The reason -- ExUBF's Parlor_Free wheel as far as u can from UBF

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:27:13 10/09/04 Sat
Author: Mike K.
Subject: The reason
In reply to: Joe 's message, "Re: Standing up for the Truth?" on 21:46:59 10/08/04 Fri

Let's get it straight, at least in regard to Afghanistan under the Taliban. They were harboring bin Laden. The country was dotted with Al Qaeda training camps. Few blamed the US for going into Afghanistan. I believe even French and German troops are still in Afghanistan.

Yes, indeed. Those are facts that none can or should deny.

Yet, how would you think if someone came to America, saying "We found out that neo-nazis are operating from here, and even some of their leaders are living here. Deliver them to Germany or we'll bomb you out."

What, do you think, would be Bush's response? Say "Dare ya!"? or "Here you are."

The Taliban did the first, it was not a wise choice, for their own and for world peace's sake. But still, a government of another country came and made demands on them, they refused to be threatened and as such, they were attacked.
Now, what if we found proof that bin Laden was a guest of the United States of America? Would Bush bomb out his own country, including causing numerous casualties among (unarmed) women and children, or would Bush use strike units of antiterror forces?
The same could have been done in Afghanistan. Their equipment was in no way a match for American Elite squads, I don't think it would be too fictious to assume that much of what was done in Afghanistan could have been done with no, or at least, severely less amouts of, bombs.
Bombs don't hurt the country that uses them, bombs hurt the country where they go off, and even more so, the country where they land and do NOT go off.

We all know that in today's age, a war can be fought very effectively with means other than largescale bombings, but the American military still finds satisfaction in their application, because, just like an airplane abduction, bombs have a tremendous psychological effect: bringing fear and terror into the population.

As was reported, quite a nomber of the bombs used in Afghanistan were not specifically for taking out limited targets but for creating a sense of dread (by being especially loud and creating a broad shockwave).
This is, again, "using the methods of our enemies".

Again, I believe that war is the absolutely ultimately last solution when all else failed because war always causes "collateral damage" on a large scale. America uses war as one of the main means of solving conflicts, even when other means are very well thought out and deem to provide success.

Look just for instance how the U.N. suggested to prolong the grace period on Iraq: but the U.S. just wanted to dump their load of bombs in Baghdad. They pressured the U.N., and finally ignored all the suggestions and initiated the strike.
Many people were very offended because that's what the U.N. seems to be for America: the cleaning personnel who has to wipe out the mess after America is finished with a country. Do the work, but don't get the right to intervene.
The U.S. know clearly that they hold more power than the remainder of the U.N. combined - but does that give them the right to kick dirt into the faces of these diplomats?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: The reason -- Chris, 08:34:22 10/10/04 Sun
The conduct of American wars -- Joe, 20:14:43 10/10/04 Sun
- Re: The conduct of American wars -- Chris, 04:29:37 10/11/04 Mon
  - "No Man's Land" -- Joe, 06:50:09 10/11/04 Mon