SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (143893)8/24/2004 11:19:50 AM
From: cnyndwllr   of 281500
 
Of course there were likely to be atrocities that were not caught, as there are always more crimes than are discovered, but there is no basis for speculating as to the extent.

It's not correct to say that "there is no basis for speculating as the extent." In the south of Vietnam we, by any conservative estimate, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Remembering that we weren't engaged in a conventional war against a the nation of South Vietnam, and that we didn't wage war against its cities except for Tet of 68 on a limited basis, that's a huge number of "incidental casualties." Most of the casualties were in rural areas with villagers being killed. Even ignoring the many "unconfirmed" reports of how things were done in Vietnam, how do YOU think that happened if we weren't liberally targeting such villages and villagers?

Hint, the possible friend of my enemy is my enemy. Second hint, preemptive attacks. Third hint, fear and anger destroy morality and judgement. Fourth hint, nits make lice thinking doesn't just apply to American Indian babies and isn't just a thing of our barbarian past.

But maybe you have some logical alternative explanation for how this could occur that goes beyond the safety of saying "we shouldn't speculate?"
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext