
True.  At first, the news media seemed entranced by all the new gizmos
the military was using, not to mention the taped video transmissions from
the missiles as they zeroed in on their targets.  But later, and especially
after the bunker full of civilians was hit, they changed their tone.  It
seemed to me that they didn't have the stomach for the reality of war,
that innocent people really do die and are maimed in warfare.  It's like
they were only pro-Gulf-War as long as it was "nice and clean" (smart
missiles dropping in on military HQs), but not when pictures of dead,
dying, and maimed civilians started cropping up.  What naive hypocrites!


[ discussion about blanket-bombing and A-bombs deleted.]
                            ^^^^^^^^^

I should have said here "militarily justified".  It seems from your
comments below that you understood this as meaning "morally justified".
I apologize.


I have often wondered about this.  I've always thought that the first bomb
should have been dropped on Japan's island fortress of Truk.  A good,
inpenatrable military target.  The second bomb could've been held back
for use on an industrial center if need be.  But I digress.

Yes, I have heard that we found evidence (after the war, BTW) that Japan
was seriously considering surrender after the first bomb.  Unfortunately,
the military junta won out over the moderates and rejected the US's
ulimatum.  Therefore the second bomb was dropped.  Most unfortunate, IMO.


I don't regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made
which affect the lives of innocent people.  But I do regret the 
circumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the
suffering caused by those decisions.  

[...]


Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US
and allied action.  If some back-water country took over some other
back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene.  Not that we don't
care, but we can't be the world's policman.  Or if a coup had occured
in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted
because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to
Saudi Arabia.  But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion
by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil 
interests, caused us to take action.


[...]

I'm not setting up a strawman at all.  If you want to argue against the
war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
Kuwait.  Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.

Well, in a sense, yes.  They probably had no idea of what end Hitler
would lead their nation to.


They suffered along with the rest.  Why does this bother you so much?
The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect.  Many
innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others.  It it regretable,
but that's The-Way-It-Is.  There are no perfect solutions.

[...]

Probably because we're not the saviors of the world.  We can't police each
and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another.  Nor
are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
some other places.

Tell me how we could stop them and I'll support it.  I, for one, do not
agree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.
I agree that it is deplorable.


Are they?  Or are they supposed to reflect the population of the locale
where the trial is held?  (Normally this is where the crime is committed
unless one party or the other can convince the judge a change of venue
is in order.)  I'm not an expert on California law, or even US law, but
it seems that this is the way the system is set up.  You can criticize
the system, but let's not have unfounded allegations of racial 
prejudice thrown around.


No, not at all.  The point is that the fact that there were no blacks
on the first jury and that Rodney King is black is totally irrelevant.


Germans, perhaps.  "Peers" doesn't mean "those who do the same thing",
like having murderers judge murderers.  It means "having people from
the same station in life", presumably because they are in a better
position to understand the defendent's motivation(s).


OK, granted.  However, you are using this reasoning as part of *your*
logical argument in this discussion.  This is not a court of law.

The media is not totally monolithic.  Even though there is a prevailing
liberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give
a balanced and fair reporting of the news.  There are even conservative
sources out there if you know where to look.  (Hurrah for Rush!)

BTW, I never used the word "conspiracy".  I don't accept (without *far*
more evidence) theories that there is some all-pervading liberal
conspiracy attempting to take over all news sources.


Hardly.  I didn't say that it's a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people
if the end is just.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and
there are no perfect solutions.  If one is going to  resist tyranny, then
innocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die.  I didn't say
it is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.


I would agree that it was evil in the sense that it caused much pain
and suffering.  I'm not so sure that it was unnecessary as you say.  That
conclusion can only be arrived at by evaluating all the factors involved.
And perhaps it *was* unnecessary as (let's say) we now know.  That doesn't
mean that those who had to make the decision to bomb didn't see it as
being necessary.  Rarely can one have full known of the consequences of
an action before making a decision.  At the time it may have seemed
necessary enough to go ahead with it.

But don't assume that I feel the bombing was *morally* justified -- I
don't!  I just don't condemn those who had to make a difficult
decision under difficult circumstances.


You certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.
I, as an absolutist, am in a position to judge, but I defer judgment.


Wrong.  They were neither moral then nor now.  They seemed necessary to
those making the decisions to bring a quick end to the war.  I simply
refuse to condemn them for their decision.

One day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;
even this discourse in this forum.  I understand the full ramifications of
that, and I am prepared to do so.  I don't believe that you can make the
same claim.


And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being 
"so deplorable".  Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
decisive way by any other method at that time.  But in the Gulf War,
precision bombing was the norm.  So the point was, why make a big
stink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted
*in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians
(proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing
in WW2?  Even with precision bombing, mistakes happen and some
civilians suffer.  But less civilians suffered in this war than
any other iany other in history!  Many Iraqi civilians went about their lives
with minimal interference from the allied air raids.  The stories
of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
Yes, bunk.  The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years
and the majority of them were directly involved in fighting!  But 
we are expected to swallow that "hundreds of thousands" of 
*civilian* Iraqis died in a war lasting about 2 months!  And with 
the Allies using the most precise bombs ever created at that!  
What hogwash.  If "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians died, 
it was due to actions Hussein took on his own people, not due to 
the Allied bombing.

Regards,