georgeob1 wrote:McTag wrote:
You could call the muslim fighters many things, but not, I think, cowards.
You may as well conclude that the US forces are cowards, because they habitually call in airstrikes, which often go wrong at a deadly cost to the civilian population, rather than risk infantry casualties.
And yes, you are right in this respect, I do not believe the American (and British) position has any higher moral standing, given the history to this and their conduct here, than their adversaries.
Clearly, they have not.
I believe you have never had the experience of combat McTag, and should consider a bit of restraint in reaching such conclusions and making such statements.
Our forces call in airstrikes because they can do so, and this is an advantage we posess in the conflict. The intelligent way to fight a war is to do so in a manner that inflicts more risk and injury on the enemy than yourself. Therefore 'you may well conclude the U.S. forces are intelligent'.
I'm not so sure I would call one who plants an IED in a road or in a vehicle in a marketplace particularly brave. He may well indeed be brave, but these acts don't require much of it.
Airstrikes don't "often go wrong" as you said. Given the extraordinary accuracy of the modern laser and GPS guided weapons, the aircraft almost always hit their intended target. Likely you have in mind some of the widely reported strikes on "weddings" etc. Many of these are misrepresented in the news reports, and many more accurate, effective strikes go unreported. I submit that in this instance you are just casting words about with no specific knowledge and little basis for understanding.
I would be interested to know just what criteria you apply in determining the relative "moral positions" of U.S. & British troops with those of the insurgents or terrorists (whichever you prefer). Consider the objectives the respective sides are fighting for. Consider the degree to which the two sides use their available weapons deliberately and knowingly with the primary intent of inflicting civilian casualties.
Your post was a bit shrill and overwrought - not to mention inaccurate. I believe you should think a bit and reconsider what you wrote.
I'm being attacked here for something I did not say. However, let's press on.
Since the beginning on the Afghan campaign the US tactic has been to use its air power. Nothing wrong with that, you may think; if you decide to have an invasion, you play your strongest hand.
Except for the fact that bombing and heavy artillery (possessed by only one side in Iraq) is a tad indiscriminate, especially when used in towns and villages.
Hence the heavy civilian casualties, which the military are too embarassed about to count and report.
I'm not so sure about media reports being wrong. There are plenty of international reporters on the ground. They broadly agree with what is happening, although not all of them are quoted on Fox.
As far as morality is concerned, my position is as already stated, see previous posts.
We have an invading force crushing an impoverished country.
We have residents of that country resisting them.
We have World opinion, and I now suspect majority American opinion, that the basis for the invasion was a lie, a lie deliberately concocted in Washington and London.
So whatever the end, and it may eventually turn out well, the means are immoral.
