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: combjelly who wrote (139142)	9/18/2001 4:45:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580262

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. I think Desert Storm is probably the cleanest war we have ever fought....of course, it was also probably the most publicly fought war. But if you read about some of the massacres that occurred during the Vietnam and Korean wars, its clear that our military did not always keep the civilian population in the highest regard. Some of it is understandable...how do you discern between the 'innocent' civilian population and the real enemy. Many of the Vietnamese and Korean soldiers were teenagers fighting with machetes and pistols. But really I was referring to the most excessive examples. I was initially talking about the attack on the WTC. I am convinced the factions that undertook the attack could care less about the civilian deaths....they saw it as one of the consequences of war. I think the Mai Lai Massacre [sp.?]is another example large civilian losses due to military action. Like I said to TPGTNDR, killing is an important aspect of the military. I think over time the moral issues become blurred and the lives of innocent civilians become less important as one tries to complete their [military] mission. ted

To: combjelly who wrote (139142)	9/18/2001 8:50:22 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1580262

Now the US also hit alot of infrastructure during that war, resulting in civilian suffering after the war Infrastructure is a legitimate military target. We obviously made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, and given the scale of the war you could only proclaim us "successful". But in wars civilians get killed sometimes. As to infrastructure, it makes a legitimate military target. A civilian bridge used to supply the front lines of the enemy must be taken out. Similarly, for communications facilities that are used to broadcast propaganda, manufacturing facilities, etc. Anything that contributes to the enemy's war effort must be taken out.

To: combjelly who wrote (139142)	9/18/2001 8:54:13 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580262

Now the US also hit alot of infrastructure during that war, resulting in civilian suffering after the war Infrastructure is a legitimate military target. We obviously made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, and given the scale of the war you could only proclaim us "successful". But in wars civilians get killed sometimes. As to infrastructure, it makes a legitimate military target. A civilian bridge used to supply the front lines of the enemy must be taken out. Similarly, for communications facilities that are used to broadcast propaganda, manufacturing facilities, etc. Anything that contributes to the enemy's war effort must be taken out. 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 I don't get it. Why should WE pay to rebuild the facilities that we were forced to destroy because THEY were the aggressor? It is a bad habit of ours to fight a war then go and pay to rebuild what we were forced to destroy. I think it is the liberals' payback for allowing the conservatives to fight wars when they're called for.