What utter bullshit[...]
And here we begin the humorous portion of today's episode of "Policy Buffoons!"
...starting with Vietnam and Cambodia...
Having strategic guidelines (as we most assuredly do, have no doubt) that prohibit targeting civilians doesn't, unfortunately, preclude acts of small units and individuals that are criminal in nature. These are surely what you're referring to, and are completely unacceptable even as they were pronouncedly isolated.
Of course, if you're suggesting that there was a mass, widespread and concerted military campaign explicity directing force against civilians, you're welcome to provide evidence of such.
...I don't mean that it started there - you can take Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
In that case, you are correct. Military force was directed against the civilian population because the Japanese military and governmental forces had made the conscious decision to decentralize their industrial and administrative base. Which is to say, put a lathe in this house, down the block place another industrial machine, etc. The rationale for striking them was that such effectively makes the civilian populace a part of the military machine, though I'm not sure that I find that a terribly comforting extrapolation of policy.
I actually believe that a better strategy would have been to detonate nuclear weapons on the slopes of Mount Fuji, so as to provide for a demonstration of the power we could bring to bear without taking civilian lives, but that wasn't the option exercised. Of course, the Japanese did surrender shortly thereafter, and given the projections of what an invasion would have cost...I can live with that.
That was sixty years ago, though, and much has changed.
...but your statement is so far off the mark to be laughable...
We'll keep that assessment on hold until you can provide some information to the contrary or provide some reasoning for the issues I've listed below. Cool? :-)
...as for the current blitskreig of Bagdad how can the high altitude bombing not produce massive civilian casualties?
'Precision bombing' - guided weapons - laser targeting...perhaps you've heard of them?
If so, then you recognize the intrinsic and perhaps voluntary nature of this hilariously insipid comment.
If not, well, I strongly urge you to read a newspaper before you further blather yourself into a froth of unescapable embarrassment.
That said, of course, you can expect collateral damage. Very unfortunate, as is the likelihood - one might as well say certainty - of fratricide among U.S. and coalition troops.
10 times 'anything that's ever been seen before' - this from Rumsfeld.
Yup. And how does that amount to targeting civilians?
Don't even begin to dignify this carnage as 'collateral damage'
LOL! "Carnage"? Either your suggesting that there is news being suppressed (which would put you, perhaps appropriately, into the conspiracy theorist category) or that something has happened which only you know about. What category does the latter place you into?
Try this: scan the news coverage and make a short list of the buildings that the air strikes are targeting.
Don't you think that the targets might be a little less selective...in fact, wouldn't be specifically selected at all...if the goal was in fact to attack the civilian population? Do you notice a thread of continuity between the names and functions of the buildings hit?
So sit back and enjoy!
I wouldn't "enjoy" this in any case, but any satisfaction I might feel about another rogue state being taken out is mitigated by the worry I feel for, among the tens upon tens of thousands of American troops out there, a certain Marine.
You take care now, and do a little homework before the next time you get screechy. Okay?
LPS5 |
