On Aug 4, 12:28=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 11:55 am, Robert Cohen <robtco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Korean "police action" circa 1950--1953 is a precursor to U.S.
> > involvement in French Indo China aka Vietnam.
>
> > The two were controversial-hated meat-grinding conflicts, which also
> > precipitated domestic political change fom Democrats to Republicans as
> > presidents.
>
> > Truman--->Eisenhower
>
> > Johnson-->Nixon
>
> > Circa 1950--1953, the U.S. atomic bomb was not used, and circa 1960 to
> > circa 1975, the U.S. nuclear bomb wasn't appplied either.
>
> > These were deemed "limited wars" that were resisters of the spreading
> > of Communism, and resulted in mixed success (Korea) & non-success
> > (Nam).
>
> > The U.S. foreign policy from after WW II to the early 1990s may be
> > theme- titled as against Stalinism-Maoism-Castro etal styles of
> > "authoritarian communism"
>
> > And my profoundly simplistic point is:
>
> > In warfare, ****e happens such as the horrible deaths of innocent
> > civilians whom are "in the way" or in a war front's proximity.
>
> > In both the Iraq and Afghan war "quagmires," an extremely cold-blooded
> > enemy thrives on the terroristic slaughtering of civilians: It's
> > surely as loco (nutty) as their (apparent) dark ages social-economic
> > agenda (apparently Tallibanism).
>
> > Collateral (civilian) deaths are hereaby acknowledged 60 years later,
> > however rationalized.
>
> > Some 30,000 U.S. troops paid for by the United States are still over
> > there.
>
> > If and when a South Korean majority wants the U.S. to leave, the
> > U.S.should exit.
>
> > ...inside a ragged tent at the entrance of the
> > park, some aging South Koreans gather daily to
> > draw attention to their side of the conflict, a story
> > of carnage not mentioned in South Korea=92s
> > official histories or textbooks.
>
> > =93When the napalm hit our village, many people were
> > still sleeping in their homes,=94 said Lee Beom-ki, 76.
> > =93Those who survived the flames ran to the tidal flats.
> > We were trying to show the American pilots that we
> > were civilians. But they strafed us, women
> > and children.=94
>
> > Village residents say dozens of civilians were killed.
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/world/asia/03korea.html?_r=3D1&hp&ore.=
...
>
> So your saying they should ignore or conceal the deaths of unarmed
> civilians that resulted not from the mistakes of a few soldiers but
> from systematic aerial bombing and strafing?
>
> Or were you responding to this quote;
>
> =93History teaches us that we need an alliance, but that alliance should
> be based on humanitarian principles.=94
>
>
>
> > .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
#2 or your later point is obvious truth & morality
I was offering the wis-dumb that the USA has been paying for 60
years, while if the victims relatives want to rub our noses in it, I
can understand that too
While my simple observation is that the numerous collateral civilian
casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq are hapening now, and it's been de-
moralizing for us and is apparently behind a feeling that much of the
rest of the world seems to resent our involvement
|
