Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:34:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
458 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
It all boils down to how many lives would have been saved/lost, and what value
you put on them. If OBL comes back to annoy us, that will have to be put in the
equation too. As will any moderate Muslim backlash.
How many Afghan lives is 1 serviceman's life worth? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
