I think that was the opinion of Fascists in general towards democracies in general circa 1930, and we all know how right those ‘strong men’ were.
Oh, that is so emininetly Pittable. Just how frightened were we by Osama bin Camelfucker?
Whoopty-doo. I have the same problems with the two parties, hence my support for the Libertarians. How does this whining further your argument?
So, how many babies has Dubya killed by carpet-bombing Afghanistan? How many people died when we dropped megaton warheads on Kabul?
Oh, grow up. You obviously don’t know much about the liberties Nixon took with the Constitution during Vietnam. Dubya is an incompetent fool, but he’s no Nixon.
You know, Derleth, I agree with a lot of what you said, but:
Nope, didn’t happen, there is no way we have dropped megatons of explosives on Kabul, let alone a single warhead (or warheads) in the megaton range. To reach megaton range, you have to use two-stage thermonuclear weapons and I think that would have made the news, you know?
Make your point, but keep it reasonably accurate. Given the subject, there’s really no need to exaggerate.
Oh, good, another arm-chair gung-ho (characterization deleted).
Yes, W (all war, everywhere, all the time - otherwise we’d be looking at the economy) is creeping towards another 'Nam - can you name all the places where US combat soldiers are engaged?
And no, W isn’t smart enough to pull it off - but Cheney and Rumsfeld are.
Is this country ever going to raise a generation without finding a war for it? just one?
hint: when the only international backing you can get is GB, your policy needs work.
Derleth is probably thinking about the BLU-82B “Daisy Cutter” bombs, which are about 7.5 tons of conventional explosives. Nowhere near the megaton range, but nothing I’d want to be anywhere near. They definitely alter the landscape.
Okay, MEBuckner, if you say so. I still can’t see it, but what the hell, it wasn’t really that big a deal anyway.
Larry you may be right, but .0075 Kilotons is a long way from a Megaton. The Daisy Cutter is a pretty damn impressive piece of ordinance though, isn’t it?
You might want to be a little more carefull with your choices of comparisons, because by most international studies I’ve seen cited here before, many more civilians died in the bombing of Afghanistan than in the 9/11 attacks. Most numbers I recall were around 5000, though that might have changed somewhat since then. So if that group of 5000 has a normal distribution of ages… 100-200 or so? Just FYI.
Phoenix Dragon, I’m aware of the fact that even our smartest ordnance isn’t good at telling innocents from combatants (nor are our soldiers, sometimes), but the fact is we’ve waged an extremely limited war with a strong eye to keeping civilian casualties down after someone did massive random acts of violence against us. There have been no Dresdens, no Hiroshimas, not even any Berlins or Tokyos. We have focused on killing a specific subset of Afghanistan’s population and on helping the rest. And now, unlike in the past, we are actively trying to install a stable, democratic government instead of just backing a friendly strongman and ignoring it until it explodes again.
Derleth, sadly you’re explanation is wasted. Most of the type who crow to the sky about civilian casualties will only be happy when the US is not involved over there AT ALL. Which is, at the moment, impossible. Nor likely. Nor, IMHO, wise.
The problems arise when people that DON’T KNOW the situation think that any casualties are a bad thing. It’s a sad state of affairs when civilian casualties occur, but they do happen from time to time. It’s horrific, and the US military tries very hard to keep it form happening.
That being said, I would like to ask, once again, for an (if possible) unbiased (or little bias, whichever) cite for the figures of Afghani civilian casualties caused -directly- by US armed forces.