Quote:
Originally posted by Pacifier
small note:
true, but civillians were also knowingly targeted. Bombing and killing civillians was a tactic use by all nations in WW2. The allies called it "dehousing" (sounds a bit like "collateral damage" but means that you firebomb known residental areas)
|
I know that. It was part of the "total war" concept, where you mobilize your entire nation to fight, and your enemy does the same. Therefore, enemy civilians are also fair game.
As a side-note: advocates of air-power were the main driving force for this total war concept, in that they thought that they could break the morale of the enemy by blowing up civilians. Usually they were proven wrong.
Quote:
Oh and one question for the pro-war guys since you ignored it in the last post 
Why did Bush choose to liberate iraq and not Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, or China?
|
Congo, Zaire, Angola would be really annoying to fight in - it's basically vietnam all over again. How would you keep the peace if there's no peace to be kept? How would you liberate a country where various tribes like to murder each other on a daily basis?
Cuba has been tried, but containment seems a better option.
Pakistan is a strategic ally, and wouldn't even be "liberated" - it'd be like liberating a hornet's nest...
North Korea is well on it's way to being liberated, if they keep up their agressive stance. Containment seems to work for now.
And China is simply too big to attack right now; that'd be suicidal, and could easily lead to a nuclear war, killing all of mankind.
Quote:
Oh and 150.000 soldiers to the iraq but only 7 soldiers to liberate Liberia (Tyler has proven connections to the AlKaida)?
|
Yes, 7 soldiers... to support the African peacekeepers, and to prepare the way for another batch of US troops as soon as Taylor steps down. Sheesh, at least *try* and show the whole picture, will you?
As for Taylor's connections to Al Qaida: I wouldn't know. Might be true, I just never heard anything about it. Suppose it's true - how is this suddenly justification for an intervention, when it wasn't in the case of Saddam?