Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the we-don't-know-much dept.
Several people have reported that the US has begun military operations in Afghanistan. Bush is talking on CNN live right now. Bombing has begun on Kabul. More as we know it. Here the word
a on CNN and The CBC.
"And we were no better than Germany when innocent civilians were killed by American bombing."
What about the innocent Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Serbians, Croats, French, Christan Scientists, Danes, Dutch that were overrun, killed, raped, gased and tortured by the Germans when the Allies did none of that?
The bombing of Germany and Japan is a bad comparison for "whos better".
Did the US or Commonwealth forces slaughter 70,000 people when they took Rome or Vienna like the Japanese did at Nanking?
No.
Did the US or Commonwealth gas 6,000,000 Germans at any point?
No.
Did the Germans bomb, burn, rape and murder a vast path across Africa and Europe?
Yes.
Did the Allies carpet bomb German and Japanese cites to slow down German and Japense industrial production, which by 1943 had been dispersed to homes and small businesses?
Yes.
Was that bombing needed?
It can be argued that it was, and that those bombings lead to a quicker end of the war and while it killed many, many Germans and Japanese, it saved many, many other people.
Re:It is time...
by
mcelrath
·
· Score: 4, Flamebait
2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.
The people I know that are members of the "anti-war movement" are not opposed to military force. They're opposed to bombing the shit out of innocent, hungry refugees in tents in the desert. Multimillion-dollar cruise missile vs. tents. Incredibly silly unless it's the right tent. They're also opposed to any kind of prolonged fight against guerillas. As Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan in the 80's have taught us, that is not a fight we can win. The Taliban and bin Laden must be displaced or destroyed. But the people of Afganistan are as much victims of their terror as we have been. They should be our allies in this, and any military action must be directed only at the Taliban and bin Laden, and must be accompanied by humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees in the area. Secondly, we must allow the people of Afghanistan to decide the future course of their own country. Funding one militant group against another and setting up puppet governments is what got us into this situation (we funded the Taliban against the russians in the 80's), and is in general why everyone in the middle east hates our meddling butts, and I don't blame them.
The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.
We must protect ourselves against terrorists. But NOT by manipulating and destroying the entire region of the world that hates us. If we're not extrememly careful in our actions, we will create far more enemies in the region than we have now.
We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.
--Bob
-- 1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Re:It is time...
by
megaduck
·
· Score: 4, Flamebait
I desperately want to agree with you. Really, I do. The United States has a long tradition of doing very nasty bloody things under the name of "patriotism" or "defending liberty" or what-have-you. Vietnam comes readily to mind. I really want to believe that this is one of those times when we should be casting about for an olive branch instead of a rifle, because peace is the best solution.
I really do want to agree with you, but I can't. This is one of those rare times when violence is our only option. We did not choose this conflict. We did not select whether or not to fight. Our attackers made no demands, and therefore we must assume that they wish only our destruction. You speak of our "demands on a non-negotiable billet". Our attackers did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to their grievance before slaughtering our civilians. Not only that, but they did not even give us terms by which they would stop attacks. We have been painted into a corner, and we lash out because it is our last option.
Really, what would you have us do? Doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attcks continue. Continued diplomacy seems fruitless, as the Bin Laden has made his stance quite clear: His version of Islam cannot co-exist with other cultures, or even less militant versions of Islam. More to the point, he will not be sated until we have been violently subdued. He has left us no room for negotiation, and so we must fight.
War is a nasty, brutal, ugly thing. I wish to my core that we could avoid it. However, this is not the "Imperialistic U.S." slaughtering civilians to protect our "national interests". This is self-defense in a fight that we did not start.
-- This.sig for rent.
Re:It is time...
by
Auckerman
·
· Score: 3, Flamebait
"Having your own thoughts and the right to express them is one of many things that makes this country great, but there comes a time and place where you need to support your country (and military) first. So far these groups have not done anything wrong yet...I would hate to see things degrade to their status durring the Vietnam war days."
If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?
Slashdot Mirror
"And we were no better than Germany when innocent civilians were killed by American bombing."
What about the innocent Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Serbians, Croats, French, Christan Scientists, Danes, Dutch that were overrun, killed, raped, gased and tortured by the Germans when the Allies did none of that?
The bombing of Germany and Japan is a bad comparison for "whos better".
Did the US or Commonwealth forces slaughter 70,000 people when they took Rome or Vienna like the Japanese did at Nanking?
No.
Did the US or Commonwealth gas 6,000,000 Germans at any point?
No.
Did the Germans bomb, burn, rape and murder a vast path across Africa and Europe?
Yes.
Did the Allies carpet bomb German and Japanese cites to slow down German and Japense industrial production, which by 1943 had been dispersed to homes and small businesses?
Yes.
Was that bombing needed?
It can be argued that it was, and that those bombings lead to a quicker end of the war and while it killed many, many Germans and Japanese, it saved many, many other people.
The people I know that are members of the "anti-war movement" are not opposed to military force. They're opposed to bombing the shit out of innocent, hungry refugees in tents in the desert. Multimillion-dollar cruise missile vs. tents. Incredibly silly unless it's the right tent. They're also opposed to any kind of prolonged fight against guerillas. As Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan in the 80's have taught us, that is not a fight we can win. The Taliban and bin Laden must be displaced or destroyed. But the people of Afganistan are as much victims of their terror as we have been. They should be our allies in this, and any military action must be directed only at the Taliban and bin Laden, and must be accompanied by humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees in the area. Secondly, we must allow the people of Afghanistan to decide the future course of their own country. Funding one militant group against another and setting up puppet governments is what got us into this situation (we funded the Taliban against the russians in the 80's), and is in general why everyone in the middle east hates our meddling butts, and I don't blame them.
The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.
We must protect ourselves against terrorists. But NOT by manipulating and destroying the entire region of the world that hates us. If we're not extrememly careful in our actions, we will create far more enemies in the region than we have now.
We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
I desperately want to agree with you. Really, I do. The United States has a long tradition of doing very nasty bloody things under the name of "patriotism" or "defending liberty" or what-have-you. Vietnam comes readily to mind. I really want to believe that this is one of those times when we should be casting about for an olive branch instead of a rifle, because peace is the best solution.
I really do want to agree with you, but I can't. This is one of those rare times when violence is our only option. We did not choose this conflict. We did not select whether or not to fight. Our attackers made no demands, and therefore we must assume that they wish only our destruction. You speak of our "demands on a non-negotiable billet". Our attackers did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to their grievance before slaughtering our civilians. Not only that, but they did not even give us terms by which they would stop attacks. We have been painted into a corner, and we lash out because it is our last option.
Really, what would you have us do? Doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attcks continue. Continued diplomacy seems fruitless, as the Bin Laden has made his stance quite clear: His version of Islam cannot co-exist with other cultures, or even less militant versions of Islam. More to the point, he will not be sated until we have been violently subdued. He has left us no room for negotiation, and so we must fight.
War is a nasty, brutal, ugly thing. I wish to my core that we could avoid it. However, this is not the "Imperialistic U.S." slaughtering civilians to protect our "national interests". This is self-defense in a fight that we did not start.
This
If people should not protest wars and give "support", then what exactly are we fighting for? In the end, isn't the ability to disagree and voice your opinion freely one of the main goals in "defending freedom"?
Burn Hollywood Burn