Q: Was British rule bad or good for India? (was: The rhetoric
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:02 -0400
Bill Stoddard wrote:
>> - though Paula Zahn IS more attractive than Goebbels.
> At least we agree on something :-)
>> Although certainly I'm sure in the above case we'd have Bill O'Reilly
>> and company lining up to defend Saddam and the rights of a sovereign
>> nation. (and probably a "once-loyal and valuable" US ally and a
>> bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism as well). See the current
>> treatment of Pakistan as an example.
>>> and this gets right to the point that this is anti bush 100%.
>>> First folks -feared- the number of civ casualties would be huge,
>>> this would spark WWIII, blah blah blah. While it's not over till its
>>> over, the author of this article believes that the liberation of
>>> Iraq with low civ casualties is a distinct possibility. If it
>>> happens, then it is irrefutable that the Iraqi people will suffer
>>> fewer deaths at the hands of the liberators than had they continued
>>> to be ruled by Saddam and embargoed. But wait, the author is still
>> I am sure - given the attention given to the "low civilian casualty"
>> PR in Afghanistan - that equal attention will be given here.
> I hope so.
>> The facts - well - they only come out when the military is put on
>> trial - see the trial of the pilots who killed Canadians - the
>> propaganda line was that it was self-defense - only when it came to
>> trial did it come out that they flew way off course just to attack
>> their so-called allies.
> You don't quite say it but I gather from your tone that you believe
> the pilots knew all along that they were dropping bombs on Canadians.
> I don't have any comment that is not personally insulting.
No - I think that they were bombing unknown targets that were perceived
as some kind of potential threat to the US. And thus - in the calculus
of the US armed forces - worth about 1/10,000 of what a US soldier is -
and thus about 1/10,000th of a second was used to make the decision.
> IMHO, the pilots should get a dishonorable discharge from the military
> and they should be grounded from flying airplanes (even commercial
> airplanes) for life. They've demonstrated that they don't have
> sufficient good judgement to have responsibility for the lives of
> others. They do not belong in jail.
We agree here too. But you probably don't think that they're scapegoats
for a larger problem.