Sorry, Pakistan

[M14 Shooter]

If you think the consideration that innocent people die in war should not be taken into consideration, then I think you should avoid be placed in the decision making process of whether or not we go to war.

If you have to go to war, then the fact you'll kill innocents simply doesnt matter -- your job is to protect YOUR innocent civilians by eliminating your enemy's ability to make war against you; if innocents on the other side have to die to do that, then they have to die.

Now, you can argue all you want that American civilians are no more valuable that pakistani civilians -- but thats your personal opinion. As a member of the US govenrment, your personal opionion is trumped by your responsibility to protect the american people.

Clearly, if your personal view won't allow you to make that distinction, then you need to stay away from a position of responsibility.

 

[cnredd]

That was his ad hominem attack. But if the Saudis would have let him kick Saddam out of Kuwait instead of us, he would not have attacked us. He had no problem with our freedoms when we were arming him against the USSR.

Speculation...:shrug:

He was involved with radical Islam before the first Gulf War...He was a firecracker ready to go off...If it wasn't Saudi Arabia granting the US permission to create bases, it just would have been the next thing...

He wanted to get us riled up in a "Holy War" because he knew our imperialistic ideologies would sway world opinion against us. He has played us like a fiddle.

No...

His fatwa was in 1998...Did you just call Clinton an "imperialistic ideologue"?...

BTW - We're swinging WAY off topic here...:doh

 

[M14 Shooter]

They wont see it nor play it that way.

"They"?

The question is, Did the US drop a bomb on Pakistani soil without telling the Pakistani Gov?

I doubt it. I havent heard anyting one way or the other, but I very strongly suppose that if he had, we'd hear about it.

In any event, we dont need to apologize because we didn't do anything wrong, and we didnt make an avoidable mistake.

 

[Tashah]

First of all, Predator drones can stay aloft for over 24 hours and have real-time satellite video-linkage capability. This implies certain things...

• The military intel officers (wherever located) watching the video-feed from the Predator drone in Pakistan discerned a possible id of al-Zawahiri in the video-feed.

• They would have isolated particular video frames and probably sent them via computer to the NRO in Washington for further analysis.

• Video evidence would be adjucated by analyst's in signals intelligence and delivered to the NSC for internal debate... and a determination of either a 'strike' or a 'no-strike' order.

Just because al-Zawahiri was not killed in the strike does not imply that he was not there. Nor does it imply that he was never there. It simply implies that he escaped harm in this strike for reasons as yet unknown.

Some of you should be cogniscent of the fact that many terrorists use innocent civilians as a shield and conversely, many civilians are not innocent and willingly shield terrorists. In this type of situation, an analyst has neither the time nor the resources to differentiate between the former and the latter. It must be asked... do the means justify the ends? While local civilian collateral damage is indeed abhorrant, the damage potential of the terrorists to non-local civilians vastly exceeds this threshhold.

It should also be recognized that Pakistan will be more inclined to use this incident for political reasons rather than for humanitarian ones. If the US acts unilaterally, Pakistan accrues no financial recompense and reward from the US for participating in the global war against terror. It is in Pakistan's national interest then, to use the international media to force bilateral operations.

 

[robin]

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...

It concerns me to see how many Americans like you cnred are so extremist. That you aren't one of those in Pakistan jumping up & down saying 'death to America', is purely an accident of birth, I'm sure.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

If you have to go to war, then the fact you'll kill innocents simply doesnt matter -- your job is to protect YOUR innocent civilians by eliminating your enemy's ability to make war against you; if innocents on the other side have to die to do that, then they have to die.

How much is too much?

If it is not America's intention to kill civilians, then there is no reason not to apologize.

 

[vergiss]

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

Last I checked, we're not at war against Pakistan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How much is too much?

How much what? Innocent death?
There is no such thing - you take as many as it takes to remove the other sides' ability to make war.

If it is not America's intention to kill civilians, then there is no reason not to apologize.

Again:
We didnt do anything wrong, and we didn't make an avoidable mistake.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Last I checked, we're not at war against Pakistan.

We didn't attack Pakistan
(I think I hear an echo...)

 

[vergiss]

We didn't attack Pakistan
(I think I hear an echo...)

:neutral: You fired a missle into Pakistan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

:neutral: You fired a missle into Pakistan.

(More echoes)
We attacked terrorists IN Pakistan.

All through WW2, when we bombed the Germans in France, were we attacking France? No?

Thank you.

 

[Pacridge]

If you have to go to war, then the fact you'll kill innocents simply doesnt matter -- your job is to protect YOUR innocent civilians by eliminating your enemy's ability to make war against you; if innocents on the other side have to die to do that, then they have to die.

Now, you can argue all you want that American civilians are no more valuable that pakistani civilians -- but thats your personal opinion. As a member of the US govenrment, your personal opionion is trumped by your responsibility to protect the american people.

Clearly, if your personal view won't allow you to make that distinction, then you need to stay away from a position of responsibility.

If is the big word here. The fact that innocent people die in war and there's nothing anyone can do about that should weigh heavy when making the decision as to whether or not war is absolutely necessary.

Clearly if you view of reality consist of nothing but black and white, right and wrong you should write fiction and stay away from any position of responsibility.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It's not cowardism - it's standard guerilla fighting. Did you expect them to form battalions and tank divisions to fight the US in convential warfare?

If that is cowardism then Americans were cowards in the War of Independence.

Did the U.S. guirella forces specifically target the civilian population, the insurgency is not made up of guirella soldiers it is made up of terrorist murderers there is a difference.

 

[vergiss]

(More echoes)
We attacked terrorists IN Pakistan.

All through WW2, when we bombed the Germans in France, were we attacking France? No?

Thank you.

But France wasn't our ally, as Pakistan is in the war against terror. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Last I checked, we're not at war against Pakistan.

Last time I checked we're at war with Islamic terrorists and where ever they hide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If is the big word here.

Are there or are there not times when a state has to go to war?

Yes, There are.

In those times, the fact you'll kill innocents simply doesnt matter -- your job as the head of that state is to protect YOUR innocent civilians by eliminating your enemy's ability to make war against you; if innocents on the other side have to die to do that, then they have to die

Our govenrment, in large part, exists to protect us by killing innocent people.
Its that simple.

 

[vergiss]

Last time I checked we're at war with Islamic terrorists and where ever they hide.

So if one of Osama's men manages to get into Australia, you'd be okay with sending a missile into downtown Sydney?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But France wasn't our ally, as Pakistan is in the war against terror. :roll:

France wasn't our ally in WW2?
What school did you go to? You need to get your money back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did the U.S. guirella forces specifically target the civilian population, the insurgency is not made up of guirella soldiers it is made up of terrorist murderers there is a difference.

Thats right.
Our soldiers, during the revolutionary war, fought against British soldiers, not Tory and loyalist civilians.

In that, there's absolutely NO comparison between us back then and the Islamofascits in Iraq.

 

[vergiss]

France wasn't our ally in WW2?
What school did you go to? You need to get your money back.

Once the Germans had taken over, France was hardly going to fight itself, was it?

 

[Pacridge]

But France wasn't our ally, as Pakistan is in the war against terror. :roll:

Really? My history book says on Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand all declared war on Germany. Wouldn't that make France our ally?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once the Germans had taken over, France was hardly going to fight itself, was it?

You're deliberately being obtuse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? My history book says on Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand all declared war on Germany. Wouldn't that make France our ally?

Lets not forget Canada.

 

[Pacridge]

Are there or are there not times when a state has to go to war?

Yes, There are.

In those times, the fact you'll kill innocents simply doesnt matter -- your job as the head of that state is to protect YOUR innocent civilians by eliminating your enemy's ability to make war against you; if innocents on the other side have to die to do that, then they have to die

Our govenrment, in large part, exists to protect us by killing innocent people.
Its that simple.

Are there times when war is the only reasonable action? Absolutely. Should you enter into that action without considering the fact that the action will result in the loss of innocent lives? Absolutely not.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I think you're talking about what happens after the decision to go to war has been made and I'm talking about making that decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are there times when war is the only reasonable action? Absolutely. Should you enter into that action without considering the fact that the action will result in the loss of innocent lives? Absolutely not.

If war in the only reasonable action, then the fact that you will kill innocents is irrelevant -- war is the ONLY reasonable action.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I think you're talking about what happens after the decision to go to war has been made and I'm talking about making that decision.

So then your argument has little bearing on mine.