-father, also colonel in the French army. Anyone believing that protection of the civilians is at the top of the priority list in the current war is deluding himself. It's in the list somewhere, but far from the top.
Oh, and "chirurgical" really means "if it really does work and hit its target, then it'll completely devastate an area 300 metres around it, and break things and injure people up to a kilometre away". That's why you don't bomb urban areas when you want to protect civilians, because it simply is not possible.
Re:Protect civilians
pudge on 2003-04-08T01:21:41
Anyone believing that protection of the civilians is at the top of the priority list in the current war is deluding himself. It's in the list somewhere, but far from the top.
Of course. It can't be the top goal. The top goal is to achieve the political objectives of the war. That always must be the top goal. If you can't commit to that, you shouldn't be in the war business.Re:Protect civilians
darobin on 2003-04-08T08:17:51
Obviously, yet I don't see what's wrong with believing that protection of the civilian population should be a top political objective
:)
