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 / 17916
17915  |  17917
Subject: 
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:56:42 GMT
Viewed: 
404 times
  
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?

Only the high-altitude bombers can carry the 7.5 thousand pound bunker
busters.  Saying that Afghans were "sacrificed" is pretty blatant
spin-doctoring.

I missed this. Is this really the best you can do? Are you saying that only
"7.5 thousand pound bunker busters" were dropped and that airmen did not have
to fly at altitude to avoid the Stingers the USA had given to the Afghans? Is
this really the best you can do?

Scott A



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
 
(...) You are misrepresenting me. (...) I think you are wrong to feel safer. (...) Have I ever said they should be left in place? (...) No. Did I say that? (...) I'm not avoiding anything, you are jumping to conclusions and putting words in my (...) (22 years ago, 27-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
    

Custom Search

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