Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:31:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
549 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > Afghan civilians were
> > > sacrificed to protect ground troops. The unwillingness to put troops in • danger
> > > meant (probably) that OBL and MO were able to escape.
> >
> > Afghan civilians were "sacrificed"? What in the world are you babbling • about?
>
> High altitude bombing was used instead lower altitude bombing or ground • troops.
> This saved the lives of servicemen, but was not as accurate. Afghan civilians
> were sacrificed to protect ground troops and pilots. OK?
I wanted to insert a comment. I'm agreeing with Bruce by and large in this
thread (because he doesn't _at all_ seem to be defending the US' naughtiness)
but on this one point, I knew exactly what Scott meant, and I agree with him.
We did choose a course of action that was protective of our military apparatus
with added risk to civilians on the ground.
But I think that in doing so, we made the right choice, which seems to be
opposite of Scott's stance. War is hell.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
