No More Bombs for Afghanistan!

[John Milton]

I am sick to death of all these people crying for the deaths of Afghan citizens, and then somehow equating it with the moral issues and ethical implications of the War on Terrorism.

Action is needed here. It has always been needed, and action will inevitably, and tragically, cause deaths - many will be the deaths of innocents. This war on terrorism is vital not just for America but for the world entire, and you can not make an omelette without breaking some eggs. The conflict in Afghanistan should not end until the entire regime of the Taliban is wiped out completely. No stone unturned, no possible opportunity left for this evil to envelope the innocent.

Sacrifices must be made. Personally, I believe that our nation is doing a good job. An honourable job. Its out there on the line sacrificing ALL so that the world can be free from Terrorism. And we still have people pontifficating.

John.

 

[z edge]

Welcome to the forum John Milton Your view is appreciated

 

[Lemonite]

Welcome to the forum John Milton Your view is appreciated

An Hey.. We've now got a "Visually Astutely Inferior Individual" joining our Ranks Z Edge.. Take That Diversity!! Hahaha..

I never understood the logistics behind 'Regained'.

Duecing in my Sink,
L.Unplugged

 

[Salome]

and you can not make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

hmmm, but when a wedding accidently gets bombed and 40 people die the question is whether we are still talking about "breaking eggs"

I at least wonder where a line could be drawn of things that are not acceptable

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Not to be too incendiary, but I have a thought for a line to be drawn:

Three thousand dead, unarmed civilians - civilians that were doing nothing more objectionable than going to work or boarding a commercial aircraft.

When we accidentally kill as many civilians as the terrorists intentionally killed, maybe then we should start discussing where to draw the line.

Just a thought.

Bubba

 

[speedracer]

Not to be too incendiary, but I have a thought for a line to be drawn:

Three thousand dead, unarmed civilians - civilians that were doing nothing more objectionable than going to work or boarding a commercial aircraft.

When we accidentally kill as many civilians as the terrorists intentionally killed, maybe then we should start discussing where to draw the line.

Just a thought.

Bubba

Don't forget, Noam Chomsky still says we're directly responsible for starving an additional few million Afghanistanians or so.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Chomsky may have said that, but so what? He's as extreme to the left as someone like Jerry Falwell is to the right - and, like Falwell, he thinks we got what we deserved on September 11th (for admittedly different reasons).

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I believe Chomsky's a moron.

If one assumes the worst, one would conclude that he's pulling for the other team.

 

[speedracer]

Chomsky may have said that, but so what? He's as extreme to the left as someone like Jerry Falwell is to the right - and, like Falwell, he thinks we got what we deserved on September 11th (for admittedly different reasons).

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I believe Chomsky's a moron.

If one assumes the worst, one would conclude that he's pulling for the other team.

Um, thanks for picking up the sarcasm in my post, Bubba.

I guess I should have noted that a few million Afghanistanians did not starve over the winter due to the relative quickness of the heavy bombing phase of the attack (although Afghanistan does still need help).

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Sorry.

 

[z edge]

hmmm, but when a wedding accidently gets bombed and 40 people die the question is whether we are still talking about "breaking eggs"

I at least wonder where a line could be drawn of things that are not acceptable

I draw the line with people shooting at our planes

 

[Salome]

does it have to do with how many people die?
and how many is too much?

or does it have to do with the circumstances?
and which circumstances can't be tolerated?

the reason why I asked is because I really have no idea
and some of you are so confident in your opinion about this that I don't doubt that you will have an exact answer

 

[Achtung Bubba]

does it have to do with how many people die?
and how many is too much?

or does it have to do with the circumstances?
and which circumstances can't be tolerated?

the reason why I asked is because I really have no idea
and some of you are so confident in your opinion about this that I don't doubt that you will have an exact answer

I honestly don't know how many is "too many," but I can at least say that the naive argument (one is too many) is simply that: naive.

In terms of defeating any threat, drawing the line at even one civilian casualty will probably put our own soldiers at a risk that is probably too great. And such a line will almost certainly cause us to fail in our objectives.

If, for example, a terrorist organization was certain that we would simply not risk civilian casualties, they would start living among civilians and taking hostage orphans and widows - keeping at least one civilian any every viable military target: every base, every weapons depot, every safe house, every training facility.

And in the case of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and other attacks (the U.S.S. Cole, et al.), not defeating them militarily makes it far easier for them to murder more of our civilians.

So as heartless as it sounds, there actually is a case to be made for the much-maligned term, "acceptible losses."

 

[Rono]

if you, still care about the situation in afghanistan,....check out

www.afgha.com

You can information about the wedding bombings and the UN repport about this ( they try to keep it secret ) about possible masskilings of talliban soldiers and the hard fight for womensrights