07-17-2007, 09:11 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
07-17-2007, 09:16 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
|
|
07-17-2007, 09:17 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
|
|
07-17-2007, 09:23 PM | #14 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
1) higher stakes than with Al Qaeda 2) lacked the technology to avoid killing civilians 3) If you have seen "the fog of war" documentary about Robert McNamara, I highly recommend it. He said "the only reason I wasn't prosecuted as a War Criminal after WWII was because we won." Morality goes to the winner. |
|
07-17-2007, 09:28 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Are you sure this wasn't a young McNamara rationalizing U.S. atrocities in Vietnam who said this? He's a lot different now, fully regretting everything he did as sec. of war.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
07-17-2007, 09:30 PM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
If Bush had declared himself a king, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, re-written the Constitution, and commandeered exclusive and autonomous control over the military, then you might have a point. Short of that, it's just foolhardy to say so. Quote:
Given that we haven't been attacked in so long, it appears that the decision NOT to do so was probably the right one. Moreover, we are trying to win "hearts and minds" in addition to the military war, and killing civilians who might otherwise side with us is not exactly the way to go about doing that. |
||
07-17-2007, 09:31 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
|
I agree with you on #1. On #2, we overestimate to a large degree IMO. We have the technology to MINIMIZE kiling civilians, but I think that has somehow turned into an expectation that there will be NO collateral damage. The technology is not there yet IMO.
|
07-17-2007, 09:39 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
That's not exactly accurate. The only place we really did that was in dresden, which was a totally non-miltary target, and in hiroshima and nagaskai (we tried a few other times in Japan, but wern't too successful). Otherwsie, we targetted military and industry, which obviously included civilians.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
07-17-2007, 09:44 PM | #19 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|||
07-17-2007, 10:03 PM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
Comparing the 90's gaps in attacks to today is a total red herring. The US stance toward terrorism is completely different. Likely someday another attack will be successful and the counter will reset, but it's not for lack of a herculean effort to prevent it. Short of Bush becoming king, etc., there is very little that has happened so far (as it touches civil rights) to justify any more than a Chicken Little view of the impending doom of the America "I know and love." If you cannot see a difference between us and them in this regard, this conversation is bankrupt to begin with. Last edited by Tex; 07-17-2007 at 10:06 PM. |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|