Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (139137)	9/18/2001 3:28:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580397

Ted it is true. The US atleast in recent years, has made big efforts to try and reduce enemy civilian casualties from war. Yes many civilians died from US military action but had we not made these efforts many more would have died. And if we were trying to kill civilians intentionally each conflict would have been such a horrible bloodbath that it would be totally sickening. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (139137)	9/18/2001 4:09:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1580397

"Because its mostly not true." True, there have been times when it wasn't true as it should have been, but the US military does make an effort to avoid civilian casualties. For example, during WWII the US would do it's bombing during the day in an attempt to hit military targets instead of civilian ones. Now true, it didn't help all that much given the technology of the day, but the US accepted a very high attrition rate to the bombers and crews in this attempt. However, that didn't mean that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were congruent with that goal. To take a more modern example, look at Desert Storm. They were successful enough in their attempts to hit military targets instead of civilian ones that there wasn't all that much material for Hussein to use in his attempts to make the Coalition look like butchers. True, there were some civilian targets hit, but there were pretty minimal, despite Iraqi's positioning many of the targets in densely populated areas. Now the US also hit alot of infrastructure during that war, resulting in civilian suffering after the war, probably the biggest argument that the US should have rolled into Bagdad and rooted Hussein out, at least then we would have rebuilt those facilities. But that was a political decision, not a military one.

To: tejek who wrote (139137)	9/19/2001 11:01:34 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580397

Ted Re... Because its mostly not true. <<< What do you think war is? A game of tiddly winks. Some countries now, instead of putting their armnaments factories and military garrisons in a secluded area, now intersperse their military units among the civilian population just so they incur more civilian casualties. Why aren't you ragging on Saddam about that? Iraq purposely put their civilians at risk. In fact, when the Muslims are talking about a holy war, they are talking about all of their civilians taking up arms. What is disgusting is for any Muslims to think war is holy; when it is the devil incarnate.