02-21-2003, 11:13 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that the modus operandi of American armed forces in action is in stark contrast with that of other developed 'free' nations.
The U.S. forces see by far the most action, so it should be no surprise that they have the most unfortunate incidents. The other 'free' nations are more than happy to see the U.S. forces in action as long as it coincides with their own interests...
Now I see you were referring to intended targets up there, while I responded with reference to accidental targets. Well, does it really matter what the intended target was to someone who has lost friends/family to American military action?
I think it would matter a great deal. It's the difference between sorrow and outrage. Say a couple of my friends go out hunting and one of them gets shot by the other. My reaction to the shooter will be a heck of a lot different depending on whether or not it was an accident.
More to the point, accidental vs. intended matters to this extent: If the collateral damage is accidental, then these people are accomplishing absolutely nothing by going over there except to waste their own lives. Once conflict starts, the targets picked will have military significance (at least, according to the intelligence availabe), and if western protesters are sitting on those military targets it is going to be their tough luck. If a wrong target is picked or there is a communications fubar, having westerners on the ground can't do anything to deter it, and it's still going to be their tough luck.
The only way they could have any impact on the affair at all is in determining whether a conflict happens at all. Since their presence in Iraq does nothing to solve the real issues involved in this affair, what they are doing is not much more than a publicity stunt. I respect their right to drum up support for peace even at such risk, but if they die the responsibility will be entirely their own.
The U.S. forces see by far the most action, so it should be no surprise that they have the most unfortunate incidents. The other 'free' nations are more than happy to see the U.S. forces in action as long as it coincides with their own interests...
Now I see you were referring to intended targets up there, while I responded with reference to accidental targets. Well, does it really matter what the intended target was to someone who has lost friends/family to American military action?
I think it would matter a great deal. It's the difference between sorrow and outrage. Say a couple of my friends go out hunting and one of them gets shot by the other. My reaction to the shooter will be a heck of a lot different depending on whether or not it was an accident.
More to the point, accidental vs. intended matters to this extent: If the collateral damage is accidental, then these people are accomplishing absolutely nothing by going over there except to waste their own lives. Once conflict starts, the targets picked will have military significance (at least, according to the intelligence availabe), and if western protesters are sitting on those military targets it is going to be their tough luck. If a wrong target is picked or there is a communications fubar, having westerners on the ground can't do anything to deter it, and it's still going to be their tough luck.
The only way they could have any impact on the affair at all is in determining whether a conflict happens at all. Since their presence in Iraq does nothing to solve the real issues involved in this affair, what they are doing is not much more than a publicity stunt. I respect their right to drum up support for peace even at such risk, but if they die the responsibility will be entirely their own.