On Aug 4, 12:28 am, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 3, 11:55 am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> 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, shite 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’s
>> official histories or textbooks.
>
>> “When the napalm hit our village, many people were
>> still sleeping in their homes,” said Lee Beom-ki, 76.
>> “Those 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.”
>
>> Village residents say dozens of civilians were killed.
>
>
> 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;
>
> “History teaches us that we need an alliance, but that alliance should
> be based on humanitarian principles.”
>
>
>
>> .- 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
