The conduct of American wars -- 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: 20:14:43 10/10/04 Sun
Author: Joe
Subject: The conduct of American wars
In reply to: Mike K. 's message, "The reason" on 11:27:13 10/09/04 Sat

>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.

Let's say the situation is real and not hypothetical. The USA is harboring terrorist neo-nazis who have done terrorist harm in Germany. Germany could threaten to unleash its military might against the USA unless we disassociate ourselves from the neo-nazis and hand them over. Or Germany could try something else. What would that something else be, and how effective would that something else be? This leads again to the larger question I'd like to discuss sometime: What to do about global terror?

>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.
>
>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".

Foregoing the "shock and awe" tactic of preliminary bombings and immediately sending in ground troops to fight street battles with the Taliban and al-Qaeda who are using "human shields" would have resulted in higher US casualties, with no guarantee of fewer civilian casualties. And this would have been politically unacceptable in the US, especially the greater number of American casualties, the decision was made to bomb first.

The problem, as I see it, is American politics. We're still reeling from the casualities of Vietnam. We want a "clean" war, with as few American casualties as possible. And that means dropping "precision" bombs on buildings that may or may not contain enemies, terrorists and insurgents. Clinton lobbed his share of cruise missiles into Sudan and Iraq. And there is a strange fascination in America with the "effectiveness" of precision-guided bombing. The way that precision bombings were depicted during the first Gulf war on American TV made war seem almost like a video game. I find it disturbing.

>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.

You are speaking to someone whose confidence in the UN is at an all-time low, along with half of my nation. Bush waited for the UN for a year. There is evidence in the latest report by Duelfer that the major vetoeing members of the UN Security Council (France, Russia, China) were being affected by bribes from Saddam, made possible by the subversion of the UN sanctions against Iraq.

The UN sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf war had a profound effect on the Iraqi civilians. Outside of Baghdad, the infrastructure (things like electricity) in the rest of Iraq was severely degraded because Saddam had subverted oil-for-food into oil-for-palaces. It's only now, under American occupation, that the infrastructure outside of Baghdad is being restored.

The UN sanctions may have killed thousands of Iraqis through disease and malnutrition, on top of the thousands murdered by Saddam and his sadistic sons. So if both UN-administered sanctions and UN-opposed war are bad for Iraqis, then what was the alternative?

>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 conduct of American wars -- Chris, 04:29:37 10/11/04 Mon
- "No Man's Land" -- Joe, 06:50:09 10/11/04 Mon