Yes, as you point out so well, the killing of anyone on the other side
started with WWII. This was done because it became possible to do, not
because any attitude had changed. Although bombs can be better
targeted, this does not mean anyone is trying to save noncombatants.
The bombs are just more efficient in taking out the intended target.
The extra damage means nothing. In fact, such damage is an advantage
because it weakens the enemy, which is the intent of war. You forget,
war at all times in history is designed to be won by any means
available. This has not changed. Because of TV, both sides have to show
sorrow and apologize for colloidal damage, but this means nothing. On
the other hand, police action is designed to minimize collateral damage.
We have yet to see police action being used in the Middle East. That,
I suggest, is the flaw in the process.
Ed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
The idea of good guys and bad guys in war is useless and distracting
to what is actually happening. War is a means to gain power over
others. War no longer makes a distinction between those who are
fighting and those who are not.
It "no longer" makes such a distinction? You mean, it _used_ to?
Like in the firebombing of Hamburg, for instance?
Or in the carpet bombing of any major German city during WWII? Use of
bombers was ubiquitous and the accuracy of the bombs dropped from
high-altitude bombers was so low that avoiding civilian areas was not
practical ... and, indeed, IIRC it wasn't considered particularly
important, anyway.
Or to look at the other side, consider the V-2's Germany launched
against England. What fraction hit civilian targets? Did the German
high command express concern about "collateral damage"?
If anything, it seems like we're far _more_ concerned about civilian
versus military casualties than most leaders were 60 years ago, and
modern technology makes it possible to, at least occasionally, try to
limit the strikes to military targets.
Both are killed with equal intensity, although it is still fashionable
to claim the fig leaf of unintended collateral damage or a tragic
mistake. Make no mistake, as the tools of war become more efficient
and terrorism, which is the counter to those tools, become more
universal, no one will be safe. We are passing through a transition
period which has to end by people insisting on methods be used to
avoid war and the resulting terrorism. But then, every one knows this,
yet we go on supporting people who insist that war is necessary
because it is very profitable for them. They are able to continue
their policy because they know how to manipulate our fear and
paranoia. But you say, real threats exist against which we must be
defended. Of course this is true, but this is a never ending path
that can not be fixed just by making every country a democracy, as
Bush plans. The obvious consequence of this naive approach is being
demonstrated every day in Iraq. We need to use our creativity to
explore another way. Think about that rather than the Segway.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
One comment was, imagine a Segway with a chain gun
rolling into a batch of bad guys and spinning wheels in opposite
directions while firing.
Hopefully, the next battlefield will have only bad guy blood spilled
on it.
Can this gadget tell who is bad, and who is innocent?
- Jed
