If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Indymedia)   Department of Defense admits to bombing Red Cross on purpose   (indymedia.org) divider line 121
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7457 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2001 at 11:57 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2001-11-08 12:05:16 PM
Yeah, Id believe this guy.. great sources that he cites.
 
2001-11-08 12:05:59 PM
if it was necessary than im glad it happened. Taliban cannot hide from us by using civilain buildings for cover.
 
Eli
2001-11-08 12:11:25 PM
I thought cutting off food sources was basic military tactics? We shouldn't even be dropping food packets at all.
 
43%
2001-11-08 12:12:35 PM
1) its a war.
2) bomb the shiat out of it.
3) "I was watching cable and i found out the government is lying to us about what exactly it is doing in the war."
 
2001-11-08 12:14:58 PM
I'm confused. The author of the article gives a quote from a story on MSNBC.com, provides a link, I click on the link and go to the story, and it's not there. Has the story changed, did he get the link wrong, or what?

Also, he says "The Department of Defense admits to"...but even the quote he gives has an anonymous source saying it, "a senior U.S. Military Official". Sounds like, at most, "a leak says"
 
2001-11-08 12:17:19 PM
Ah, another intreped reporter earns his pay. Maybe next time, he can file the report from inside the Red Cross building.
 
2001-11-08 12:18:35 PM
What is the meaning of democracy when we make our choices based on false or no information?

BAH. What's the point of trying to fight a war if we're going to broadcast every move we make and be subject to the will of the media? Personally, I'd rather see humanitarian forces than military ones, but the choice has been made, so I'll support it. Why can't the media support it?

I'm guessing that not too many people questioned the decision to incinerate Dresden, huh? Sheesh.
 
nez
2001-11-08 12:20:25 PM
Why a cool tag? Should be scary.
 
2001-11-08 12:20:55 PM
Why would the Taliban need to get food from the aid station when all they have to do is go out and pick it up? We drop it on them.
 
2001-11-08 12:21:41 PM
And if the next head of the Red Cross misdirects donations, there's really going to be hell to pay!
 
2001-11-08 12:22:05 PM
The Chomsky quote really fills me with confidence about this guy's bias-free reporting.
 
2001-11-08 12:29:52 PM
Woah, this is so old. I heard this on CNN at least a week ago.
 
2001-11-08 12:31:39 PM
The point, despite the dramatized packaging, was that earlier we had been specifically lied to.

I think the American public with all it's 'support' would have reacted then just as the majority here is reacting now.

So, what's the point of lying about it then is the question, and what else are we being lied to about now, another.

Not that either makes the slightest difference in how the war is run.

[i]What is the meaning of democracy when we make our choices based on false
or no information? [/i]

gag! "Rumsfield called me just the other day to ask what I thought he should do" hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

j*
 
2001-11-08 12:33:38 PM
43%, you forgot the "andtheIwentwheeee!" at the end of that...

3Horn
 
2001-11-08 12:33:40 PM
ummm, obvious?
 
2001-11-08 12:35:17 PM
GadgetDon - The MSNBC story has been re-written - however, in this .mil (above suspicion, I would say) site, an US navy admiral claims the Red Cross warehouse was on a list of targets.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10172001_200110172.html

Who the fark they think they are fooling? How is hiding this helping win the war? By preventing domestic / allied protests?
 
fb-
2001-11-08 12:35:39 PM
Indymedia. I can't imagine a bigger lefist propaganda news source than that.
 
2001-11-08 12:35:45 PM
After the crap the Red Cross has been pulling here, I say bomb them again and again.
 
2001-11-08 12:35:51 PM
"CNN's Walter Rodgers said the Taliban, the target of the U.S.-led military campaign, have previously parked military vehicles near the compound, using it as a shield. "

That was from the story that was shown as a source for his claims. indymedia.org is a left wing nut site. None of its' sources supported its' claims. A site that quotes Noam Chomsky is pretty much a waste of time.
 
2001-11-08 12:36:19 PM
*yawn*

bleeding heart garbage...

next please.
 
nez
2001-11-08 12:41:23 PM
Here's what the SF Chronicle reported on Oct 27:

- U.S. warplanes have accidentally destroyed Red Cross warehouses in Kabul for the second time in 10 days, provoking new concerns about the accuracy of allied intelligence and weaponry.

CNN Oct 26:
- The Pentagon said U.S. fighter jets and B-52 bombers inadvertently dropped 2,000-pound bombs on the warehouses. A 500-pound cluster bomb also went astray, hitting a civilian area near the same facility.

The Pentagon said it regrets the errors and emphasized that its campaign is intentionally striking "only military and terrorist targets."

Don't discount a person's view because it's convenient for you to label them as a lefty or liberal or whatever. Maybe the delivery of info ain't great, but that doesn't mean they're lying to you.
 
2001-11-08 12:42:17 PM
I read the site, clicked their CNN link, and nothing about it. However, if it did happen, it is far from cool. Nothing's cool about killing civilians.
 
2001-11-08 12:43:52 PM
Nice doctored quote at the top of the article;

"The news is out there, but it is only available to a fanatic" (willing to spend all their time searching for and unearthing it.) -- Noam Chomsky

"Hmmm...this quote is nice, but it doesn't make us seem heroic enough in our struggle for the truth. Let's add a little bit more, but put in inside parentheses so people can't complain we doctored the quote."

I agree with Jeanette that we've all been lied to (maybe), but sloppy journalism with unsubstantiated sources doesn't help anybody in the end. If this guy wants to "break the news", he should get a little more reliable information before shooting his mouth off to the public.

Anyways, with that said, I'm done shooting my mouth off ;)
 
2001-11-08 12:49:53 PM
Fb-
Once again you've hit the nail on the head. This is leftist propaganda crap. I hear Sean Hannity talk about these guys all the time.
 
2001-11-08 12:52:31 PM
I love how Indymedia normally considers CNN, et al. as evil propagandists for the corporate fascist state - unless, of course, they say something that makes America seem at all bad, in which case it's the gospel truth.
 
2001-11-08 12:54:42 PM
I agree, I totally support the independant media center, but they have an annoying tendancy to come off like zealots. Never trust a zealot.
 
2001-11-08 12:54:59 PM
ZEALOTS MUST PAY! RAAAAAAARGHHHHH!
 
2001-11-08 12:56:19 PM
I've know about this for a least a week and a half. Buried in the news my a$$. In a pentagon briefing a while back they admitted it
 
2001-11-08 12:59:51 PM
how funny that so many of you trust the mass media & not this when it's the ceo's & anchors of the mass media that are members of the same unelected organizations as all of the world leaders. (trilateral commission, bilderberg group, committee on foreign relations). and i'll bet not many of you have had any broadcast education either. the news business is run FOR PROFIT. not to give you the truth.
leftist propoganda crap? you guys are morons.
i've spent the time to go thru the indymedia site & there is some AMAZING footage. especially of a peaceful zapatista takover of a military base. i can't believe that some of you dismiss peoples personal experiences in favor of the pop culture hallucinations. get a real education...
 
fb-
2001-11-08 01:06:06 PM
Yeah, you are all brainwashed. Everybody knows that real news only comes from ultra leftist sites. Everything else is for corporate tools.

farking left makes me sicker every day.
 
2001-11-08 01:06:07 PM
get a real education...

This from someone who is apparently only barely acquainted with the basic rules of grammar. If you're going to spout your condescending leftist conspiracy theories here, at least try to make it readable.
 
fb-
2001-11-08 01:07:33 PM
Indynews is presents unbiased real news.

Yeah, and /. presents unbiased computing news too.

Bwhahahahahahaha!
 
fb-
2001-11-08 01:09:43 PM
It's not like Indymedia has an ultra left anti-corporate, anti-us, anti-globalization agenda to push or anything.

Oh wait, they do.
 
fb-
2001-11-08 01:10:49 PM
I trust Indymedia about as much as I trust Newsmax.
 
2001-11-08 01:11:35 PM
fark 'em, i don't think they deserve a red cross
 
2001-11-08 01:12:18 PM
From http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10172001_200110172.html
He said, "one of our missionshiat a Red Cross warehouse that stored humanitarian goods. This building was within a set of targets we had identified as being used for military storage by the Taliban."

Magullo, sounds like he's saying that they had bad intelligence, not that they were bombing the Red Cross because they thought that was a good thing.
 
2001-11-08 01:28:57 PM
This is supposed to be a war. We are so goddam politically correct now, that we have forgotten that war isn't pretty or fun. In this case it is necessary. If some innocent people die, too bad. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but i also wish that the planes were never hijacked too.
 
2001-11-08 01:34:42 PM
Whether or not it's true, it's damn scary to see you bunch of assholes saying we should bomb the Red Cross. Maybe you should join up with Bin Laden, because that's how he thinks, you sick bastards. I can't even parody this.
 
2001-11-08 01:47:26 PM

If the US were a fascist government they couldn't ask for a better behaved, more loyal citizenry than the majority of the posters in here.

Way to go folks, make your leaders proud.

 
Rei
2001-11-08 01:50:28 PM
Well, given that the first warehouse we blew up destroyed 3,000 tons of food and we only got a third of it... and we blew up 4 warehouses here, and leveled them... we could assume about 10,000 tons of food per warehouse, so in this one set of strikes we destroyed 40,000 tons of food. The information, from what I had read earlier, was that spyplanes saw two jeeps outside the warehouses, and people in turbans carrying food into the jeeps. In america, the average family of four consumes about 6,000 pounds of food per year. Americans are amongst the highest calorie inakers in the world, lets assume people in afghanistan consume 2/3 as many calories. Then, lets do the math here, the food we destroyed was equivalent to 40,000 / (((6,000 / 2000) * 2/3) / 4) = 80,000 people's lives for one year.

Afghanistan has 6 million people in need of food aid - 3.5 million refugee, 2.5 million internal. (btw, we're dropping 30-70k rations per day for those 6 million people - what a PR scam...). Are we *THAT* delusional that we can justify to ourselves the death by starvation of 80,000 people in exchange for the destruction of a place that two people in jeeps were seen taking food from??? This is utter insanity.
 
nez
2001-11-08 01:50:45 PM
"If some innocent people die, too bad."

Tell that to NYC and Kabul you bastard.
 
2001-11-08 01:51:48 PM
alls i gosta say is i said this both last week and the week before...no accident here.. and when they start bombing mosques and claim it was accidently.. remember my words and remember this news article...
 
2001-11-08 01:53:09 PM
BaconFarker is right. I heard this last week too.

I also heard that the food packets were only being dropped in the Northern Alliance areas, or at least that is where the frist few drops were made. Does anybody know for sure, if the food packets have been dropped in Kabul or Taliban areas?
 
nez
2001-11-08 01:54:36 PM
Nice to see you around again Rei :)
 
2001-11-08 02:07:42 PM
It those of you who chastize the government for hitting this have no concept of what a war is. Yes, it's a Red Cross building. But that food wasn't going to feed 80,000 innocent Afghanis, it would have fed that many trained fighting Taliban soldiers. They had taken over the building and confiscated the food for Taliban uses. It doesn't matter what the sign said outside the building after that, it was a Taliban food stronghold *gentlemen, aim your clusterbombs*
 
2001-11-08 02:20:16 PM
Rei-
Yeah, I'm sure the Taliban was giving the food to starving people. They are the reason the people are starving in the first place, and I'm talking pre 9-11 actions by the Taliban.

Deny the Taliban food and weapons and the war will be over faster. Once the war is over we can get food to the people.

Remember the Taliban were the ones denying the Red Cross the ability to distribute the food in the first place. They could distribute it, but the Red Cross had to pay several "taxes" to the Taliban before they could travel on roads.

But I think all the people in the arab countries and countries of Europe who care about the civilians are correct. We should stop all bombing so that these countries can have full use of the sky to continue their own food drops into Afghanistan. Oh wait..., I guess they aren't dropping food. Uh, well, at least these other countries were the major suppliers of food to Afghanistan before 9-11 and the war is just getting in their way. Oh wait..., the US was actually the largest supplier of humanitarian ad to Afgahanistan before 9-11. Well, at least these other countries are actively critizing the US for killing civilians and trying to get the US to stop bombing the Taliban. That will surely mean the civilians will be able to get food now. Oh, wait, I guess if they couldn't get food to the civilians before 9-11 when the Taliban was in power, that won't work now. But I'm sure they really mean well.
 
2001-11-08 02:27:43 PM

MacV:

By what you just said, you can't specifically deny food to just the Taliban, as they'll take it from whomever has it. The air drops are a joke, plain and simple. They're dropping so little food that they look worse by doing it at all.

As for those who complain about others having no conception of what war is, would you please enlighten us as to what it's like to have your leg blown off by a land mine. Really, I'd love to know.

 
2001-11-08 02:32:57 PM
Why do people think it is cool that we intentionally destroyed a humanitarian relief station? Would you be clapping if someone started shooting at relief workers in New York? The Red Cross is a neutral body, it should be used as a target. If we start shelling their facilities, we may lose support from other nations.

Conservatives never cease to amaze me. If only I could be so ignorant and heartless as to care more about my country's pride than about the lives of human beings. I should think my life would be so much more cofortable if I too could manage to live with my head shoved up my ass, like a nice little right wing government puppet.
 
2001-11-08 02:33:18 PM
It hurts.
 
2001-11-08 02:34:38 PM
Advocating that we do the worse to civilians in afghanistan than what was done to us here.

Farking right makes me sicker every day.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 02:36:37 PM
MacV, Gangstead:

Food exists for one purpose. And I think you all know exactly what it is:

Eating.

At the *bare minimum*, the taliban won't be consuming locally produced food. Regardless of the situation, they're not just taking it to throw it into a landfill or anything. Demonizing the Taliban is one thing, but pretending they're just going to trash the food is preposterous. Regardless of the situation, we just took 80,000 year's-supplies of food out of service, which translates to many deaths. No mater who is in control of it, period. Its amazing how you can pretend that we did the world a service by blowing up 80,000 pounds of food because "it was in the wrong hands". BTW, the taliban has been on-again, off-again cooperating with relief agencies. BTW again, there never was *any* confirmation that the people taking food - a few jeep's full , mind you - were even taliban soliders. BTW, on the way to that attack, we accidentally bombed yet another civilian neighborhood. BTW, a few days before the attack the government assured the Red Cross that they would not attack any of their compounds.

But lets not let any of these make us loose sight of the only thing that this accomplished (well, apart from hitting a civilian neighborhood when a bomb missed - confirmed by our military, btw, one of many). We destroyed 40,000 tons of food in a place where people are starving to death, regardless of who was in control.
 
2001-11-08 02:36:44 PM
I for one appreciate different takes on the news. A wide variety of views provides a more rounded basis for an informed opinion. It doesn't surprise me at all that we're being lied to, as they say, "the first casualty of war is truth." It's just good to get a reminder now and then not to believe everything that CNN or authority figures tell us without putting some critical thought into it.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 02:37:31 PM
BTW, lets not laugh and joke about cluster bombs.
Those things are sickening.
 
2001-11-08 02:41:22 PM
Gee, Gangstead, looks like you have better information than the ICRC itself, which for some reason is laboring under the delusion that it was distributing that food to 55,000 disabled and otherwise vulnerable persons. The ICRC must deplore the bombing because they don't realize that they were taken over by the Taliban. Unless you're saying the Red Cross is in league with the Taliban, which just makes all kinds of farking sense when you think about it. Wow, there are so many smart and informed people on this board.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 02:41:59 PM
Ygdrasil:
That food would have sustained, by my calculations, 80,000 people's lives for one year. We spent taxpayer's money to kill 80,000 people because of a vague ascertain that the taliban might be taking it. Taking 80,000 tons of food out of circulation in a region like that should be considered a war crime, regardless of who currently was in control of it. That's worse than our bombing of Nagasaki. (naturally, we never were held responsible for that... )

PS: the standard, accepted spelling of yggdrasil in modern world has two g's. Just in case you didn't spell it that way on purpose.
 
2001-11-08 02:43:38 PM
 
nez
2001-11-08 02:48:57 PM
"The ICRC reiterates that attacking or occupying facilities marked with the red cross emblem constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law."

Oh but I forgot - we're the United States and we can decide what laws we follow and what laws we totally disregard.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 02:50:31 PM
MacV:

1) "Deny the Taliban food and weapons" - excuse me, but they already have weapons. That means that if there's food anywhere, they have it. The poor will *always* be the first to suffer. Of course I support denying them weapons. But I also support denying the other jehadi (the "Northern Alliance") thugs weapons too... I'm not sure which group sickens me worse. When the taliban came to power, for example, government-sponsored beatings of women increased notably, but government-sponsored rapes of women notably decreased. Dotsum was famous for marching his troops through hazari districts with orders to rape every woman in sight. Many threw themselves out of the upper stories of buildings, to their deaths, to avoid the soldiers.

2) The Red Cross reported only occasional, periodic siezures by the somewhat schizophrenic taliban leadership. When we bombed them, they reported the warehouses as being under their control - they had told the US, several days beforehand, not to attack their warehouses.

3) Nice job pretending that we're actually dropping a measurable amount of food into afghanistan. Our attacks are stopping the shipment of real amounts of food. Mazar e Sharif has run out of food. Kandahar is getting low. There are currently 500,000 people in the mountain passes in afghanistan trying to get out of the country that will be trapped there this winter - 500,000!. And we're not letting measurable aid shipments in. This is criminal-levels of neglect we're looking at.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 02:53:13 PM
MacV:

What's next, do you support the taking out of two UN mine clearing operations we've done also? Let me guess, they've fallen into taliban hands too....
 
2001-11-08 03:13:29 PM
The intuitive cat:
You're completely missing the point. It's not about comparing some big media machine with powerful CEO's to some obsure media outlet that few people have heard of. It's about a journalist's obligation to state the facts in an unbiased manner, something this "journalist" cleary failed to do. If you want to have an opinion in the news, then you write an editorial. If you write an editorial, then you let people know that it is, in fact, an editorial (newspapers, for example, have an editorial section with the word "Editorials" printed at the top). This was the first lesson I was taught in my photojournalism class.

Now, since I could not see any references to this article being an editorial, then we must assume that it is a regular news item. If that is indeed the fact, there are several things wrong with this article. Namely;

1) The author uses the word "I". A real article should never be seen from the viewpoint of the author. It presents bias towards the topic.

2) His sources are based on hearsay (the NBC guy told me that a Defence official told him that....). If you want to quote a source, then you get it straight from the horse's mouth.

3) He provides links to articles that are similar to his topic, but he never provides any links that support his main idea; That the defence department purposely bombed the Red Cross buildings.

4) Capitalizing words like "ADMITTED" and "BURIED" can do nothing but present the idea that the author is right, and everybody who doesn't agree with him is wrong. Once again, this show total bias towards the topic.

I've often read articles where I see the author slip up from time to time, but never to the extent of this author. Which leads me to another point. Who is this author? Does he have any special interests that we should know about. For example, has he ever worked with the Red Cross and feels angered by the (accidental?) bombing, or does he have any anti-government views? I'm surprised that few people ever ask this question when they read an article. This is one of the disadvantages I see to news on the Internet. Anybody and their dog can have an article published and passed off for news. At least with big media corporations, they have editors who are responsible for making sure their reporters have no conflict of interest. Otherwise, their integrity might go down, and they would be out of the job.

Anyways, you may have a different point of view on this, and if you do, then I'd be greatful to hear it. I didn't mean to rant for so long, but you seemed to have touched a nerve with me.
 
J
2001-11-08 03:20:04 PM
Please let this not be true. Please let this guy be crazy. Please not have us be bombing the Red Cross. Otherwise, we are going straight to hell.
 
2001-11-08 03:22:17 PM
I'm confused about one thing that's reported. Not about the red cross warehouse, but about the cluster bombs. I'm no military expert, but aren't cluster bombs mainly used against vehicles and people? What are we doing dropping cluster bombs on top of a city?
 
2001-11-08 03:28:26 PM
Dropping food is like dropping a cluster bomb. We're not trying to feed everyone. It's propaganda directed at the Afghanistan people.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 03:28:40 PM
Ygdrasil:
Nice perception of the Taliban. Unfortunately, its wrong. They deserve to be demonized for many things (I could send you a video of a Qasas, for example), but deliberately tossing food to rot instead of letting the millions of people - at the very least, the Pashtun - in Kabul have it is not one of them. Of course, you don't hear about the non-demonic things they do, like the sections of Kabul that they've evacuated because they're close to military bases or other high-risk targets, or the fact that they've moved most of their equiptment out of the cities, or many other things. Compared to the "Northern Alliance", in many ways they're saints.

Quadraton:
This is an editorial. The author never states otherwise. Again, we don't want this to turn into a nitpicking-about-typos-and-grammar debate - I've been in one of those before, they don't accomplish anything.

The point is the information linked to. (well, one of the links has since been broken, but its not their fault, MSNBC did that...). The links summarize as follows:

1). No, this was an accident, we'd never do anything like this.

2). Oh, yeah, btw, we did bomb that, because the taliban was taking a few jeeps full of food away from it.

Both links are from about as respectable sources as you're going to find. So, again, where is the person's point incorrect?

Also, as a side note, they quoted from the msnbc link (again, which has since died):

"Acknowledging the strong concern from U.S. allies, Rumsfeld maintained that "responsibility for every single casualty in this war - be they innocent Afghans or innocent Americans - rests at the feet of Taliban and al-Qaida." Meanwhile, new information came forward on why Red Cross warehouses were bombed repeatedly last week. NBC's Miklaszewski said a senior U.S. military official now says they were bombed on purpose because the food was being stolen by Taliban troops."

That *is* their main point, and it came right from MSNBC (I've read the same thing elsewhere... but the author was right, it was really skimmed over, and not brought to the forefront. I don't share the author's view that its some kind of conspiracy or anything, I think the sad fact is, most americans don't seem to care if we cause mass starvations deaths in Afghanistan, and news agencies only have the goal of getting an audience).
 
2001-11-08 03:28:44 PM

It is not enough to claim bias on the part of a news reporter. If one genuinely wishes to get at the truth, one must go looking for the facts. What facts does the article itself get wrong, if any?

Did the Dept. of Defence not actually issue the statement referred to by the author? While none of the big media organizations seem to be reporting on it, there are certainly ways of finding out if the statement was issued. It's certainly not difficult to find quotes issued previous to this statement that say the bombing was 'in error'.

News needs to be judged by the facts presented. Anything written by a human cannot be proven to be completely objective.

 
2001-11-08 03:33:30 PM
there is no left or right. we live in a society of CLASSES.
anyway, labels are for the simple minded.
true wisdom comes with being able to figure out what the truth is regardless of the source. there is no monopoly on the truth, and sometimes even those we despise can inform us of very important truths. to shut your mind off because of a few words or terms (i.e. an athiest dismissing an arguments validity because it includes the word "god", etc. etc.) shows a supreme lack of any type of real openness to anything other than your own narrow point of view, and it's really is nothing more than fascism.
and for anyone interested in watching the zapatista vid. i mentioned in my earlier post, here's the link
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=23446
 
2001-11-08 03:40:17 PM
This is a bit odd. They make quotes in that article, and reference the full story here:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp

Yet there quotes are not found in that article. Did anyone else read this earlier and see their quotes in those URLs? Did MSNBC change it, or did these writers simply make it up the whole time?

This is simply a curiosity, I think the whole thing is stupid. Bomb the red cross if the Taliban is taking food from it. Gotta do it.
 
Rei
2001-11-08 03:40:29 PM
Crucible:
There've been two cases where the US has confirmed using cluster bombs inside various towns and villages, and a number of other accused cases. One didn't leave any survivors - they followed it up by levelling the city with gunships (US reporters dug through the wreckage, didn't find anything of military value, only things like women's clothing, children's toys, etc). The other case, we missed our target by a little over a mile, and dropped it in the middle of a village. It killed 8 on impact, left its typical failed-bomblet rate of 20 bomblets. A 9th person was killed shortly after, by venturing outdoors and disturbing a bomblet (these things can pierce through 5 inches of steel with their shrapnel, they're nasty). Last I heard, the people were still holed up inside their houses, afraid to leave, and the UN was requesting information on how they're supposed to get rid of them (there isn't any - they're one of those weapons we've been dropping without any sort of followup plan - there are still unexploded bomblets in vietnam that pose a health risk). Bomblets literally become mines (mines being of greatest risk to children - I've got several pictures of afghan children who've lost limbs to mines - many thousands get killed each year due to them). The UN has currently been placing sandbags over the bomblets, in hopes that if they explode, it'll at least slow down the shrapnel, but there are serious doubts as to how effective that will be.

J:
The author is correct, from the articles I've read elsewhere. The problem is... have you ever heard the term "tank plinking"? It was a common term during the gulf war... we'd have a huge expanse of desert, and in the middle of it, a big metal object baking in the sun, giving off a huge IR signature and standing out like a sore thumb... and we'd shoot them left or right. In here, our pilots are already referring to it as "jeep plinking", because they're having such a hard time finding real targets. The military is being pushed to bomb nonstop, and to get everyone, and they really don't have targetting information. I've read a lot about afghanistan, and its conditions are really appalling, especially in the winter. In the winter in the Hindu Kush, you could *walk* right past someone a few feet away, not hiding, and not see them. Assuming you could walk in the several yards deep snow... we're talking, upper mountain peaks of 20,000 feet, constant, very strong wind and blowing snow at all times, half-mile dropoffs... the lowest trails in the mountains are at 12,000 feet.

So... in short... yes, we are targetting places like the red cross. We're targetting villages because we heard taliban troops stayed the night there. We're targetting anything that we can get any remote sort of clue about. Because we're desparate for targets, and under strong pressure to get rid of them quickly. Its just like what happened in Vietnam.
 
2001-11-08 03:47:09 PM
Quoting a famous blonde I know: "Well, duh!"

Why is this a surprise to anyone? Of course we bombed it deliberately. War is a dirty business, legally and morally.

For that matter, does anyone really think we "accidentally" hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Anyone else notice that the Serbs suddenly seemed to do very poorly in predicting NATO attacks afterwards?
 
2001-11-08 04:04:46 PM
"Why do people think it is cool that we intentionally destroyed a humanitarian relief station?"

That's the point, it was no longer being used as a humanitarian relief station. I'm sure out military watched the site continuously and saw more than a couple guys in a jeep take stuff. And no, I don't think the Taliban are able to take food packets dropped in Northern Alliance held areas. You do?

Deny food and weapons to the Taliban means taking out their supplies, tanks, artillery, guns, amunition and whatever else they need to sustain war.

Northern Alliance guys aren't Saints either. That's why we won't let them control the country either.

So the only war you would ever support is one that does not kill civilians? I guess WWII was worthless in your view. we should have never fought Hitler, because it would have meant the death of an civilian by Allied bombing. Never mind that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and would have killed many more. It is a tragedy when civilians get killed. You should always try to minimize it whenever possible, but since the Taliban won't all stand together in the middle of the desert and instead hide behind women and childern, it happens.

The faster you get the war over with, the faster you will end the suffering. You might not be able to understand this(and that is probably the problem), but the heavy bombing of the country will, in the end, save many more lives than it kills.

If we could end the war next week, would that not make us able to now feed the people who are there? If we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day. If we could have ended WWII in 1943 instead of 1945, how many innocent civilians would have survived? We didn't start WWII and we didn't start this war, but we are going to finish it.
 
2001-11-08 04:22:03 PM
MacV: We're still waiting for taht thing we like to call 'proof' about the Taliban being in control of the Red Cross building at the time it was bombed (both times, actually), and for taht matter than the Taliban's sole interest is in starving the Afgan people to death. And proof that the Red Cross' statement that they had told the US that they were in control of the compound and not to bomb it was a fabrication. You've repeated yourself several times already without producing such proof.
 
2001-11-08 04:31:49 PM
Attention US Government and Armed forces: Please hand over all satelite photos and intelligence regarding the bombing of the Red Cross building to SpaceCoyote. Please consult SpaceCoyote before taking any military action and make sure you prove your case in a court of law and have more than a 50% vote and every country in the world sign up before bombing any future target in Afghanistan.

Thank you,
 
2001-11-08 04:38:14 PM
They bombed the RED CROSS!! The RED FARKING CROSS!! This is bad enough by accident, but shiat, deliberatly bombing the Red Cross?? That's just plain farked..

"Rumsfeld maintained that "responsibility for every single casualty in this war - be they innocent Afghans or innocent Americans - rests at the feet of Taliban and al-Qaida." "

And this is a load of shiat too. "You destroyed our buildings and killed 6000 thousand of our citizens, now whatever we do, absolutly anything at all it's all completley YOUR fault!! Yep, even if we bomb the Red Cross while they try to help your citizens, that's your fault too!!"

BULLshiat!!

I can hardly see public opinion of the USA getting any better after this..
 
Rei
2001-11-08 04:40:09 PM
MacV:

Deny food and weapons to the Taliban means taking out their supplies, tanks, artillery, guns, amunition and whatever else they need to sustain war.

???
Logic Train! Dingdingdingdingdiingdiiingdiiiiinnnnggg... (doppler effect of a train passing by)...

Please, do enlighten me how denying the taliban the food from the red cross (which the red cross states they were in control of):

a) prevents them from taking it from civilians - with the united states bearing the blame, since they're forbidding most incoming food aid and not dropping in taliban-controlled territory
b) How blowing up food prevents them from having tanks, guns, etc

I would greatly appreciate that bit of enlightenment ;)

Northern Alliance guys aren't Saints either. That's why we won't let them control the country either.

Aaah... so, when they turn to infighting, we're going to put semi-permanent ground troops in for peacekeeping, in the middle of areas we just bombed? Heeeelooooo, vietnam!

So the only war you would ever support is one that does not kill civilians?

Who said that?

The faster you get the war over with, the faster you will end the suffering. You might not be able to understand this(and that is probably the problem), but the heavy bombing of the country will, in the end, save many more lives than it kills.

Ah, and we're doing a wonderful job of ending it right away, eh? Our strategy so far has almost *exactly* mirrored vietnam.

a) Have a reason to attack (Sept 11th vs. Tonkin Gulf)
b) Launch a massive aerial assault (Enduring Freedom vs. Rolling Thunder (which dropped more bombs than all of the bombs we dropped during WWII and Korea combined - the largest portion being before we even set ground troops down))
c) Realize that while you had no problem getting air superiority, you haven't even stopped antiaircraft fire, let alone ridded of heavy equiptment, let alone the major fighting force - individuals with hand-held, low maintaince weapons.
d) Notice an increasing need for ground troops. Notice public support worldwide trickle down a few percent each week. Notice that you're losing the battle for the "hearts and minds of the locals"
f) Steadily start to trickle in more special forces.

Next, we'll go to part (g) - Send in a good number of marines. Do I need to keep going through the list?

We aren't, with our unrestrained bombing, coming even remotely *close* to ending it right away. Rumsfield has been trying to put a spin on it, but the statements of military commanders leaked out has made this quite clear. The taliban is enjoying some of their most widespread internal support in years.

If we could end the war next week, would that not make us able to now feed the people who are there?

I'd be willing to make a bet with you that in 2 years time we're going to have more troops on the ground in afghanistan than we do now ;)

f we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day.

Nice wishful thinking; unfortunatly, unfounded. Amazing how you can delude yourself into thinking that a two-week pause - with still tightly regulated borders - will magically restock the taliban, make the support for the US attacks dissapear (instead of continuing constantly), and save lives - when in that two weeks we could at the very least get winter supplies to the half million people that will be trapped in the mountain passes before they freeze up. That someone can consciously weigh a two week pause in bombing as equivalent to many thousands of people starving/freezing to death just in the mountains alone, is beyond imaging.

If we could have ended WWII in 1943 instead of 1945, how many innocent civilians would have survived?

The problem is, we *couldn't* - and we can't here. There's a case of diminishing returns that we're looking at. There are clear, easy, painless targets, and there are targets that have a high probability of killing a good number of civilians/causing them to starve, and, well, our quota here is making it so we have to hit *all* of them, because their targets are hidden - and, despite what you may believe, mostly not in cities, but in the almost impassible mountains outside Kabul. Even the most diminished returns. And you better believe we're doing it. And you'd better believe it is *really* making many people outside the US very mad at us.

Oh, but we're here to *stop* terrorism....
 
Rei
2001-11-08 04:42:18 PM
whoops, left out 'e' :)
 
2001-11-08 04:44:56 PM
Sburbncwby

If some innocent people die, too bad.

I am sure that is what the WTC bombers were thinking as well. Congratulations on such an amazing leap of understanding, you can now consider yourself their equal.
 
2001-11-08 05:09:34 PM
Rei-
You're right! I think the US intentionally bombed the Red Cross for the sole purpose of starving civilians. I think our military was upset when they heard that red cross donations were not going to victims of 9-11. I also think you are right about our government wanting to start up another Vietnam war. They liked the last one, so why not start again. Of course you know those generals, they just want a big body count. Who cares if they are civilians or military as long as they kill people.

I have been enlighten! You are right!

I didn't say blowing up food prevents them from having tanks. Where did you get that? That was a stretch even for you.

"If we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day.
Nice wishful thinking; unfortunatly, unfounded. "

Amazing how Vietman came to an end after Nixon started the unrestricted bombing of the North. But, I guess you forgot that part of history.

I didn't say we were going to end it next week, but the sooner we end it the better they will be. What you want to do will turn Afghanistan it into another Vietnam politically screwed up war.

The other crap you said was just so far from reality or anything I said I won't even comment on it.
 
2001-11-08 05:17:41 PM
MacV, you idiot, where do you pull this information from? Your ass? Have you been listening? The RED CROSS ITSELF states that the RED CROSS ITSELF were using the warehouse for food they were distributing to the disabled. Now, unless you're saying that the RED CROSS ITSELF is in league with the farking Taliban, and therefore we are at war with the Red Cross, which no one in the US government is saying, then you need to crawl back into whatever Rush-Limbaugh jerkoff fantasy occupied you before you posted this lame ass gibberish.
 
2001-11-08 05:18:38 PM
Incidentally if the US have deliberately bombed the red cross then it is the responsibility of every sane country to oppose them.
 
2001-11-08 05:19:16 PM
Tell me again why this gets a "COOL" tag???
 
2001-11-08 05:21:17 PM
"Amazing how Vietman came to an end after Nixon started the unrestricted bombing of the North. But, I guess you forgot that part of history."

Um... Vietnam ended with America bowing out. The North won the war. Are you saying we should continue bombing the hell out of the Taliban until all of Afghanistan views the US as an evil empire?
 
2001-11-08 05:24:56 PM
AND another damn thing... whether or not they did it on purpose (oops, we bombed the warehouse with the huge red cross on it, from a low-flying, slow-moving plane, TWICE, after the Red Cross warned us) my big argument is with the 10 or so people here who are saying go ahead and bomb the Red Cross. There are no words for this kind of insanity. Yes, it's exactly the Bin Laden mentality.
 
2001-11-08 05:32:24 PM
We seem to think that the govenment, during a time of war, should hand over not only to us, but the enemy, everything it's doing and knows on a daily basis while we sit in our La-Z-Boy wondering wether to have KFC or Taco Bell for dinner. The Afghans have been starving and freezing to death in the desert for the last 20 years. The US has helped them more in the last 3 weeks than any country has been allowed to help them by the Taliban in the last 2 decades. OMG some civilians were killed! Welcome to war, kids. Good thing you wern't around for WW2 or else my German would be alot better than it is now.
 
2001-11-08 05:32:47 PM
It's cool that the military admitted it.

However, it's not cool that they first denied it. Not that we could ever trust them before, but this is blatant proof that they will flat out lie to the world.

What else are they lying about? That this isn't like Vietnam? That we have air superiority? That we're winning the war?
 
2001-11-08 05:33:23 PM
Wow, looks like Rei can tell exactly how this war is going after a month.
And it's obvious it was Taliban members taking from the warehouse... Afghanistan is so poor, you think they're civilians can afford jeeps to drive around the city. I'm not saying that Taliban controls all the automobiles in the country, but it's a pretty safe bet those Jeeps weren't driven by starving civilians.
I wish I had the patience to sit here and annoy everyone with verbose, long-winded post like Rei, so I could get to everything she's said that doesn't make sense. Then people would see my posts and skip them to avoid the rant.

Rei blather here >
 
2001-11-08 05:38:18 PM
Gadreel: Telling the truth about accidentally bombing the Red Cross isn't an example of giving top secret info to the enemy.
 
2001-11-08 05:38:45 PM
Damn those traitors in the Red Cross! Imagine, housing food in a warehouse where just anybody might take it because they are hungry! Blow them up! It doesn't matter, it's war! We can write off anything in time of war! Tell the US troops it's open season on Afghani women, after all it's a war... if they are incovenienced, tough shiat. And go ahead and shoot any man you see, it doesn't matter... it's war the US population will understand, he was probably a damned muslim anyway, and we all know muslims are all terrorists. Use it as an excuse for any possible crime you have ever dreamed of, it's ok.

Oh yeah.... who are we at war with again?

Does it matter?
 
2001-11-08 05:56:04 PM
-=This has been another leftist threadjack, had there been rational posts you would have been prompted to employ logos=-

That's it, you bleeding hearts are giving me cramps. I'm outta here. One last thing, the Red Cross said they were in control of it. Our military needs to start coordinating our intelligence with the Red Crosses', because apparantly they've got some pretty reliable communication to the area. That's it, I'm done. You may continue to abuse logic in long sermonic tirades.
 
2001-11-08 05:59:33 PM
Wow, the point is flying over so many heads here it might as well be Superman. Yes, the government will lie to us. Sometimes it's for the good, sometimes to cover their ass. So do I. They're human. Also, the Taliban doesn't NEED our help killing their women. They've been doing fine on their own over the last twenty years. Also, it's not just the mean US involved in this. I think a few other countries are helping. But yeah, you're right. Civilians are getting killed in a bombing campaign. Funny how nobody was worried about this on Sept. 12th.
 
2001-11-08 05:59:48 PM
I think bombing the Red Cross and then saying it was an accident is brilliant military strategy. If I was a stupid Taliban, and fell for the bait, I'd be dead.

We're not going to find out the truth for ten years, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan. I wonder if they called and warned them. :-)
 
2001-11-08 06:04:29 PM
Oh yeah, not bombing the Red Cross, that's how you tell a guy's a leftist. I'm sure if you asked a bunch of conservatives, they'd say, sure, we're for bombing humanitarian relief agencies! I'm sure it's somewhere in the Republican Party platform. This sure is one of those partisan litmus tests.

Gangstead, the Red Cross DID tell the Pentagon they were hit, and gave precise coordinates, the first time. Plus there is a big farking red and white cross on the roof. How much "intelligence" do you need not to bomb it?

Bleeding hearts. Oh that's rich. We should stand up to pain better, as long as it's other people's.
 
2001-11-08 06:13:03 PM
Magullo says-

an US navy admiral claims the Red Cross warehouse was on a list of targets.

The link says-

"This building was within a set of targets we had
identified as being used for military storage by the Taliban."


As in-
XXX
XYX
XXX

The Y is within the set of X's. Y is not the target- X is. Y just happens to be in the way.

Poor choice of words by the admiral. What are they teaching at Annapolis nowadays?

Indymedia says-

"Meanwhile, new information came forward on why Red Cross warehouses were bombed repeatedly last week. NBC's Miklaszewski said a senior U.S. military official now says they were bombed on purpose because the food was being stolen by Taliban troops."

And provides this link. Which of course, says no such thing. Rewritten, as Magullo claims? Maybe. I never did see the original. Does CNN often re-write and re-post articles they have already published, without comment? I guess they do, if you're paranoid enough.

"The news is out there, but it is only available to a fanatic" (willing to spend all their time searching for and unearthing it.)

I'm sure I could find 'evidence' of UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Right-Wing Conspiracy if I, the fanatic, were willing to "spend all of my time searching for it."

Awww, forget it. It's all a big media/government/corporate/ military conspiracy to steal your money, take away your rights, kill innocent civilians, get all the oil 'they' can, lie-to-your-face-and-get-away-with-it, and destroy the Red Cross. Put your tinfoil helmets back on and ignore me, I'm obviously trolling.

Now the facts are in. Be still, my bleeding hearts.
 
2001-11-08 06:14:12 PM
Rei: "Oh, but we're here to *stop* terrorism...."

Apparently, you don't buy that. What's the REAL reason, Rei? Comparing Rolling Thunder to the missions flown here is just a bit of a stretch...wouldn't you agree? Will a two week pause in the bombing be sufficient to get the food to the civilians? If the Red Cross was in control of the food, why were those "two people in jeeps" allowed to cart off the food? Who drives those "jeeps"? Were the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima war crimes? Really? Is the destruction of an enemy's food supply a war crime? Intentional or otherwise? Otherwise, because the links said NOTHING like the author suggested.

No, you don't need to go through the list. The Vietnam analogy is irrelevant and flawed.

So...

What's the answer?
 
2001-11-08 06:21:01 PM
Rei, the US has air supremacy in Afghanistan, not superiority. Small point, I know.
 
2001-11-08 06:38:31 PM
Boorite: Just curious...

What type of "low-flying, slow moving plane" was it? Small point, I know. One of the armed drones? I missed the report.
 
2001-11-08 07:02:55 PM
Is it all about the oil?

The Department of Energy website says this about Afghanistan's oil-

Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion."

The Department of Energy also has this to say about Alaska-

Crude Oil Proved Reserves: 4,900 million barrels (1999), ranked 2nd. Accounts for 23 percent of U.S. crude oil proved reserves.

Crude Oil Production: 970 thousand barrels per day (2000), ranked 2rd (3th including Federal Offshore).


This means that if the US pumped Afghanistan (estimated 95 million barrel reserves) the way we pump Alaska (970,000 barrels/day), we would drink Afghanistan dry in a little less than two months. Hardly worth the effort.

Of course, it could be a media/government/military/ corporate conspiracy to cheat the Afghan people out of the fortune in oil they have been sitting on all this time.

Just thought I'd toss that out there for all of you who scream, "It's about the oil!"
 
2001-11-08 07:13:08 PM
Boorite-
Most of this is just commen sense. I guess you don't have any. You should try pulling your head out of your ass. You might think better.

Do you honestly think the US would blow up a Red Cross facility for fun or there own amusement? Do you think they might actually have a ligitimate reason for doing it? They might not have put out a white paper on the issues surrounding it, but I don't belive they would have ever done this if they did not have a very good reason.

Now go back to your Monica Lewinsky wanna be life.
 
2001-11-08 07:44:50 PM
i think most of you can't see the forest for the trees
 
2001-11-08 07:47:34 PM
Did the Red Cross facility have a big red cross on the roof to identify it?
 
2001-11-08 08:32:51 PM
what a pussy
 
2001-11-08 09:28:21 PM
Skwidd:

Just so you get your facts straight, the idea that oil has a lot to do with the present situation has nothing to do with Afghanistan's reserves. Its the Caspian Sea region that has all the oil, and a pipeline to carry it to us (though friendly intermediaries) would cross Afghanistan. But the region is too unstable for this to work at present. We'd need to establish a stble regime to access the riches of the Caspian.

From the same site you mentioned:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html#TAB1

More details on the proposed pipeline:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/caspianoil1.html

Some more info:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/azeroil.htm

This is what Unocal had to say about it in 1998:
(snip)
A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.
(/snip)
http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm

I'm not saying the oil theory is correct, but theres some serious smoke -- and maybe some fire to go with it.

Nordolio
 
2001-11-08 09:34:08 PM
Doublethink!

We never targeted the Red Cross.

We targeted the Red Cross we've always stated we target it for military reasons.

Cool! I am so happy to be in the US.
 
2001-11-08 10:14:40 PM
Leftist propaganda site....what shiat!

if the Red Cross had been GIVING the food to the people who are supposedly STARVING instead of HOARDING it in a warehouse, maybe the Taliban wouldn't have seen fit to take it. If the Red Cross wasn't acting as the Taliban's cafeteria, maybe we wouldn't bomb them.
 
2001-11-08 10:45:40 PM
Nordolio: The Caspian Sea has been an issue for a long time. There are a lot of players- Russians and/or their former republics, Iran, China, the EU, etc. And yes, there is a lot of dirty pool going on. It's no surprise (to me at least) that the world isn't a fairy-tale land of sharing and caring when the real goods are on the line.



Some more info


A highly liberal, but no less interesting and informative article on the Caspian Sea situation

Of course the US is going to look after it's own interests in the Caspian region. It's damn near suicidal not to, especially given the current attitudes of the Middle East.

But as far as how the Caspian is linked to the current (half-assed) War on Terrorism-

1) Osama was already a suspect in the embassy bombings, the Khobar towers and in the attack against the USS Cole. If we needed a pretense to get into Afghanistan, why didn't we seize one of those opportunities? Not dramatic enough?

2) We were already on fairly good terms with the Taliban (read a little into link #3). We may not have been best friends, but we had an understanding. If the War on Terrorism is all about the oil, why screw up a good thing?

No, the US is not an angel in international relations, especially when it comes to oil. I already knew that. In fact, that's what I pay my taxes for- for the federal government to look out after my interests. If you can't live with that, sell your car and get a nice set of walking shoes.

But linking the War on Terrorism to the Caspian is one hell of a stretch. I seem to remember a couple of airplanes crashing into some pretty tall buildings, and a certain country's refusal to turn over the prime suspect as the cause. Was oil a consideration? May have been. But I seriously doubt it was the main one.
 
2001-11-08 10:48:10 PM
 
2001-11-08 11:41:30 PM
my cats name is mittens
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:11:14 AM
Rei: "Oh, but we're here to *stop* terrorism...."

Apparently, you don't buy that.


Read a few lines before that. On the subject of hitting even high civilian loss/low military loss targets, "And you'd better believe it is *really* making many people outside the US very mad at us." Now read that statement in context and get back to me.

Will a two week pause in the bombing be sufficient to get the food to the civilians?

Its long enough to get a large convoy into several of the Kush passes and out. We've already got convoys amassed along the northern and southern fronts, they just can't go very far.

If the Red Cross was in control of the food, why were those "two people in jeeps" allowed to cart off the food?


As was stated several times, the taliban has periodicly stolen food. Ooooh, *shudder*. Would you rather they steal it from the poor? Honestly? They're going to get it from somewhere, they have the guns. The exact same holds true with the Northern Alliance. (actually, they historically payed for their food, mostly by looting villages they captured after killing their citizenry, or selling national treasures of historical value)

Were the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima war crimes?

The Japanese attempted to surrender after Hiroshima, but the US had shut off all lines of communication. We had two types of bombs, a plutonium bomb and a uranium bomb, and wanted to try them both. Nagasaki was by far mostly civilian. It wasn't the intended target - if I remember correctly, the target was Kourura (sp?), but it was covered in heavy cloud cover - so we changed targets to Nagasaki, a mostly civilian town. All after the Japanese had attempted to surrender. All in all, over 350,000 people died. Hiroshima alone was appalling with the amount of civilians it killed, let alone the genetic damage and indirect deaths it caused (we could have very easily hit just a military base, but like the fire bombings of tokyo and inprisonment of japanese-american citizens at home, we had no care whatsoever for their lives). Nagasaki was probably the greatest single atrocity-event the world has ever seen.

No, you don't need to go through the list. The Vietnam analogy is irrelevant and flawed.

Nice claim. Care to back it up?
 
2001-11-09 01:33:25 AM
I just knew that the story of the targeting system going wrong was a croc of shiat...why do they lie?
Oh hang on that was a stupid question,We are talking about government bodies here....silly me.
 
2001-11-09 02:39:44 AM
Sweet ass, would the people who keep saying "the North (Vietnam) won the war" just admit they really have no grasp of history whatsoever? The United States has never lost a conflict -- period.

Nixon began allowing unrestricted bombing of the North Vietnam cities and industrial centers, instead of the simple repelling of N. Vietnamese ground assaults and Viet Cong guerilla attacks. True, the Ho Chi Minh trail was still in use somewhat, but we absolutely crippled the North Vietnamese ability to fight. We were bombing, almost with total air supremecy, all N. Vietnamese industrial centers, refineries, air fields, production plants, etc.

At that point, the Air Force began using B-52 fleets to bomb mass areas of jungle to root out and kill Viet Cong guerillas. This allowed the North a window to begin rebuilding the industrial centers. We pulled out after 50,000 casualties due to public whining, but not until we had decimated the North with hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed and billions in damage to their war machine. Not only that, but we had pushed their forces almost all the way back to the North/South border (36th parallel, I believe).

Immediately after we pulled out, the North Vietnamese re-invaded and completely overwhelmed the South Vietnamese forces with help from the USSR and Chinese.

We WON that war -- the South simply couldn't defend themselves without our continued occupation, even after the ass-whupping we gave the North. That's the whole reason we pulled out, because the military knew that unless we occupied Vietnam, the North would overwhelm the South -- and occupation wasn't an option.
 
2001-11-09 02:46:08 AM
And oh by the way, Skwidd is totally right.

Let me think here: I live in the US, and I pay taxes, and so I expect the government to do whatever it must to look out for my interests.

If Country A dislikes the USA's policies in a region, may I suggest that they move aside and kiss my ass. If they so decline the moving aside and ass kissing option, may I suggest they prepare to go to war and lose.

You people seem to take for granted that you live (if you're American) in by far the most powerful country on the planet. You also neglect the natural formation of a world government that'll probably occur within the next 50 odd years or so (gotta love futurists). Why not use military might to insure we and our allies are still in full power during that transition?
 
2001-11-09 03:35:13 AM
Buckshot:

"If Country A dislikes the USA's policies in a region, may I suggest that they move aside and kiss my ass. If they so decline the moving aside and ass kissing option, may I suggest they prepare to go to war and lose."

thanks for the laugh.

let's see, how does this translate the other way around, hm?

"If Country (US)A dislikes Afghanistan's (or UAE's, or Iraq's, etc.) policies in a region (i.e. the US), may I (bin Laden, et al) suggest that they move aside and kiss my (all-Islamic) ass. If they so decline the moving aside and ass kissing option, may I suggest they prepare for a continued wave of terrorist attacks."

after all, they're completely right about every issue involved in this conflict -- hey! just like us!

oh, wait. i forgot. we're more completely right because we have more money and weapons. thanks for clearing that up.


but then, if you consider terror (along with our pussy inclination to run squealing at a 0.00000000001% chance of actually being a victim of an attack ourselves) to be a weapon, and if you consider willingness to die a weapon, and all-consuming religious zeal a weapon, well...

then i guess that means they're a little more right than you thought.

i think maybe we need to put this into a concrete formula. it's a little fuzzy as it is. and it gets tough doing dumb shiat like actually parsing out arguments and considering opposed concepts.

how about:

4W x 5K/2 x M + L - 2H = G


where

W = raw volume of weapons and armament deployable (includes raw stupidity, measured by use of word "liberal" as a substitute for scatalogical terms)
K = willingness to kill (includes +4 bonus for religious zeal, if you role >7 on a 10-sided die, +20 bonus if you eat the die rather than roll it)
M = mass of weapons of mass destruction (includes Bush's Fearsome Squint of Danger, a negligible constant, factored in at the same level for either side)
L = loudness of patriotic chanting/praying (-2 points penalty for appearance of puppets at rallies, -18 for appearance of lambchop)
H = filthy hippie factor (includes other subhumans who commit unconscionably un-American acts involving the expression of democratic thought)

G = total correctness of the side's beliefs, as expressed by God's degree of approval
 
2001-11-09 05:05:44 AM




Hmmm.... A Red Cross warehouse, which says it's sole purpose is to get food to disabled people is bombed because two people are seen taking food out and putting it in jeeps... Has it occured to anyone else that the jeeps may have been the Red Cross's method of getting the food to disabled (read: unable to farking get to the goddamned warehouse on their own) people?




SLIPPY: Couldn't have said it better myself. First come the cluster bombs, then the saturation bombing. Eventually we'll end up with Dresden all over again. (During which, incidentally, we used the same one-two method of bombing that Al Queda used on the WTC)
Click here to read about what the Afghanistani people can look forward to.


 
Rei
2001-11-09 09:59:50 AM
Buckshot:

Vietnam isn't as simple as that. First off, it should be stated, that there never was any sort of "North" and "South" vietnam. That's like talking about the difference between the people in the northern half of france and the southern half of france as different countries. The whole concept of "North" vs. "South" vietnam simply formed because of military supply routes. In reality, Vietnam was one country where most of the population was:

A) Isolated
B) Unknowing/Uncaring about politics.

Of the parts of the country that were informed and did care, there was, quite honestly, only one leader who had any semblance of popularity - Ho Chi Minh. He would have easily won elections, should we have let them happen. But, we only supported democracy if it would elect non-communists ;).

The United States did there exactly what we're doing now. Unlike wars like Iraq where targets presented themselves quite clearly, we had far more military capacity there than we had targets, and so we steadly crept more and more into the "high civilian risk / low enemy risk" targets. However, as it is currently doing in afghanistan, that turns the local people against you. Every time we'd burn down or shoot up a village, almost all of the survivors would seek out the nearest people they could find who would give them guns to fight the americans. To take revenge for their lost families. This is the huge danger involved in hitting such targets. In a "war against terrorism", hitting such targets is probably the worst possible thing one could do, far worse than even just leaving an already existant terrorist group alone (which I'm not recommending, btw).

But anyways... when you talk about the 'North Vietnamese war machine', that's really just a sad misnomer. They didn't have a 'war machine'. They had people. Poor people. And few of them were fighting for some kind of ideology. Few cared about the struggle of communism vs. capitalism.

I'd also like to know how you call a war "won" that was still ongoing. The fighting never ceased, the deaths of US soldiers never ceased... we were "winning" when we left - amazingly impressive when your fight is pretty much against the country itself. But we never won. It was sad that we even decided to interfere in there in the first place - the Red Scare had no limits, and the Tonkin Gulf was greatly exaggerated (and avoidable). It was sad that it escalated to the levels it did. But the suffering of the US didn't even compare to the suffering of the Vietnamese.
 
2001-11-09 03:25:25 PM
Rei: Interesting, but there are a few flaws in your story. North and South Vietnam had NEVER been a single country until 1976. Prior to French colonization the entire region was a collection of city states and feudalities. When the French took the region they named the areas along with Cambodia and Laos. This was never a civil war. It was a war of communist agression and the U.S. had treaties, ratified by the Senate, obligating us to help defend South Vietnam against this invasion from the North.

There is a very good book called "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkett that helps dispell a number of the myths that you've presented.

It's amazing how anti-war propagandists turned a single incident into this vast operation of U.S. soldiers burning towns and killing civilians.

The North did have a war machine, built and finance by the Soviet Union.

North Vietnam agreed during the cease fire talks not to invade South Vietnam again which they did less than a year after the U.S. withdrew.

The most pathetic lies told by the anti-war propaganda machine is that the people of South Vietnam were anti-American. A great many of them were Catholic and were avid anti-communist (athiest). We destroyed far fewer villages than the media would have you believe and there was a compensation plan for civilian posessions lost. The Army Corp of Engineers would rebuild the town incredibly fast. The army would attempt to evacuate civilians prior to bombing to reduce casualties.
 
2001-11-09 03:26:12 PM
Rei: Interesting, but there are a few flaws in your story. North and South Vietnam had NEVER been a single country until 1976. Prior to French colonization the entire region was a collection of city states and feudalities. When the French took the region they named the areas along with Cambodia and Laos. This was never a civil war. It was a war of communist agression and the U.S. had treaties, ratified by the Senate, obligating us to help defend South Vietnam against this invasion from the North.

There is a very good book called "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkett that helps dispell a number of the myths that you've presented.

It's amazing how anti-war propagandists turned a single incident into this vast operation of U.S. soldiers burning towns and killing civilians.

The North did have a war machine, built and finance by the Soviet Union.

North Vietnam agreed during the cease fire talks not to invade South Vietnam again which they did less than a year after the U.S. withdrew.

The most pathetic lies told by the anti-war propaganda machine is that the people of South Vietnam were anti-American. A great many of them were Catholic and were avid anti-communist (athiest). We destroyed far fewer villages than the media would have you believe and there was a compensation plan for civilian posessions lost. The Army Corp of Engineers would rebuild the town incredibly fast. The army would attempt to evacuate civilians prior to bombing to reduce casualties.
 
2001-11-09 03:30:49 PM
please delete that extra.
 
2001-11-09 03:55:04 PM
Rei:"Nice claim. Care to back it up?"

Well, sure. I'll try. The U.S. was attempting to defend a country- South Vietnam, and an ideology. Are we trying to defend a political/economic ideology in Afghanistan? No. We are trying to eliminate a proven threat to the U.S.A.(bin Laden and Al Qaeda). The country harboring the threat is ruled by a group that up until recently was only recognized by three other countries. Three. Now down to an 'iffy' ONE. Compare that to North Vietnam. North Vietnam had the backing and blessing of two of the three major "super powers". The Taliban has diplomatic recognition from a country that is supporting it's (Taliban's) destruction. Doesn't look good for the Taliban, does it?

The North Vietnamese never attacked on U.S. soil. The American public had no rallying point. They had a vague "domino effect" theory which was only infrequently expressed. They saw their sons and brothers being killed on TV for an abstract. Result? Unpopular war. Result? Ending of unpopular war. Not many Americans will soon forget those collapsing towers images. Actually, if say Ho Chi Minh had organized a similar attack on U.S. soil back in the 60's, you'd probably see a smoking crater where Hanoi is today.

As for the Nagasaki thing: Your figures are debatable. We tested at least one the bombs before using them and to say that we just wanted to test them is nothing more than conjecture. Nagasaki held military targets. Having primary AND secondary targets is SOP and TOTALLY irrelevant. It's not like we had an arsenal of hundreds of atomic weapons. It was as much bluff as anything. How did the Japanese try to surrender? If there ever were a case of the end justifying the means, this would be the example that I'd point to. Did any of the true civilian atrocities that the Japanese committed hasten the end of the war? No. Deplorable that civilians get killed in war. Deplorable that there's even such a thing as war. We didn't start it. We ended it.
 
Rei
2001-11-09 04:44:40 PM
Cheeseburger:
You're discussing the motivation for the vietnam war (in a flawed manner, mind you). I was talking about military tactics. You can't contrast motivation for a war, and then use that difference to say that the tactics aren't the same.

As for Nagasaki, we tested one first. We had no clue what different levels of damage would do to cities (for example, it was discovered that it was the shock wave from the explosion, not the explosion itself, that was the most lethal - it was things like this that the military was attempting to learn).

As for the surrendering, first off, Japan had attempted several times, via russian proxies, to surrender after the Tokyo firebombings, but they wouldn't accept the one thing we demanded: unconditional surrender. They had no clue what the US would do once they were in control. I'm having trouble finding a page on the surrender process, but the japanese attempted to begin it within a day of the hiroshima blast.



Here's a detail page about the bombs, it's death toll, cumulative, is about 230,000.

http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html

Here's a paper on the planning for the targets:
 
Rei
2001-11-09 04:45:10 PM
 
Rei
2001-11-09 05:17:09 PM
Bildo:

Here's a chronology of the vietnam war. Note that both sides occused each other regularly of violating it. Both sides probably were.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001292.html

Lets see if I can find a paper about the peace talks.. They were a haphazard, shoddy, mostly symbolic event.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/saigon/peacepact.html

Again, whether it was one country before is irrelevant; the issue being discussed was whether it was *two* countries, which it was not.

BTW, are you trying to claim that the My Lai massacre was the only time that villagers were targetted? That's not even close to true. It was just one of the most blatant. Feel free to read some of the testimony from the Betrand Russel War Crimes Tribunal. A few other things I might suggest: Veterans Against The War, Colby's Vietnam, and many other excelent documents out there.
 
2001-11-09 08:32:11 PM
I'm saying that the My Lai massacre was not ordered by superior officers. Lt. Calley should not have been allowed out of a prison cell for the rest of his life. He took it upon himself to slaughter the village of about 300 civilians.

Keep in mind when the North Vietnamese took the city of Hue they killed close to 5,000 "enemies of the people" this included doctors, teachers, and civic leaders. I'm not trying to justify the My Lai massacre, it was horrid, but compare it to the attrocities of the enemy.

The 1967 Betrand Russel War Crimes Tribunal was a joke. A bunch of anti-American Communists gather to speak out against the U.S. Not a very good source of information.

It was most certainly "two" countries with two governments in control of their respective agencies and armies.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report