This ?accidental bombing of a wedding party? is just an attempt to discredit the United States (the same thing also goes for the ?United States attack on Afghanistan without any real purpose?). Noticed on how this popped up alongside with the recent United States' financial scandal?
Anyway. While there's no reason to go into a worthless war (like the current United States - Afghanistan war), accidental deaths do happen in a war (it sometimes happen, no matter how much you try to avoid it). Of course, the ?accident? wedding party might not be so ?accidental? at all, perharps the bombing is intentional in order to discredit the United States (like the carpet/fire bombing in World War II)?
<strong>Of course, the ?accident? wedding party might not be so ?accidental? at all, perharps the bombing is intentional in order to discredit the United States (like the carpet/fire bombing in World War II)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would the US drop a bomb to discredit itself? There's no doubt there was an accident but I don't think the US would do it on purpose.
As for the timing, <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Is that what you thought when the twin towers collapsed? Yeah, shit happens. Yeah, civilian casualties will ALWAYS be a part of war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point is, intentional or not, dead is dead. if we fvcked up, we should appologize.
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with you, but unfortunately terrorists probably don't see it that way.
To them it probably was war, after all they've attempted to blow up the Trade Centre before (does a war have to take place on a battle field?). To them it probably was prevoked, perhaps by American foreign policy or the consequences of previous conflicts. Finally, they probably don't make a distinction between soldiers and civilians but between nationalities or religious beliefs. Sadly, to them, there probably isn't ANY difference.
When the enemy (Al Quada?) is indistinguishable from those we are purporting to support (Afghans), even when face to face, is aerial bombing an intelligent means of pursuing a 'war'?
Perhaps we (OK the USA and us as lackies) should just admit that we don't give a s**t and just wanted to bomb something...
BTW: guerilla wars cannot be won by long range or mass munition tactics. (The Afghans taught us that and the NVA should have taught the US)
[QB]When the enemy (Al Quada?) is indistinguishable from those we are purporting to support (Afghans), even when face to face, is aerial bombing an intelligent means of pursuing a 'war'?
<hr></blockquote>
This situation is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Troops in Afghanistan are faced with an enemy that moves through the normal population, with no uniform or identifying marks, very much like the Vietcong. When trying to fight Al Quada civilians could inevitably be casualties. If the situation is similar to Vietnam could attempts to fight Al Quada have similar results?
This situation is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Troops in Afghanistan are faced with an enemy that moves through the normal population, with no uniform or identifying marks, very much like the Vietcong. When trying to fight Al Quada civilians could inevitably be casualties. If the situation is similar to Vietnam could attempts to fight Al Quada have similar results?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think it is unlikley that the quagmire that we got into in vietnam will happen again anytime soon. it's to fresh on everbodies mind. we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain. plus the vast mojority of americans are willing to have our troops there as long as it takes.
[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>
i think it is unlikley that the quagmire that we got into in vietnam will happen again anytime soon. it's to fresh on everbodies mind. we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain. plus the vast mojority of americans are willing to have our troops there as long as it takes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The definable objective probably comes from the fact that there is a real and tangible threat from Al Quada, as they proved, rather than the spectre of Communism and Domino theory.
[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain.</strong><hr></blockquote>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.
<strong>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrorism is by nature undefinable and an elusive foe.
<strong>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
can we stamp terrorism completely out? hell no. can we give it a good hurting? you bet your ass we can. if you don't think we've made some progress in this area, your blind. besides killing thousands of al quada and thier supporters, sevearly distrupting their money, communications, and arms flow, we have sent a message to any state that harbors terrorist, that their behavior could very well result in their governments from being removed from the playing field.
after 911, there is no place on earth that we would not go to get at these guys. we can't stop them all but we can sure try. and we have got the money, the will, and means to do so.
Roughly 3,827 civilians killed by US bombings in Afghanistan.
Roughly 3,043 civilians killed by terrorists at WTC.
Ok, good enough...let's go home now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
the reality of the situation is that it's far from over. is it tragic that these civilians lost their lives? yes, no doubt about it, but that, as someone has said earlier, is the nature of war. people get killed because it's a nasty business. we go way out of our way to try and prevent these kinds of things from happening, more so than any other government in history.
Comments
Anyway. While there's no reason to go into a worthless war (like the current United States - Afghanistan war), accidental deaths do happen in a war (it sometimes happen, no matter how much you try to avoid it). Of course, the ?accident? wedding party might not be so ?accidental? at all, perharps the bombing is intentional in order to discredit the United States (like the carpet/fire bombing in World War II)?
<strong>Of course, the ?accident? wedding party might not be so ?accidental? at all, perharps the bombing is intentional in order to discredit the United States (like the carpet/fire bombing in World War II)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would the US drop a bomb to discredit itself? There's no doubt there was an accident but I don't think the US would do it on purpose.
As for the timing, <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Is that what you thought when the twin towers collapsed? Yeah, shit happens. Yeah, civilian casualties will ALWAYS be a part of war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.
<strong>
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point is, intentional or not, dead is dead. if we fvcked up, we should appologize.
<strong>
Are you fvcking serious?!?!?!?!?! First, that wasn't war. It was an unprevoked attatk. That was terrible what happened. They targeted civilians, that's a BIG difference. Don't be such a dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally agree with you, but unfortunately terrorists probably don't see it that way.
To them it probably was war, after all they've attempted to blow up the Trade Centre before (does a war have to take place on a battle field?). To them it probably was prevoked, perhaps by American foreign policy or the consequences of previous conflicts. Finally, they probably don't make a distinction between soldiers and civilians but between nationalities or religious beliefs. Sadly, to them, there probably isn't ANY difference.
Perhaps we (OK the USA and us as lackies) should just admit that we don't give a s**t and just wanted to bomb something...
BTW: guerilla wars cannot be won by long range or mass munition tactics. (The Afghans taught us that and the NVA should have taught the US)
[QB]When the enemy (Al Quada?) is indistinguishable from those we are purporting to support (Afghans), even when face to face, is aerial bombing an intelligent means of pursuing a 'war'?
<hr></blockquote>
This situation is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Troops in Afghanistan are faced with an enemy that moves through the normal population, with no uniform or identifying marks, very much like the Vietcong. When trying to fight Al Quada civilians could inevitably be casualties. If the situation is similar to Vietnam could attempts to fight Al Quada have similar results?
<strong>
This situation is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Troops in Afghanistan are faced with an enemy that moves through the normal population, with no uniform or identifying marks, very much like the Vietcong. When trying to fight Al Quada civilians could inevitably be casualties. If the situation is similar to Vietnam could attempts to fight Al Quada have similar results?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think it is unlikley that the quagmire that we got into in vietnam will happen again anytime soon. it's to fresh on everbodies mind. we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain. plus the vast mojority of americans are willing to have our troops there as long as it takes.
<strong>
i think it is unlikley that the quagmire that we got into in vietnam will happen again anytime soon. it's to fresh on everbodies mind. we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain. plus the vast mojority of americans are willing to have our troops there as long as it takes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The definable objective probably comes from the fact that there is a real and tangible threat from Al Quada, as they proved, rather than the spectre of Communism and Domino theory.
<strong>we learned our mistake of not having definable objectives that the military could do their jobs to obtain.</strong><hr></blockquote>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.
<strong>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrorism is by nature undefinable and an elusive foe.
<strong>Then how do you explain this "war on terrorism?" If there was ever an undefineable objective that can never be obtained, it's this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
can we stamp terrorism completely out? hell no. can we give it a good hurting? you bet your ass we can. if you don't think we've made some progress in this area, your blind. besides killing thousands of al quada and thier supporters, sevearly distrupting their money, communications, and arms flow, we have sent a message to any state that harbors terrorist, that their behavior could very well result in their governments from being removed from the playing field.
after 911, there is no place on earth that we would not go to get at these guys. we can't stop them all but we can sure try. and we have got the money, the will, and means to do so.
Roughly 3,827 civilians killed by US bombings in Afghanistan.
Roughly 3,043 civilians killed by terrorists at WTC.
Ok, good enough...let's go home now...
<strong>Sooo...
Roughly 3,827 civilians killed by US bombings in Afghanistan.
Roughly 3,043 civilians killed by terrorists at WTC.
Ok, good enough...let's go home now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
the reality of the situation is that it's far from over. is it tragic that these civilians lost their lives? yes, no doubt about it, but that, as someone has said earlier, is the nature of war. people get killed because it's a nasty business. we go way out of our way to try and prevent these kinds of things from happening, more so than any other government in history.