Do you have adblock enabled?
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 116
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7461 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2001 at 11:57 AM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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  
[image from img.fark.com too old to be available]




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.


[image from euronet.nl too old to be available]
 
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.

[image from pomperaug.com too old to be available]

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 16 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report