Zartan 
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 58
Posts: 5,177
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Spelca:
I was complaining more about the fact that they mention these 'smart bombs' as if that means no civilians will get killed. And when they do, 'Oops, we're so sorry'. I haven't heard of any trials when civilians got killed. Okay, I admit, accidents do happen, but negligence and accident is something totally different. If I run over somebody with a car because the road is icy and it's an accident, then I probably won't be in trouble. But if I do it because of negligence, then I should get in trouble. And I don't think it should be different with soldiers. Sure, they're stressed, but sometimes these things happen because they weren't careful enough. People should know that shooting is not a joke. It's real. And if you're not careful enough and don't care, then you'll get in trouble.
Please don't belittle the situation by pretending all the US did was say, "oops, we're so sorry." That belittles your point.
And since you aren't a soldier please don't insult the people who have put their lives on they line by saying they aren't careful, that they think shooting at someone is a joke, and that they should understand it's real. I can assure you that they are much more keenly aware of those things than you or I could ever hope to be. To you, it's a moral argument, to them the difference is literally life and death.
These things are looked at on an individual basis, there was a case in the past few weeks involving US troops who accidentally fired on coalition forces and caused their deaths.
In war people die, no matter how careful or compassionate someone is. The only ways to save innocents from accidental death during a war in the face of an aggressor is to ignore the aggressor or surrender. Even these methods have been proven to result in a high civilian casualty rate. Of course those deaths aren't accidental, but I assume they are just as important.
No nation in the history of the world has done more to avoid the deaths of innocent civilians during conflicts over the last generation, but that isn't enough. Can someone please tell me who does it better, and when they'll offer training?
And studying maps and checking up information is a part of it. If the village was bombed because they wanted to bomb it as quickly as possible and didn't have enough time to research stuff, then I want a trial. Is that too much to ask? Or are the generals and soldiers like small gods that are immune to everything?
Maybe you'd consider trying those who provided the false information in the hopes of having their enemies killed instead of the soldiers who acted on the best information they had. You seem only interested in holding the soldiers responsible. Researching stuff, as you call it, isn't always as much of a possibility in situations like this as some would choose to believe. This isn't an school exam or a project at work, it's war. The information given by people on the ground has always been and will always be considered the most valuable. If the Afghans that we trusted and relied on said these people were to be trusted, why wouldn't we trust them.
Do you want to go into the village and administer lie detector tests. Your idea is more of an ideal, but ideals aren't always possible to live up to in the life and death situations presented by war.
What I want is that we take responsibility for the people who die. And not that we pretend that we're so good just because we managed to get rid of a dictator.
We don't have to pretend we're so good, and no one else has to believe we're so bad. Just because we get rid of a dictator might not seem like much to some, but what about those who are saved from his regime? What about every innocent life that is save through this action? Don't those innocent lives matter, too?
PS: I didn't criticise only the US, but also others (I mentioned NATO, see). I think war is wrong, and mentioning 'smart bombs' doesn't make me feel better about it.
Wrong in ever single instance? There is never a time for war?
Smart bombs aren't suppose to make you feel better about the war. They are suppose to shorten conflict, increase on-point destruction, and minimize civilian causalities amongst other things. They do exactly what they are intended to do.
|
[ 03-02-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />
|