The Next News Story Logo/Theme?

[roymeo]

New News Logo-Copy Coming to a News Channel Near You.


(The story is that we bombed a UN building, killing 4 UN peoples who were in Afganistan to help with Land Mine removal. The UN has issued a statement of condemnation against....the USA.)



Oh yeah. I forgot one:

(in the case that this one's the CIA's pick, too)
America Stands United Against Using The CIA To Discover Targets...We Promise.

roymeo

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc...led/index.html

Well, here is an article for ya here but I think that the opposite is true also. These people are in a war zone. It is dangerous there. If they are going to play human shield (set up their headquarters near buildings that are military targets--whether intentionally or not) then... Well...

I think that the sec general of the UN is off base with his condemnation seeing as how I sure haven't heard a whole heck of a lot from the UN with regards to the terrorists.

His quote of "People need to distinguish between combatants and those innocent civilians who do not bear arms. They also need to be mindful for protecting assets essential for the survival of Afghan civilians." (taken from the article cited above) is also suspect seeing as how the safety of the Afghani people wasn't that big of an issue until they freaking attacked us. Then everyone jumps on the bandwagon about protecting them?

I assume that they were killed today because it says Tuesday... Well, as Eric pointed out, it is the third day of airstrikes. It is bound to be a dangerous place. Yes I am unhappy that they were killed but geeze, where is the condemnation for the Taliban in holding US hostages? Really a bit tired of snide UN backbiting.

Ander

[poseidon]

Look... it's no big secret that the UN overall doesn't like the United States. We routinely fight paying our dues, we're expected to provide a majority of the military force for peacekeepers and we fight over that, we have military personnel assigned to be peacekeepers who aren't exactly quiet about their dislike for being peacekeepers and how they didn't sign up to wear a UN uniform, and for the most part, many Third World countries don't care for the US to begin with.

But, you're absolutely right. This is a war, that is a war zone, and part of the downsides of war is that there is "collateral damage" (meaning the loss of human life) as a result of war. Sometimes innocents in war zones are killed. I don't mean to sound callous but it happens in nearly every war.

I think that if the UN is classifying our actions as "terrorism" then they certainly have the right to do that. Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter how wrong it is. Their opinion would definitely be wrong.

I can understand how hurt they are that UN personnel lost their lives in the midst of a strike by the United States. I would subscribe that during this time period they shouldn't have been there in the first place and should have taken refuge in a safer area. Even with the technology that our weapons are guided by, they aren't perfect and occasionally do strike unintended targets.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

This probably falls under the category of "dumb question of the day..."

Why won't we just declare war and get it over with?

Heck, it's a war no matter what we call it - Operation Sandblasting or a Police Action or "the Troubles, American-style" or what have you. Are there practial reasons behind not calling it a war? Are there pros to making a formal declaration besides calling a spade a spade?

mj

Hmm...

Well, I am not exactly sure how it works but I suspect that the reason for not declaring war has to do with not acknowledging the Taliban as the legitimate head of the nation of Afghanistan.

I would rather they not be acknowledged as such personally...

Ander

[roymeo]

We can't officially declare war against a body that we don't officially recognize.

Another Catch-22-ish sort of situation.


So, this is not a war, though we can declare a "war" against terrorism or drugs or japanese TV shows, we can't declare a WAR against those.


So it's a "war" zone, not a war zone.



Of course you'll never see our side willing to accept the same sort of collateral damage should they decide to attack us, again. If "They're in a war zone" is valid for afghanistan, isn't it also true, now that we've declared "war" at least, to expect to take some unfortunate casualties. At least the Pentagon is a valid military target, but accidents happen, and the people in the Mall of America better realize that they are in a "war"-zone?


I doubt that sits well.

roymeo

[poseidon]

I gotta disagree. In the situation with the WTC, we had no idea the attack was coming. We were clueless.

In the retaliation against Afghanistan, they knew full well that we'd be attacking. We had been attacking for two days solid. This is the third day that we're attacking in the area. It's no secret that we're attacking.

About the only warning we have in return is that American targets will be attacked anywhere in the world. That's not exactly what I would call ample warning to get civilians out of the area.

Then, of course, while our targets are military, theirs are innocent civilians. The four UN people were not targets of the attack.

Hence lies the difference.

It isn't really Catch-22ish at all. You don't have to be formally at war with someone to shoot missiles at them. You can still someone is 'in a war zone' with no quotes even if they are just say a SWAT team attacking the Branch Dividian compound or something of that sort. It is an expression and even if we haven't formally declared war, it is still an apt description of a place that is getting missiles rained on it.

roymeo said:

Of course you'll never see our side willing to accept the same sort of collateral damage should they decide to attack us, again.

Well gosh. "Accept" is a relative term here. Are you seriously talking about "collateral damage" or are you talking about them targeting civilians again? "Collateral" implies that the damage is a side effect of their real goal, not damage that actually *is* their real goal. Not really the same thing at all.

I think 'our side' is also relative here. GWB has stated that we are going to have more casualties on our side and have to be prepared to have them. I don't think he was just referring to military casualties. So 'our side' from the perspective of the people in charge is prepared to receive more attacks. If you are seriously talking about the "same sort" of damage then yeah our military is prepared to receive such damage as are people working around and near our military bases.

It sure doesn't seem as though you are making that statement though (gathering that from your 'Mall of America' stuff). Nah I can't imagine that any real "accident" could possibly happen at the Mall of America. If it happens, it will most assuredly be intentional. It isn't exactly the same as being in a building down the street from a radar tower when people are shooting missiles at such targets (and have been doing so).

I am kinda curious as to whether the UN was as quick to condemn Russia when they were attacking Afghanistan. I sure know that they weren't claiming Russia was a terrorist state.

Ander

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by anderclayton
[url]I think that the sec general of the UN is off base with his condemnation seeing as how I sure haven't heard a whole heck of a lot from the UN with regards to the terrorists.

His quote of "People need to distinguish between combatants and those innocent civilians who do not bear arms. They also need to be mindful for protecting assets essential for the survival of Afghan civilians." (taken from the article cited above) is also suspect seeing as how the safety of the Afghani people wasn't that big of an issue until they freaking attacked us. Then everyone jumps on the bandwagon about protecting them?

I get a little sick of the UN as well. We could have carpet bombed Afghanistan a few days after the war and nearly 100% of the country and the majority of the world wouldn't have blamed us. It would have been cruel and unproductive, but we took such a hard blow it would have been an option. We instead give the Taliban time to comply (of course we knew they wouldn't), and 26 days later begin a careful attack, going out of our way not to injure civilians, or destroy the infrastructure unnecessarily. We are even feeding people. I think our government has struck a good balance between defending ourselves protecting the innocent.
The UN can.............well never mind.

[wivabef]

This is me:

:soapbox:

This is the UN:



Note to Koffi -- when at a firing range, stay away from the side with the big bullseyes in a line.

[roymeo]

Poseidon:

I gotta disagree. In the situation with the WTC, we had no idea the attack was coming. We were clueless.

I didn't say the WTC. Off topic.

In the retaliation against Afghanistan, they knew full well that we'd be attacking. We had been attacking for two days solid. This is the third day that we're attacking in the area. It's no secret that we're attacking.

We are not attacking Afghanistan. We are attacking the Taliban and suspected terrorist network outposts. Or at least we're not supposed to be retaliating against Afghanistan....Are we supposed to just be retaliating or are we supposed to be rooting out terrorists and those who sheild them?

Getting out can be difficult, when you are in a desert country and everyone else is trying to flee. And we don't know about whether there are Taliban militia (since they don't quite have an army) harassing people or not because it's sorta hard to get much news right now.

So, these people in a UN building(?) were supposed to just get outta there? Like everyone should have gotten out of Manhattan on the 11th? And all the Kosovars should have gotten out of there? Hasn't Pakistan closed it's borders?

Look, I understand that shit happens in war. I understand our Cruise Missiles are really fantastically accurate compared to other weapons (which doesn't mean that they are very accurate...we learned that in Desert Slaughter). But to just say 'fuck um, they were in a war zone' is a little shallow, IMHO.

About the only warning we have in return is that American targets will be attacked anywhere in the world. That's not exactly what I would call ample warning to get civilians out of the area.

Alls fair in love and war?

Look, if we're showing the world anything right now, it's that you can't stand up to America. Boy am I going to be surprised when they turn to other means.

Then, of course, while our targets are military, theirs are innocent civilians. The four UN people were not targets of the attack.

Pentagon was fair game, then?

And looking at the damage the WTC attack did to the ability of the US to make war (due to the economic chaos and damage), and the way we determine what is and isn't a target (power plants are targets, etc.) it isn't too much of a stretch.

And we haven't ruled out Nuclear weapons....surely we'd condemn anyone attacking us with them.

Hence lies the difference.

In REAL wars, civilians die.

Hence lies the different between this ideal, where we just make blunders, and the reality, where we not only make blunders but KNOW that civilians in the wrong place when a missile falls out of the sky will die. And sitting in our armchairs in our parlors, we can condemn the people who don't stand a chance against us in a fair fight for not fighting fair...but once that parlor is in danger we really don't care (nor sholud we, if survival is at stake) about the unrealistic rules of war.



anderclayton:

It isn't really Catch-22ish at all. You don't have to be formally at war with someone to shoot missiles at them. You can still someone is 'in a war zone' with no quotes even if they are just say a SWAT team attacking the Branch Dividian compound or something of that sort. It is an expression and even if we haven't formally declared war, it is still an apt description of a place that is getting missiles rained on it.

But this is a "war" because we sure as hell are marshalling enough weapons and PR for a war, but we can't/won't officially declare it. That's a "war". Yes, it's also a war-zone. and war-zones are dangerous, and hard to get out of sometimes, maybe not quite like burning buildings, but maybe not quite like a vacation, either.

Well gosh. "Accept" is a relative term here. Are you seriously talking about "collateral damage" or are you talking about them targeting civilians again? "Collateral" implies that the damage is a side effect of their real goal, not damage that actually *is* their real goal. Not really the same thing at all.

We don't even have the balls to just declare war, but they're supposed to have the balls to fight us outright?

Who's more stupid? Terrorists, or people who expect someone who cannot possibly win a fair fight to die fighting a fair fight?

The US certainly wasn't that stupid during WWII, etc. etc. etc.

I think 'our side' is also relative here. GWB has stated that we are going to have more casualties on our side and have to be prepared to have them. I don't think he was just referring to military casualties. So 'our side' from the perspective of the people in charge is prepared to receive more attacks. If you are seriously talking about the "same sort" of damage then yeah our military is prepared to receive such damage as are people working around and near our military bases.

Please.

Or do these expectations change if they start drafting and a person doesn't voluntarily enter a military?

Looking at the Damage to the US from JUST the WTC, I'd say the civilians deaths could be collateral. The damage to the infrastructure, economy, funds to the government (hence ability to make war) and sense of security is quite high.

Reality is that people most often don't get a choice in the matter as to whether they are too close to a 'military target'. Reality is about survival, reality is not about a universal set of rules for war. Hell, Afghanistan barely has ANY human rights left, and they're supposed to be respecting the human rights of foreign civilians? They have been stoning people for a good 7 years for dress-code violations.

We'd like to set the rules. Hell, I'd rather that no civilians were ever killed in any country, even if that put a bit of a hamper on everyone's warmaking. I loved Anthony Burgess's twist in The Wounding Seed, where due to overpopulation and lack of food they set the soldiers up in fake wars for the meat in the bodies...only those warmongering enough to join the military were at risk. But that's not the way it is. Tomcats will eat their own offspring. People at war will look for the most effective way to conquer their enemy.

And 'on or around our military bases?' When did they ask my grandmother near Box Elder SD whether they would build a military base there? How far do I need to move so I'm an unfair target?

This isn't a roleplaying game, this is real war. And the bad guys struck first.

So it's OK if we screw up?

I guess maybe I'm the unrealistic one: I have more faith in our military to do a better job than you do.

It sure doesn't seem as though you are making that statement though (gathering that from your 'Mall of America' stuff). Nah I can't imagine that any real "accident" could possibly happen at the Mall of America. If it happens, it will most assuredly be intentional. It isn't exactly the same as being in a building down the street from a radar tower when people are shooting missiles at such targets (and have been doing so).

Actually, considering it's location, it could very well be damaged in a accident according to our rules. Even if you do think that our rules are realistic.

I am kinda curious as to whether the UN was as quick to condemn Russia when they were attacking Afghanistan. I sure know that they weren't claiming Russia was a terrorist state.

We were too busy supplying the Afghans with mines back then to care. And the UN probably didn't have to because the Russians were willing to risk some of their 'accepted the risk' military types to go in with tanks and not just bomb from too far away to be accurate.

I'm sure the media of it all has something to do with it....the terrorists got their wish for the media part, not only on the 11th, but the close worldwide scrutiny continues. Which is why we know about this already/at all. Russia went in before CNN. (and I've heard they're ready to go in again, now)


Civilians die in war. First as purely accidents from direct weapons, then from starvation, exposure to the elements, and eventually as intentional targets. You can't really fight fair and win a war against a super-power....which is why the US and the USSR didn't do anything more than move pawn about...any escallation WOULD have meant the direct, intentional assault on civilians. MAD wasn't about playing by the rules. Terrorists don't play by those rules. But if we are going to take off the gloves and attack them (are they military?) and any country that shelters them, we are also entering into that sort of war.

We didn't want to, but that's what we appear to be in. I dunno...I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm not sure that I can really see any way to avoid where we are today (at least til we hear for sure whether it was an intentional (CIA again?) or accidental target). So I'm not saying we shouldn't be killing Taliban.

I'm afraid of the military ineptness we've shown in the past 5 years.

I'm afraid of people who will just shrug and say "fuckum, they're in a war zone". The definition of what is and isn't war is a very plastic thing, if you were awake in History class, or have been paying attention to the world after you hit puberty. I'm for the lessening of atrocities, but I'm not dumb enough to think everyone is.

I'm afraid of the people who aren't really worried about atrocities, whether they are on our side or against us.



So, maybe I'm just confused.

I'm stating in this post two things which may be somewhat contradictory:

You people on this side, be realistic and realize that there are people out there who are cold blooded killers or accept that sort of behavior in the name of what they think is right.

and

You people on my side, don't be cold blooded killers or accept that sort of behavior in the name of what you think is right.


Maybe it has to be either callous bastards over here and fanatical terrorists over there, or people who give a fuck about who we kill and not tolerating terrorists under any circumstances. I'd prefer the second one, too.

Atrocities? You are calling an accidental killing an atrocity now? Boy.

Now I would agree that it shouldn't have happened. I never said "fuck them" or whatever y'all want to stuff in my mouth. I said that yeah I feel bad they died.

When you split hairs, don't get general in other cases. Saying that they are justified in targeting civilian targets in one case means that in your view, they are justified in targeting civilians in general (if they feel that they are being oppressed/whatever). The Mall of America is OK but other places aren't OK (like say the WTC)? People on planes with their throats slit are collateral?


roymeo said:

we sure as hell are marshalling enough weapons and PR for a war, but we can't/won't officially declare it

We have stated that we are at war against terrorism. No, we haven't gotten specific that we are at war against the Taliban (and we did state that we wouldn't attack them if they didn't support terrorism) but we have made very public, worldwide declarations that we are at war. Nope, they aren't official but it isn't like Congress is against the idea.

Why should we say that the Taliban are legit? They commit pretty awful atrocities (and no, I am not talking about accidental deaths).


roymeo said

Look, if we're showing the world anything right now, it's that you can't stand up to America. Boy am I going to be surprised when they turn to other means.

When they do? They already have. They have stated that they were going to do it before we even started attacking them. You are playing the blame game here and blaming the US. Yeah they are going to attack us again. We have been assured that they are going to do it (before the bombings even) so why would they not do it now? Blaming the bombings for their actions is...


roymeo said:

We don't even have the balls to just declare war, but they're supposed to have the balls to fight us outright?

Do you seriously think it has to do with our "balls"??? How about presenting it more like it is. We don't want to acknowledge a bunch of people that routinely starve women and children to death as a matter of policy (because they don't want to let the women work). They aren't lily white and nobody (except a country or two) recognizes them as the people in charge of Afghanistan.


roymeo said:

This isn't a roleplaying game, this is real war. And the bad guys struck first.

Well, I never said anything of the sort. I know what it is like out there. I was in the military. You want realism, imagine it yourself. I don't need to.

The draft is irrelevant. There isn't one right now.

Yup civilians die. They did. That is why we are fighting them now. Like a number of people have said, that was a declaration of war. No it wasn't OK to do it. Don't justify the attack because it was wrong.

Yes we are going to kill civilians. It is not going to be helped.

I guess maybe I'm the unrealistic one: I have more faith in our military to do a better job than you do.

Well geeze. Perhaps so. I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I don't think that they intended to kill the civilians (in fact I would bet tons and tons of cash on it) but they are human and therefore not perfect.

People going into Afghanistan to defuse mines are aware that they are going into a dangerous place in the first place. Afghanistan hasn't ever been on anyone's list for a great place to vacation. The UN people knew that they were going into dire danger by doing it. We had been warning the Taliban for a long period of time that they were going to get bombed. Instead of making some comparison to September 11th, it might be a bit better comparison to give them the whole month or so since then. Yeah we had only been bombing for three days but those three days aren't the only warning that they had.

And we haven't ruled out Nuclear weapons....surely we'd condemn anyone attacking us with them.

Sure. We would be condemned if we used them too. We aren't using them. We also aren't using big planes with thousands of noncombatants.


Basically going both ways on the war thing is a bit... Well, perhaps you *are* confused. We weren't at war before the WTC. We are now.

Yes we do need to have morals with our attacks. That doesn't mean that there won't be accidental casualties though. It does mean that we can feel bad once we do it. Yep it was unfortunate that the people died but it was just that. Unfortunate.

You are both arguing for the WTC and against the US's actions. You argue that there is always casualties in war but that the US should have been perfect... Because...??? Yup we do have technology but obviously it isn't enough to have pinpoint accuracy.

Is it your contention here that we should always be perfect or....??? I don't think the UN workers were blown up on purpose.... Do you?

Basically what is your point? You are going both ways here.

Ander

[roymeo]

I started with quotes from your article, but I wasn't talking directly to you, Ander. I realize the format could easily look like that.


I, myself, pointed out that maybe I'm trying to have it both ways: reasonable people on this side realizing that there are unreasonable people on that side.


And as long as that post is, yeah, I was doing some thinking as I went, perhaps changing my views as I found more and more of the end of your post being reasonable.


I guess the blood lust in some areas of our society has made me sensitive to the callous 'well that's Wahr' attitude when we do screw up. I know it's not cool and all to bring up our fuckups, but I also sincerely think that we ought to take a little more of a hit for when we do fuckup (whenever that is).

The biggest difference: we are supposed to be proud, strong, smart, moral America. I'm not looking to BLAME us outright, but I'd like to feel like I deserve to feel a little more of that.


Ah hell. ...we're doing a hell of a lot better than in Viet Nam.


roymeo

(But being less callous about it will help to bring more people on board.)

[erik_kosberg]

Nah I can't imagine that any real "accident" could possibly happen at the Mall of America.

Ideally it would happen during a snow emergency. The mall would be closed and everyone would be sent home early. The howling winds would cover up the explosion and it wouldn’t be until three days later when the blizzard let up that anyone would even notice that where once there had been a mall, now there was a big hole in the ground. A boy can dream...

[roymeo]

from http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/go...dont_kill.html

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

[wivabef]

I have always been told that if the language is getting strong, and it makes me feel uncomfortable, that I should step up and say something about it. So, this is not being judgemental, it is only a request, and one that does not have to be heeded. I could just leave this particular thread.

My request:

Could we please keep the obscenities down to a dull roar? The comment about something being done to 12 year old children's pates is particularly disturbing, and I don't think it adds to the topic in any benevolent way.

Thanks.

(PS -- my target imagery was not meant to suggest that we target the UN, but perhaps after two days of bombing, the UN should consider removing non-essential personnel (removing mines during battle is kind of non-essential) from the line of fire.)

[poseidon]

I have no problem admitting that we messed up and hit the wrong target. I think that we should admit that we messed up and hit the wrong target. I don't think that anyone here has suggested that we don't own up to our mistakes.

But to condemn us for hitting the wrong target and killing civilians when it is purely accidental is unfair.

I never stated that you said the WTC was part of your conversation. What I was trying to explain, which I apparently didn't do well, is that there is a difference between what the terrorists did and what we have done.

The terrorists 100% meant to crash those planes into their targets and kill as many people as possible. The WTC was their target. It was questionable that the Pentagon was another target -- I have heard conflicting reports that the White House or Capitol Hill was a target and they changed their mind mid-way through the flight.

OTOH, attacking a UN building wasn't done on purpose. There lies the difference. My reference to the WTC isn't off-topic. It shows you that your thoughts that we are acting in a similar manner as the terrorists is completely off-base.

Also, we are attacking Afghanistan. Afghanistan is currently ruled by the Taliban. Just because we don't formally recognize the government of the Taliban is simply a game of semantics when you say that we're attacking the Taliban outposts and bases and not attacking Afghanistan. Those bases and outposts that we are currently bombing are in Afghanistan. We've stated we'll be attacking other outposts and bases in other nations. At that point, we'll be attacking those nations as well.

So, these people in a UN building(?) were supposed to just get outta there? Like everyone should
have gotten out of Manhattan on the 11th? And all the Kosovars should have gotten out of there?
Hasn't Pakistan closed it's borders?

Again, this isn't the same thing at all and you aren't comparing apples to apples.

The people in the UN building were in a war zone. It isn't a declared war per se -- Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war. But missiles and bombs raining down on you is a war whether or not you choose to call it one.

The people in the UN buildings had ample warning that they were in a war zone. Their building wasn't a target -- the area that they were in was targetted. Again it was no secret that we would be bombing the areas that we bombed. These people chose to stay in the area. They took the risk. It is an unfortunate consequence that they were killed.

The people in Manhattan had no idea that an attack was coming. Again, there lies the difference.

As far as the UN personnel getting out, the borders were closed to refugees. I'm not sure that it applied to UN personnel. Even if it did, we aren't bombing all or even a majority of Afghanistan from the maps that I've seen. These people had plenty of time to pick up and leave. We didn't bomb the place for three weeks, even though we've been telling them that it's coming.

[amykhar]

Jumping in here with a couple of comments.

1) Roymeo, the pentagon was most certainly a legitimate target. The only problem was the airplane of civilians that they used as a weapon. THAT was not legitimate.

2) Roymeo, pretend that you are speaking in front of people that you respect, and keep the language reasonable. I cut out the inappropriate statement in your post above.

Finally, because this has turned into a debate of sorts, I am moving it to the soapbox.

Amy

[amykhar]

Jeff,
Roymeo was not speaking of the WTC attack. He is speaking of NOW. Americans should understand that we are at war. Attacks on targets in the US should not be surprising.

He made no such comment on the criminal act of attacking the WTC. He did try to justify the pentagon, but I think that argument falls flat too.

Roymeo is actually right. If the Taliban were to attack military targets here, we can't scream and yell about the loss of innocent civilian lives. Civilians die in wars.

Amy