To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17866
17865  |  17867
Subject: 
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:34:28 GMT
Viewed: 
2535 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.

I suppose it is obvious to everyone except Scott, but I'm not defending U.S.
actions to any particular degree, I'm just objecting to Scott's axe-grinding
and one-sided presentations.  And I'm a liberal!  I hate Bush.  I don't like
Israel's actions.  I don't agree with a unilateral attack of Iraq.  Bush is
feeding the world a line of bull.  War isn't the answer to everything.

Scott is losing what should be a prime demographic.  :-)

As to bombing from high altitude, that has never been particularly accurate.
To use it is almost always a compromise.  I just object to Scott's depiction
of it.

> 
> But I think that in doing so, we made the right choice, which seems to be
> opposite of Scott's stance.  War is hell.

Absolutely.  And the Brits beat Sherman to that by half a millenia with
their chavauchees.  :-)

Bruce



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) ...but you (& Chris) do share Bush's unilateral outlook to some degree, that is what I don't agree with. Scott A (24 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) danger (...) about? (...) troops. (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR