Certainly the impact on the psyche of the average citizen in the target nation is far less impacted by a surgical military strike than something like the attack on the WTC. Of course, there are a number of old people in Japan who would readily point out that our attacks have not always been so precisely targeted at military. I'm sure those attacks were more terrifying for the average citizen than the WTC attacks --- and I vividly recall feeling very terrified on and after that day.
But if you look back even further in the evolution of war, a couple armies went out in a field somewhere and battled each other. This was a good way to eliminate civilian casualties, because the civilians left before the battle began. Obviously, at some point, somebody realized they needed something bigger to win the war. That's really where the line seems to get drawn -- the most honorable available tactic that will still result in victory.
Another thing - do you suppose the smart bomb was invented to minimize civilian casualties, or maximize the performance of the weapon in destroying its target? Obviously, the reduction in civilian casualties is a lovely side bonus and a great way to position it as a more honorable weapon, but I would suspect the primary motivation was its ability to reliably eliminate a very specific target.
BTW, I personally wouldn't appear with Gov. Palin, either. I find her to be such a joke, I wouldn't want to seem to be taking her seriously.
Isn't that a little harsh? Can't we just say she's in over her head? Maybe in 10/15 years she'd have been a little more ready for the show.
It's a statement of personal feeling. It may be harsh, but it's how I feel. Honestly, I find it offensive that she was even chosen. In 10 or 15 years, sure, things may be different. But she was nominated now. I wouldn't want somebody to have nominated George Freaking Washington when he was 17 on the argument that at some point in the future, he might be ready for the job.
I don't mean anything personal by any of this either, but I just don't understand your arguement I guess on the Palin issue because you even said yourself that is it was 10-15 years down the road you might not object... but you just said "inexperience isn't what I objected to" I'm not trying to pick a fight, its just that you kinda contradicted yourself on that one...
Not really. You're just assuming too much. I might not object 10-15 years down the road not because she'll have more experience, but because a person can change drastically in that amount of time. If that happened with Gov. Palin, she might be qualified to hold high office. Or at least she might not be a joke.
Comments