No More Bombs for Afghanistan!

[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]

Originally posted by 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

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