BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?

Subject: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: GUEST,Ms Liberty
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:29 AM

I think not.

With collateral damage being part of the war planning, ie "estimated number of civilian casualties" it is calculated, intentional, and acceptable to the powers that be as "the price to be paid" for whatever the folly of the current madmen in power might be.

Today Afghanistan, tomorrow Iraq, the next day...

Who stands to gain from this war is the question we need to be asking ourselves, since there is absolutely no "imminent danger" from the likes of Iraq to our nation.

Even an attack of the scale of 9/11 can't justify the murder of thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civilians, whether in the name of security, of freedom, or anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM

Dear Ms L:

I am strongly inclined to agree with your sentiments. As a question of fact, I am not certain of your assessment on the danger posed by Iraq; do you have particulars on which your defintiive conclusion is based? If so, you would seem to be a league ahead of the American President, who has been unable or unwilling to provide anything more than a black box with "Danger" written all over it.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 11:00 AM

(quote)
"Even an attack of the scale of 9/11 can't justify the murder of thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civilians, whether in the name of security, of freedom, or anything else. "

The flippant answer would be as opposed to the Taliban's or Saddam's excuses for visiting premeditated murder with extreme predjudice on their own people. Are you saying that it is more morally justifiable for the politically helpless Iraqi citizens to die of privation whilst Saddam continues to finance his self-important megalomanical visions with evermore bunkered-palaces.

I'm not , in any way , justifying the decision for a *pre-emptive* military police action that I suppose it will be reffered to next.
But since Bush,Sr. *blew it* big time by not finishing the job then when we had the military advantage and the international support that we do *not* have now ( think of all of the lives *that* might've spared , starting with the Kurds , years under Saddam's heal ), I continue to be for this policy of *containment*
as in the Cuban Missle Crisis blockade.

However you can't just armchair moralize and be silent on what
course you *would* support .

BTW: If you really are serious about registering your opposition
you should take it to the source that *really* feels imminently threatened by Iraq and is at the forefront of this *first strike* policy ; namely Areil Sharon's Right Wing Isreal. Failing to direct your *moral* judgement at this source of proven war-mongering is serving up a half-baked protest at best.

It's so easy to *just*criticize the U.S. and remain silent on this other key instigator through fierce lobbying . Please address your protest to there as well as AIPAC has been extremely busy of late.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 11:02 AM

The term "collateral damage" has absolutly nothing to do with civilian casualties. This term is used by the military to refer to infrastructure damage that results from military action. It originated with nuclear weaponry and the realization that the use of such would have results such as massive road blockage caused by tree blow-down or the collapse of buildings. The official term for civilian casualties is noncombatent death and injury, and the acceptable number is ZERO.

This would appear to be a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM

So why don't you open it, just to see if he's right?
Should we have let Hitler and his sort have had their way in Europe? The collaterel damage from that little lot beggers description!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 03:22 PM

The place to register your opinion on this is directly to your congressional representatives. Contact information can be called up by entering US Government on your search engine and wriggling your way to where you wish to go. Even though the House of Reps has just completed its vote, there will undoubtably be a conference committee and a final vote in both houses. Speak to the people in power now or hold your peace.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 03:57 PM

"Collaterial" and "noncombatent death or injury" will be very high should Saddam lure the US into Bagdad.

One reason that Senior didn't "finish the job" was because it was that portion of the job that is the most daunting. This is why I have mentioned similarities with Vietnam. You have an *enemy* who can look very much like a civilian, can live in the same communities and can strike on his terms.

Now, there is no assurance that the with all the *huffy and puffing* that Saddam will "blink" but, hey, if the man feels cornered, he may not. This will put Bush in the corner himself and unfortunately we know what he'll do.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:15 AM

Bobert:

"One reason that Senior didn't "finish the job" was because it was that portion of the job that is the most daunting."

The main reason "Senior" didn't "finish the job" (Which I take to mean removing Saddam Hussein from power) was that the "job" as you put it, at that time, was to liberate Kuwait - I believe he did do it.

Your nightmare scenario of Saddam "luring" the US into Baghdad - assumes that the entire Iraqi population think that he (Saddam) is a damn fine chap, salt of the earth, man of the people, benefactor to all. That's why he has surrounded himself with a two layered Praetorian Guard and spends his time hid away in his eight Presidential Palaces living in luxiary while his people starve.

The same was predicted with regard to popular public support for the Taliban in Afghanistan - it didn't happen, people couldn't get shot of them fast enough. The same will hold true for Saddam's regime.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Accidental' Collateral Damage?
From: Chip2447
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:58 AM

The main reason Bush Sr. didnt topple Saddam was a U.N. Mandate that allowed a U.S. led colition of forces to liberate Kuwait only.

At some point in time, Saddam is goiny to need to be removed.