Sorry, Pakistan (1 Viewer)

[Gandhi>Bush]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1988363,00.html

America defended its attempt to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, today as protests grew in Pakistan over the botched missile strike which killed at least 17 people.

(SNIP)

This morning, Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, became the first senior Bush Administration official to comment on the attack but she declined to apologise for the raid.

"These are not people who can be dealt with lightly," Dr Rice told reporters on her way to the inauguration of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the new President of Liberia.

(SNIP)

Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, reported that al-Zawahiri was known to visit the Bajur region on occasion because his wife and children live there.

(SNIP)

This was a mistake right? We didn't intend to kill 17 civilians did we? Should we apologize for this accident? Why or why not?

 

[mixedmedia]

Yes, I believe we should apologize because 17 innocent people died. Pretty simple.

No doubt some folks will be along any time now to assure us all that we shouldn't care that 17 people died for no reason and apologizing will only make us look "weak" rather than accountable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is this one of those "stupid polls" designed to reinforce the pollster's point of view? Seems that way.


In war, innocents die.
That innocents might die is not an argument against war.

 

[GarzaUK]

In war, innocents die.
That innocents might die is not an argument against war.

Would you say that if your child, brother/sister, mother/father were killed as civilians? No you'd be angry that someone that was dear to you was stolen from you. Just because it happens to someone who don't know doesn't make any different that if it happened to you.

The scary thing is at one time I would have said the exact same thing. Scary.

 

[Kandahar]

Of course it's a tragedy when innocent people die, but that doesn't mean our government should apologize. If the United States were to apologize, do you really think it would bring closure to anyone? No, it would just results in even MORE riots and more people getting killed. Pakistan is not exactly the most rational society on the planet...

 

[cnredd]

1) The "O'Reilly" comment was cheap...If you had any credibility, say goodbye to it...

2) Who says the missile strike was "botched"?...Oh yeah...a newspaper...go through the article again and show me where anyone mentions this mission as "botched" other than the author...:roll:

3) Who says the ones who died were all "innocent"?...Oh yeah...the locals...DNA samples are being sent to Washington, which means no one will know for a couple of weeks...but a newspaper said it, so it MUST be true...:roll:

This is right up there with that website that says "Sorry" to the world because GWB was re-elected...

Pathetic...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you say that if your child, brother/sister, mother/father were killed as civilians?

Ah... the old "if it were your mon, you;d feel different"
My personal situation, has no bearing on my position, which is rooted in reason, so, no -- I wouldn't.

Did we apologize to the French for the civilians we killed when bombing Germans in France?

No?

Whats the difference?

No you'd be angry that someone that was dear to you was stolen from you.

I would?
How do you know?
Becase you would feel that way, I woudl feel that way?

Just because it happens to someone who don't know doesn't make any different that if it happened to you.

And beause you would feel that way, others would feel the same, because...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

2) Who says the missile strike was "botched"?...Oh yeah...a newspaper...go through the article again and show me where anyone mentions this mission as "botched" other than the author...:roll:

Dont you know?
If something is not 100% successful (with 'success' defined by liberals) it was "botched" - because of a mistake by some incompetent in the Bush administration.

 

[cnredd]

Dont you know?
If something is not 100% successful (with 'success' defined by liberals) it was "botched" - because of a mistake by some incompetent in the Bush administration.

They'll never be pleased until we come up with technology that creates a bomb that selectively hits its target and nothing more...

Collateral damage when killing someone is unacceptable, even at the cost of having that person live on to kill more in the future...:roll:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Is this one of those "stupid polls" designed to reinforce the pollster's point of view? Seems that way.


In war, innocents die.
That innocents might die is not an argument against war.

I'm not trying to use this as an argument against war. I'm trying to understand why we don't apologize for civilian casualties.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

1) The "O'Reilly" comment was cheap...If you had any credibility, say goodbye to it...

Make no mistake, I'm a big fan of the "No Spin Zone." I'm also a fan of gore and violence .

2) Who says the missile strike was "botched"?...Oh yeah...a newspaper...go through the article again and show me where anyone mentions this mission as "botched" other than the author...:roll:

3) Who says the ones who died were all "innocent"?...Oh yeah...the locals...DNA samples are being sent to Washington, which means no one will know for a couple of weeks...but a newspaper said it, so it MUST be true...:roll:

Fair enough.

 

[mixedmedia]

They'll never be pleased until we come up with technology that creates a bomb that selectively hits its target and nothing more...

Collateral damage when killing someone is unacceptable, even at the cost of having that person live on to kill more in the future...:roll:

From the article Gandhi cited above.

The raid, which happened at 3 o'clock in the morning, killed at least 17 people, mostly women and children. Despite US claims that al-Qaeda operatives could be among the dead, the strike prompted thousands to protest in several Pakistani cities over the weekend, chanting "Death to American aggression".

The question is not whether the mission was botched or not, we didn't get him. I call that botched. The question is whether someone in this administration has the grace to concede some measure of remorse for blowing up someone's children during an unsuccessful assassination attempt. What our aims are hardly matters. If this were American women and children mistakenly killed there would be hell to pay and you know it.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Of course it's a tragedy when innocent people die, but that doesn't mean our government should apologize. If the United States were to apologize, do you really think it would bring closure to anyone? No, it would just results in even MORE riots and more people getting killed. Pakistan is not exactly the most rational society on the planet...

Dr. Rice has said that the biggest help to Pakistan is the terrorist's efforts to radicalize it. We just did the terrorists a favor. Unless the United States has no problem with civilian deaths, I see no problem with apologizing when things like this happen.

 

[cnredd]

From the article Gandhi cited above.



The question is not whether the mission was botched or not, we didn't get him. I call that botched. The question is whether someone in this administration has the grace to concede some measure of remorse for blowing up someone's children during an unsuccessful assassination attempt. What our aims are hardly matters. If this were American women and children mistakenly killed there would be hell to pay and you know it.

Who said this was "unsuccessful"?...

If we were shooting for the number 2 guy and got some other leaders instead, that's not "unsuccessful"...

As stated previously...DNA samples are being sent to Washington, which means no one will know for a couple of weeks...this is a "we don't know" situation...

"If this were American women and children mistakenly killed..."

a) It would be done by terrorists, not the US or its allies...
b) I doubt the terrorists would apologize...
c) The civilians are not the target...unless by the terrorists...

You are also not recoginizing what the consequences are if we do NOT make attacks like this...

Of COURSE no one wants this collateral damage...but if the other option is to leave people alive when we got a shot at them, the results could save countless lives that would make this incident seem insignificant...

It's another example of the options being "sucks" or "really sucks"...

I'll take the first one everyday....

 

[mixedmedia]

Who said this was "unsuccessful"?...

If we were shooting for the number 2 guy and got some other leaders instead, that's not "unsuccessful"...

As stated previously...DNA samples are being sent to Washington, which means no one will know for a couple of weeks...this is a "we don't know" situation...

"If this were American women and children mistakenly killed..."

a) It would be done by terrorists, not the US or its allies...
b) I doubt the terrorists would apologize...
c) The civilians are not the target...unless by the terrorists...

You are also not recoginizing what the consequences are if we do NOT make attacks like this...

Of COURSE no one wants this collateral damage...but if the other option is to leave people alive when we got a shot at them, the results could save countless lives that would make this incident seem insignificant...

It's another example of the options being "sucks" or "really sucks"...

I'll take the first one everyday....

But why not express remorse as a nation? What is the harm? Even if we did manage to kill some bad people. What is the harm?

 

[Thorgasm]

We should apologize that we killed civilians of a sovereign country that we have not declared war against. Or do the partisans think that we should not have apologized when we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to shoddy intelligence (maps) during the Clinton administration? The intent is irrelevant when and if a mistake is made.

 

[cnredd]

But why not express remorse as a nation? What is the harm? Even if we did manage to kill some bad people. What is the harm?

Weakness...pure and simple...

The Middle Eastern civilization thrives on it...They only live by force...The terrorists will exploit our apology for all those brethren on the fence and use our words against us...

Weakness...

If ten Generals say the war on Iraq can be won, and an 11th one says it can't...

Who gets Al-Jazeera's and the New York Times' headline?

What'll be the headline here?..."USA F***ED UP AGAIN!!!!!!!!!"

Instead of apologizing, we should be saying, "That's right...And we'll do it again if the locals don't surrender the terrorists in their community to the proper authorities"...

That show of strength has a better chance of working then saying, "we made a booboo"...

 

[cnredd]

We should apologize that we killed civilians of a sovereign country that we have not declared war against. Or do the partisans think that we should not have apologized when we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to shoddy intelligence (maps) during the Clinton administration? The intent is irrelevant when and if a mistake is made.

IF...

Nothing shown so far has led to a belief that a mistake was made...

 

[mixedmedia]

Weakness...pure and simple...

The Middle Eastern civilization thrives on it...They only live by force...The terrorists will exploit our apology for all those brethren on the fence and use our words against us...

Weakness...

If ten Generals say the war on Iraq can be won, and an 11th one says it can't...

Who gets Al-Jazeera's and the New York Times' headline?

What'll be the headline here?..."USA F***ED UP AGAIN!!!!!!!!!"

Instead of apologizing, we should be saying, "That's right...And we'll do it again if the locals don't surrender the terrorists in their community to the proper authorities"...

That show of strength has a better chance of working then saying, "we made a booboo"...

They thrive on anything we do. The fear of "weakness" is for ourselves.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Weakness...pure and simple...

The Middle Eastern civilization thrives on it...They only live by force...The terrorists will exploit our apology for all those brethren on the fence and use our words against us...

Weakness...

If ten Generals say the war on Iraq can be won, and an 11th one says it can't...

Who gets Al-Jazeera's and the New York Times' headline?

What'll be the headline here?..."USA F***ED UP AGAIN!!!!!!!!!"

Instead of apologizing, we should be saying, "That's right...And we'll do it again if the locals don't surrender the terrorists in their community to the proper authorities"...

That show of strength has a better chance of working then saying, "we made a booboo"...

This show of "strength" would aid the enemy.

 

[cherokee]

Botched? YES!

What ever happened to covert missions?
Why do we need to send a missile when other options are available?
It has to make you wonder if terrorists are sitting around and saying,

“Hey lets pass some info that the house over there is a safe house for Al Qaeda and watch it get blown to hell”

 

[cnredd]

They thrive on anything we do. The fear of "weakness" is for ourselves.

Read what I've written again...

We're talking about the locals...

Remember them?...The ones that you said are "innocents"?...Now you say "They thrive on anything we do."...

That doesn't sound too "innocent" to me...

How do you feel about people that willingly allow genocidal radicals into their community where they become a "health hazard" to their very own family?...

I don't care if they agreed with every damn thing they thought...The locals should say, "You know what there, Mister Terrorist?....Blah, blah, blah...we hate America too...But you being around here puts our sons and daughters in jeopardy...I suggest you take the targets on your ass elsewhere."...

 

[Kandahar]

Dr. Rice has said that the biggest help to Pakistan is the terrorist's efforts to radicalize it. We just did the terrorists a favor. Unless the United States has no problem with civilian deaths, I see no problem with apologizing when things like this happen.

Yes, we probably did do them a favor when we bombed them. Whoever made the decision to bomb an allied nation should be fired (assuming it's true, which the US government hasn't commented on yet). That doesn't mean we should apologize. That won't be interpreted by Pakistanis as a conciliatory act the way it would be in the United States; it will be interpreted as weakness.

No good can possibly come from an American apology. It will just cause more riots, more deaths, and a further destabilization of an already-shaky regime that we desparately cannot allow to fall into the hands of Islamists.

 

[mixedmedia]

Read what I've written again...

We're talking about the locals...

Remember them?...The ones that you said are "innocents"?...Now you say "They thrive on anything we do."...

That doesn't sound too "innocent" to me...

How do you feel about people that willingly allow genocidal radicals into their community where they become a "health hazard" to their very own family?...

I don't care if they agreed with every damn thing they thought...The locals should say, "You know what there, Mister Terrorist?....Blah, blah, blah...we hate America too...But you being around here puts our sons and daughters in jeopardy...I suggest you take the targets on your ass elsewhere."...

I was referring to terrorists. Not everyone living in a village that happens to have been occupied by a group of terrorists. How much power do you suppose the women and children have to decide who gets to take refuge in their village? What do you suppose might happen to a good man who speaks out against the warlord in control of his community who takes in terrorists?

I guess not only us liberals can sound naive and simplistic, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not trying to use this as an argument against war. I'm trying to understand why we don't apologize for civilian casualties.

You apologize when you do something wrong or make an error.

Collateral damage is neither - its part of the price of war.