Родной язык: English На форумах с: April 28, 2004 Местонахождение: United States
RE: Freedom...
Actually, the recast sentence was better than the one I originally wrote; thanks for the editorial input.
Now, I'll let others try to work out whether the intellectuals and semi-intellectuals of Europe suffer from collective Stockholm Syndrome with respect to "the totalitarian ideology that must never be named" (by liberals).
—Scott, who never referred to the disgraceful Berlin landmark as the antifaschistischer Schutzwall
[Отредактировано Scott Rasmussen, June 12, 2009 12:36 PM]
KABUL, Afghanistan — Sharply conflicting reports on an American airstrike this week continued to trickle out Friday from American military and Afghan officials as to whether the attack killed civilians.
The airstrike in Ghor Province in western Afghanistan Tuesday had targeted a local Taliban militant, Mullah Mustafa, but instead killed 10 civilians and 12 insurgents, according to Sayed Iqbal Munib, the governor of Ghor Province.
But American officials Friday said the strike killed up to 16 militants and no civilians.
I obviously don't know what the truth is about this latest incident, but let's assume just for the sake of argument that -- as has been true so many times before -- it is the claim of local Afghan officials, rather than the U.S. military, that is accurate, and Afghan civilians, once again, really were killed by our airstrike.
Using the standard that is now so accepted across the political spectrum in Washington -- information that will inflame anti-American sentiment should be suppressed rather than disclosed so at to not endanger our troops -- isn't it better if we just cover-up, rather than learn the truth about, the civilian deaths we caused in Afghanistan? After all, news reports of dead Afghan women and children at the hands of American bombs obviously inflame anti-American sentiment and Endanger Our Troops at least as much as the disclosure of some additional torture photos would. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/12/afghanistan/index.html?source=newsletter
Expert Родной язык: English Сообщений: 1822 На форумах с: February 1, 2008 Местонахождение: United States
RE: Freedom...
Jacek, this is why I think that the U.S. military will not win wars in future. You cannot win wars if you go in with the mentality of not killing anyone innocent. How many innocent people were killed in Normandy in 1944 ? I don't know. Obviously, civilian deaths are bad and even terrible, but in a war, can you avoid them ? Ever see the movie "Blackhawk Down" ? Please explain how soldiers are to defend themselves when people are shooting at them with AK-47s and RPGs, when no stray bullet is ever allowed to hit a civilian, from the U.S. side ? The Israelis are in the same position. They try (I am pretty sure) to minimize civilian deaths, but the enemy hides in and amongst civilians, and even uses civilians as shields (firing from mosques, etc.). How can you fight someone who does that, morally ? War has always and everywhere involved civilian death. Indeed, if it didn't, the view goes, civilian populations would have no compunction about war, and would be more likely to engage in it. This sounds kind of crass and uncaring, and I don't mean it that way, but one reason that the Germans and Japanese have not tried anything at all militarily since 1945, and are now "pacifist", is due to the mass civilan casualties inflicted in the war. The reason that there was no U.S. Confederate resurgence, was the horrible nature of that war. As Sherman put it, "Thank God war is hell, for otherwise, we should like it too much".
But we didn't have "Moveon.org" and the Huffington Post at D-Day, reporting on the number of civilians "murdered" by allied bombs gone astray. We didn't have Jane Fonda at 'Sherman's March to the Sea', complaining about civilian deaths. We didn't have CNN reporting on the civilian "death count" from firebombing Japanese Cities. Maybe it was better that way.
Родной язык: Polish На форумах с: February 18, 2003 Местонахождение: Poland
RE: Freedom...
Originally written by John Bunch on June 15, 2009 12:14 AM
Jacek, this is why I think that the U.S. military will not win wars in future. [...]
But we didn't have "Moveon.org" and the Huffington Post at D-Day, reporting on the number of civilians "murdered" by allied bombs gone astray. We didn't have Jane Fonda at 'Sherman's March to the Sea', complaining about civilian deaths. We didn't have CNN reporting on the civilian "death count" from firebombing Japanese Cities. Maybe it was better that way.
Don't worry, John. While it is indeed unlikely that persons as great as Jane Fonda be born outisde the US, The Huffington Posts may spread around the world making it impossible also for others to win wars. As much as the Middle East would then be boring, I would prefer it that way - simply without wars, with just police taking care of criminals and terrorists both there and everywhere else.
Expert Родной язык: English Сообщений: 1822 На форумах с: February 1, 2008 Местонахождение: United States
RE: Freedom...
But the bad guys are not deterred by Huffington or Jane Fonda. Do you think that Bin Ladin cares what Huffington writes ? Do you think that a Russian general, training his artillery on civilians in Grozny, or a Congolese warlord (where 4 million civilians have been killed since 1998) is deterred by the "progressive press" in the West ? Are Somali warlords deterred by what Huffington might write about them ? Do Pakistani terrorists defer from firing on Indians in Mumbai, because Jane Fonda or Bono might frown on it ? The World resembles the "Wild West", where bandits rule and sheer Darwinism prevails, unless the "sheriff" steps in. I know that it is a cliche, but that does not mean that it is not true. Britain used to be such a "sheriff", up until about 1956, and then the U.S. took over. If the U.S. decides that it does not want to do war anymore and is basically a big version of Sweden, I doubt that would help people in place like the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Burma.
[Отредактировано John Bunch, June 15, 2009 1:09 AM]
Родной язык: Polish На форумах с: February 18, 2003 Местонахождение: Poland
RE: Freedom...
Originally written by John Bunch on June 15, 2009 6:50 AM
The World resembles the "Wild West", where bandits rule and sheer Darwinism prevails...
Absolutely.
...unless the "sheriff" steps in.
Here we differ on who should be the sheriff. For me he should be a local and the rest of us should not give a damn about the Wild West, having all the rest of the planet to live in.
If the U.S. decides that it does not want to do war anymore and is basically a big version of Sweden, I doubt that would help people in place like the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Burma.
It's all a matter of preparing an estimate of costs for the "disinterested sheriff"'s department. If those costs far exceed possible gains, like in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should live those peoples at the antipodes sort out their problems themselves, limiting ourselves to humanitarian aid. Unless, of course, the sheriff is not that disinterested and we are simply talking about waging wars to promote his vital imperial interests.
Expert Родной язык: English Сообщений: 1822 На форумах с: February 1, 2008 Местонахождение: United States
RE: Freedom...
Those are not mutually exclusive. You can send in the "sheriff" and help the poor at the same time.
I really don't know what a "disinterested sheriff" would look like. Can you give me an example of that ? And please don't say, the United Nations. The troops that they send in to "trouble spots" end up raping people and selling UN Range Rovers, mostly. I prefer the U.S. Marines any day to a bunch of rapists from Morocco (in the Congo Conflict, Moroccan UN troops repeatedly raped unarmed civilians and traded food for sex).
Мнения, высказанные в форумах, отражают исключительно личные взгляды авторов и не обязательно совпадают с позицией администрации сайта и (или) его модераторов. Если читатель считает размещенное сообщение спорным, он может уведомить модератора форума. Подобная жалоба обычно рассматривается в течение 24 часов. Просьба учесть, однако, что модераторы могут жить в другом часовом поясе. Помните, что ваше присутствие на форумах означает согласие с Правилами публикации сообщений в форумах.
Language, Literature, Arts, Religion, Other 
Мобильная версия |
Настройки форума |
Вход
Ответить
С цитированием
Правка
Удалить
