Skip to main content

View Diary: Who Sez McCain has "Strong foreign policy experience"? (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  You are mixing apples and oranges (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PapaNelly, Just Bob

      if you think Vietnam bombing raids are the same as World War II bombing raids.  The North Vietnamese, although certainly our enemies, later noted that it was  a mark of honor that we didn't indiscriminately carpet bomb residential areas of their cities, unlike in Dresden and Hiroshima.  Civilians still die, but on a per-mission basis the civilian casualties have been on a stark decline for more than forty years.  Unlike terrorists, we do not intentionally target civilians.  One of the reasons many find the Left unrealistic is that they conflate civilian deaths on both sides of the present conflict, as if they are morally equivalent.  They are not.

      As a pilot, you are not targeting civilians, so you do not consider yourself responsible -- you consider the enemy responsible for allowing it to come to this.

      Rabid imperialist at the fringe

      by Arculi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Morally equivalent? You're right - they're not. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Keone Michaels, Granny Doc

        In the present conflict we attacked a country which didn't attack or threaten us.  There's no moral equivalency: we committed a war crime and continue to do so on a daily basis.

        As far as civilian deaths go, we not only specifically target civilian infrastructure, but we've encouraged the development of death squads (the El Salvador option, anyone?).  The same group of people who were responsible for our crimes in Central America 25 years ago are responsible for our policy today.  There's been a significant rise in air strikes within Iraq over the past year...a bit unusual to use a tactic which kills indiscriminately in a country we occupy.  We do target civilians, especially when they want us out of their country.

        •  Not to mention "Shock and Awe" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skrekk, Keone Michaels, Granny Doc

          Who was supposed to be "shocked and awed"?  Saddam and his pals in their concrete and steel-on-shock-absorber bunkers 50 feet below ground?

          One of the reasons many find the Left unrealistic is that they conflate civilian deaths on both sides of the present conflict, as if they are morally equivalent.

          And one of the reasons many find the Right callous and indifferent to human suffering is they really could not care less about Iraqi civilian deaths, even while claiming they're good "Christians".

          This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

          by Snud on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are right (0+ / 0-)

            But I do not dismiss any deaths, nor am I from the right, specifically.  I vote left almost all the time, though I do not have a party.  

            My point is simply that we have been attempting to reduce civilian casualties for half a century.  We are the only country that seems to bother on a credible scale.  Or would you prefer carpet bombing?

            Despite what you might think, we don't bomb a villager's house because it's a villager's house.  There's usually a reason, a military target involved.  Soldiers don't revel in the killing of innocent bystanders, which is another reason why some don't trust the left -- they think you think soldiers do.

            Just remember, before you respond through your military-issued Internet infrastructure, everything you have is predicated on the bloody hands of your forefathers, and some of us are descended from celebrated traitors.  They gave us some of the "ideals" that you are arguing for right now.

            Rabid imperialist at the fringe

            by Arculi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:16:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If they want us out of their country (0+ / 0-)

          by way of deadly force, they are no longer "civilians."  And "civilian infrastructure" is also military infrastructure.  Don't fool yourself into believing we only have  a highway system so you can get fresh milk and get to work. In most countries there is little difference between civilian and government infrastructure, and this is even more true in autocratically controlled nations: the powerplant that serves the farmhouse is often the same powerplant that serves the ball-bearing factory.

          By the way, I'm not saying the U.S. Government is a pack of angels.  I'm willing to concede that Bush is a war criminal, and even if he's not he deserves to be impeached and imprisoned for other offenses.  That doesn't mean that all the soldiers are war criminals.  That is a definable term.  You have to break the Geneva Conventions, which all soldiers have not -- not even from 20,000 feet.  That Keone Michaels hates them for it is a different topic entirely.

          Rabid imperialist at the fringe

          by Arculi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:28:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you should consider your responsibilitie (0+ / 0-)

        As a pilot, you are not targeting civilians, so you do not consider yourself responsible -- you consider the enemy responsible for allowing it to come to this.


        <tbody></tbody>
        "not targeting civilians" are you daft?

         Do you think a bomb chooses who to kill? This strikes me as an excuse that only an  unthinking man could use as the cornerstone of his denial of moral or ethical consequences of his own actions.  In simple words.  It is just burying your head in the sand.

        To drop bombs on a populated area from 20,000 feet is just plain terrorism in my opinion. It is terrorism of the most insidious type.  

        •  Daft? (0+ / 0-)

          Not really.  They aren't targeting civilians, and you know it.  The fact that civilians die is a fact of war, however just or unjust the war.

          If you defend your house from a home invader with a gun, but the bullet goes wide and kills your neighbor, that is a tragedy.  However, you did not target your neighbor.  It's a simple fact; whether you choose to believe in facts isn't my problem.

          Do you think a bomb chooses who to kill?

          Actually, with increasing capability, yes.  That is not to say that all our bombs are like this one, but we both know wars will come again after this one is done.  Do you prefer a dumb bomb or a smart one?  You don't have the choice of no bombs at all, whatever delusion you might choose to entertain.

          Rabid imperialist at the fringe

          by Arculi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:55:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site