Why don't more Americans care about civilian casualties in the so-called "wars"
in Iraq and Afghanistan? in ref to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
1st Lt. Nathan Perry: "Any loss of innocent life is tragic...I assure you that civilians are never targeted, and that our forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties..."
This makes it all better--that they go to undisclosed "great lengths?" You mean like "surgically striking" instead of "bombing?" The "great lengths" the military goes is in the rhetoric being used by Bush and the Pentagon to hide civilian casualties (e.g., Shock and Awe?). Most Americans feel content with the excuse that if terrorists or insurgents "hide behind civilians" it's perfectly acceptable to blow them all away, but if you saw police doing this in hostage situations in the U.S. it would be a completely different story. The loss of innocent life in the Middle East is labelled "tragic" with some faux moral sentiment and then the next military operation is planned with no responsibility taken by the U.S. as long as it all gets labelled "war." Why don't more Americans care?
Additional accumulated excuses: Fight the "enemy" on the "enemy's" soil (includes civilians), What about the +2000 Americans killed in 9/11 (confounds a terrorist attack with what neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were responsible for), Arab nations are all a threat to Israel (and it's simply a given that the U.S. military is supposed to help "fix" this), Freedom doesn't come free (while occupied countries don't gain any more freedom and there's also no guarantees when troops leave), You don't know what it's like to fight along side your "buddy" (nobody told you or your buddy to become puppets for what is now the misuse of a military originally intended for the defence of the country), if we don't stop terrorists now they will create some terrible "terrorist nation" and get a nuke and use it on the U.S. (speculation and fiction the Bush administration knows will plague almost everyone. Amazing what fear mongering can accomplish).
Additional accumulated excuses: Bush is the "commander in chief" and what he says goes (same support of totalitarianism used by Nazis and fascists, but worse: Bush is no military leader), But we're making "progress" in the Middle East despite what civilian deaths occur (there is actually just as many setbacks as there is purported "progess." "Improving" conditions are only captured at choice moments for statistical purposes, such as when violence is supposedly "down." The truth is the approach of a conventional war has severe limitations in stopping terrorism while more foreign civilians die for what little "progress" officials attempt to focus on), We can't just cut and run (nothing but rhetoric started by republicans in Congress, learned by public supporters, and has become the basis for an ego-saving endless number of military operations that still can kill more civilians than real terrorists).
Additional accumulated excuses: We could have done more damage than we did (Really? Quanitify evil? Since when is the death of "less" innocent people "less" evil than terrorism?), But our military is not as bad as the terrorists because we don't intended to kill innocent people (yes, but you successfully create the same outcome), What do YOU propose we do (this is my favorite response because war supporters reveal they actually know they support something that is ultimately wrong. War protesters often called "anti-American" are actually the only Americans who care about what injustice continues at the hands of those who think it's morally acceptable to "limit" the number of civilian casualties while creating a conventional "war" against terrorism).
in Iraq and Afghanistan? in ref to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
1st Lt. Nathan Perry: "Any loss of innocent life is tragic...I assure you that civilians are never targeted, and that our forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties..."
This makes it all better--that they go to undisclosed "great lengths?" You mean like "surgically striking" instead of "bombing?" The "great lengths" the military goes is in the rhetoric being used by Bush and the Pentagon to hide civilian casualties (e.g., Shock and Awe?). Most Americans feel content with the excuse that if terrorists or insurgents "hide behind civilians" it's perfectly acceptable to blow them all away, but if you saw police doing this in hostage situations in the U.S. it would be a completely different story. The loss of innocent life in the Middle East is labelled "tragic" with some faux moral sentiment and then the next military operation is planned with no responsibility taken by the U.S. as long as it all gets labelled "war." Why don't more Americans care?
Additional accumulated excuses: Fight the "enemy" on the "enemy's" soil (includes civilians), What about the +2000 Americans killed in 9/11 (confounds a terrorist attack with what neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were responsible for), Arab nations are all a threat to Israel (and it's simply a given that the U.S. military is supposed to help "fix" this), Freedom doesn't come free (while occupied countries don't gain any more freedom and there's also no guarantees when troops leave), You don't know what it's like to fight along side your "buddy" (nobody told you or your buddy to become puppets for what is now the misuse of a military originally intended for the defence of the country), if we don't stop terrorists now they will create some terrible "terrorist nation" and get a nuke and use it on the U.S. (speculation and fiction the Bush administration knows will plague almost everyone. Amazing what fear mongering can accomplish).
Additional accumulated excuses: Bush is the "commander in chief" and what he says goes (same support of totalitarianism used by Nazis and fascists, but worse: Bush is no military leader), But we're making "progress" in the Middle East despite what civilian deaths occur (there is actually just as many setbacks as there is purported "progess." "Improving" conditions are only captured at choice moments for statistical purposes, such as when violence is supposedly "down." The truth is the approach of a conventional war has severe limitations in stopping terrorism while more foreign civilians die for what little "progress" officials attempt to focus on), We can't just cut and run (nothing but rhetoric started by republicans in Congress, learned by public supporters, and has become the basis for an ego-saving endless number of military operations that still can kill more civilians than real terrorists).
Additional accumulated excuses: We could have done more damage than we did (Really? Quanitify evil? Since when is the death of "less" innocent people "less" evil than terrorism?), But our military is not as bad as the terrorists because we don't intended to kill innocent people (yes, but you successfully create the same outcome), What do YOU propose we do (this is my favorite response because war supporters reveal they actually know they support something that is ultimately wrong. War protesters often called "anti-American" are actually the only Americans who care about what injustice continues at the hands of those who think it's morally acceptable to "limit" the number of civilian casualties while creating a conventional "war" against terrorism).