War on France

[russotto]

Originally posted by Xugumad
One of the main targets in the Gulf War (and subsequent bombings) was Iraq's water infrastructure. With its destruction, the civilian population would be slowly poisoned. Madeleine Albright - in 1996 60 Minutes interview - unhappily admitted that the death of more than half a million Iraqi children was a high, but necessary price to pay.

The figure of half a million Iraqi children was never substantiated. It was made up out of whole cloth.

Yes, infrastructure is targeted during war. Kind of hard to make a war without killing your enemies and destroying their stuff... that's pretty much what war is all about.

[Xugumad]

russotto
The figure of half a million Iraqi children was never substantiated. It was made up out of whole cloth.

No, it was a UNICEF study. Mind you, it's well-known that Iraq did fake quite a lot of children deaths (empty coffin parades, etc). The relevant point what the Albright didn't even bother to question the number. She ignored it, and accepted that children's deaths (like the difference between 50k and 500k would have mattered to her at that point) were the price to pay.

Yes, infrastructure is targeted during war. Kind of hard to make a war without killing your enemies and destroying their stuff... that's pretty much what war is all about.

Pay attention to the thread's core issue of contention: that civilians were specifically targeted. The destruction of certain key infrastructures was meant to cause mass havoc within the population, as seen by the detailed army and DIA studies. As I already said above, this is standard procedure in any war.

Its existence was being disputed, thus the whole discussion. The numbers in the UNICEF study were exaggerated, mostly because they took children death from the Iran-Iraq biochem war into account, and because Iraq tried to sway world opinion with fake funerals. However, many deaths will now only start occurring, as tumors, disease side-effects etc. from the Gulf War are expected to come into full effect about a decade after the actual war.

X.

[Undertoad]

The relevant point what the Albright didn't even bother to question the number. She ignored it, and accepted that children's deaths (like the difference between 50k and 500k would have mattered to her at that point) were the price to pay.

She should have been fired.

[juju]

Xugumad, because our leaders deny that it happens, even though they know that it does, this makes it morally okay.

Therefore, if we target civilians, it's morally justified (we didn't mean it!). But if somone else does it (and for god's sake, especially if they don't actually control land), it's terrorism.

[Cam]

The targeting of civilians is always wrong, but sadly in war sometimes it's a necessary evil, all the more reason to try and stay away from war.

[Chefranden]

In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically.

This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge.

If it is truely a legitimate strategy of war for us, then it is also a legitimate strategy of war for our enemies. Further if preemtive strikes are legitimate for us then they are also legitimate for our enemies. Preemtive strikes are best done as suprizes. Given this philosophy Bin Ladin's attack on us is legitimate. We are hung by our own rope I think.

Pay attention to the thread's core issue of contention: that civilians were specifically targeted. The destruction of certain key infrastructures was meant to cause mass havoc within the population, as seen by the detailed army and DIA studies. As I already said above, this is standard procedure in any war.

Again if it is permissible for us to target "key infrastructure" of the enemy then the enemy is also permitted to target our key infrastructure such as centers of economic activity -World Trade Center, or command and control centers - Pentagon. If it is legitimate for us to kill civilians to accomplish the destruction of infrastructure, then again it is legitimate for the enemy to do so.

[Cam]

if preemtive strikes are legitimate for us then they are also legitimate for our enemies. Preemtive strikes are best done as suprizes. Given this philosophy Bin Ladin's attack on us is legitimate. We are hung by our own rope I think.

Preemptive strikes against Iraq would come after we warned him to disarm. Bin Ladin attacked us without any official warning. The US on the other hand has gone to the UN and asked that Saddam be forced to disarm. That is a major difference.

If it is legitimate for us to kill civilians to accomplish the destruction of infrastructure, then again it is legitimate for the enemy to do so.

We have never initiated conflict by attacking citizens. The Pentagon may be considered a military installation and therefore could be considered vulnerable to a first strike. The World Trade Center on the other hand was targeted without prior conflict, or even warning, with the sole intention of killing as many civilians as possible.

[Nic Name]

The Indian Wars concluded with the December 1890 Battle of Wounded Knee, in which Sioux warriors, women, and children were killed by the US cavalry.

[jaguar]

Bin Laden had been saying he was going to attack america for a loooong time. Its just that noone took him seriously.

[Cam]

I never said he never claimed he was going to attack America, he never announced it through any official channels.

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by Cam
Preemptive strikes against Iraq would come after we warned him to disarm. Bin Ladin attacked us without any official warning. The US on the other hand has gone to the UN and asked that Saddam be forced to disarm. That is a major difference.

I disagree that the difference is that major. We won't anounce our targets to Iraqi citizens and those that are in or near the targets will be maimed and killed just like those in the trade towers. Many more will die later as direct and indirect results of infrastructure destruction. The government didn't anounce the attack on Lybia or the one on Sudan. Sure, in this case, we went to the UN and said basicily, "If you don't do things our way the hell with you." The purpose of the UN was to foster debate and compromise instead of war not to rubber stamp America's wars. In anycase the government has to keep up appearances in certain instances, Bin Ladin doesn't.

We have never initiated conflict by attacking citizens. The Pentagon may be considered a military installation and therefore could be considered vulnerable to a first strike. The World Trade Center on the other hand was targeted without prior conflict, or even warning, with the sole intention of killing as many civilians as possible. [/b]

That is not true, for example, in addition to Lybia and the Sudan, many civilians were killed when we invaded Panama to get Noriagia and Panama had not even threatened attack on the US. There hasn't been a single forgien war, with the possible exception of WWII, that we haven't joined or started with lies about threats and deception concern actions on the part of potential targeted peoples. Most of these wars and interventions were fought for the benifit of certain companies, United Fruit, or industries, Oil. I'd like to know how you know that the "sole intention" of bombing the trade towers was to kill civilians, and had nothing to do with the disruption of the US and World capitalist economy? Do you have some inside information from Al Quaida?

[Griff]

Sometimes FAIR isn't but check out this page. pulled out or expelled