The U.S bombs the same Red Cross depot for the second time

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I do wonder, Rono: if not war, WHAT? How do you propose handling these terrorist thugs?

I do wonder, Bubba: if the U.S. are really that confident that "war" is the only way to go, then why waist time to form a worldwide alliance instead of attacking the Taliban before they have time to move everything worthwhile saving out of the area

I'm in favour of trying to get rid of the Taliban and therefore support the bombings taking place in Afghanistan
I would like it though if at least there seemed to be some kind of plan behind these bombings
bombing Red Cross buildings twice does not make me confident that they are bombing conform a well thought out plan + it doesn't make me confident that they have any idea where and how to hit the Taliban where it hurts

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 10-28-2001).]

[Achtung Bubba]

In brief:

It seemed that the Flash movie was against our bombing -- or at very least, Rono seemed to imply that.

Any anti-war messages from Berkeley is completely expected because the city and the college there are well-known for their EXTREMELY liberal views. Hell, Berkeley's city council VOTED TO CONDEMN THE BOMBING.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kpix/20...lo/1537_1.html


Marko, a few points:

We are not "just" bombing. First, President Bush has always implied that we're doing more than bombing. Beyond that, we've already deployed a limited number of special forces on the ground, and most military experts believe a full-scall use of ground troops is a necessity.

Second, neither you nor I are in ANY position to judge U.S. military tactics. I'm not saying this because I support the military in their efforts; I'm saying this because neither of us have enough information (maps of targets, etc.) to say the military has "no tactics".

(And before you suggest it, we SHOULDN'T have that information. It could seriously jeopardize the safety of our troops.)

In general, I can say this: Desert Storm has shown that the U.S. military fully unleashed can accomplish its objectives (in the case of Desert Storm, the liberation of Kuwait), and can do so quickly and efficiently. Historically, bombing almost always precludes ground forces -- it weakens the defenses and infrastructure of a heavily intrenched enemy. And, multiple bombings may not necessarily be a bad idea, especially if we suspect the use of well fortified caves and bunkers.

Finally, it's a shame if we bomb the wrong building. But this IS war. Such consequences are regrettable, but they're expected, and they SHOULD NOT deter us from continuing.

And it SURELY isn't a war crime to accidentally and unintentionally bomb a Red Cross building.

I *do* believe the bombing was unintentional -- especially given that we're DROPPING HUMANITARIAN AID. If it was actually targeted, we probably had a good reason to do so; we suspect that military leaders and supplies are being housed in residences and mosques to keep us from killing the leaders and destroying the supplies. *If* that's true, if they're hiding their guns in Red Cross warehouses, then we're WELL within the rules of war to attack those warehouses.

Either way, it's NOT a "war crime", and you demonstrate that you have NO IDEA what the phrase means. Look up the Nuremburg trials, read about the Bataan Death March, look at the coldblooded targeting of civilians on September 11th. THOSE ARE WAR CRIMES.

Salome:

We weren't wasting time. First, while we SHOULD be willing to act on our own, we should still try to drum up world support and create a international coalition to accomplish our goals. It adds further weight to our cause (not that we need such weight), and -- since our cause benefits most peaceful nations -- those nations SHOULD throw in their support.

Beyond that, we were (for obvious reasons) not prepared for a full assault on Afghanistan. While our Bush led the diplomats to forming an international coalition, we were sending FLEETS to within range of Kabul. We weren't spinning our wheels.

Bubba

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 10-28-2001).]

[DrTeeth]

I posted twice like a newbie!!

[This message has been edited by DrTeeth (edited 10-28-2001).]

[DrTeeth]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

Historically, bombing almost always precludes ground forces -- it weakens the defenses and infrastructure of a heavily intrenched enemy. And, multiple bombings may not necessarily be a bad idea, especially if we suspect the use of well fortified caves and bunkers.

Actually, bombing works best in combination with groundtroops. Sure, bombing before sending in groundtroops can be very usefull up to the point where the fixed positions have all been destroyed. I get the impression that point has now been reached ("The Afghans are running out of targets") and that the Americans are having second thoughts on sending in the troops or are stalling.

I *do* believe the bombing was unintentional

I believe that as well.

If it was actually targeted, we probably had a good reason to do so; we suspect that military leaders and supplies are being housed in residences and mosques to keep us from killing the leaders and destroying the supplies. *If* that's true, if they're hiding their guns in Red Cross warehouses, then we're WELL within the rules of war to attack those warehouses.

IF the Taliban were hiding weapons in the building maybe... But where there? I don't think I've even heard that as an explanation for this incident (well, incident...) from the US government so I suspect it was just a faux pas.




[This message has been edited by DrTeeth (edited 10-28-2001).]

[Achtung Bubba]

I don't know why we're waiting for a ground assault either, but I also understand that I'm not in a position to say, "The time is right; land now."

Weather, supplies, the Northern Alliance, even international politics may be valid reasons to wait. I'm sure there'll be plenty of time for analysis of those reasons after the fact.

And, like I said, I think the bombing was unintentional. I was just mentioning that it need NOT be an accident to be a forgivable act, that we may be justified in intentionally bombing a "civilian" target if we found that troops or supplies were being sheltered within.

I was just heading off what I thought to be the next argument against the bombing.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.