On Saturday, November 10, 2001, at 02:14 , PNFPNF@aol.com wrote:
> Well, the Wall Street Journal seems to be saying killing is bad,
> including killing for political causes or vengeance. Does this include
> carpet bombing.
It all depends on where the carpet is laid.
One of the ongoing problems has been that when you drop that much from
it is going to land, sometimes where the wind takes it. Unlike when you
that much artillery fire, and get wind drift.
So it would be useful if folks sorted out what they thought they meant
Fuel Air Explosives
as opposed to sending more missions in dropping smaller bombs, or is that
what folks were trying to do with 'carpet bombing' and 'cluster bomb' -
booting an FAE out of the rear of a C-130 gets you the kilo-tonne yield
all of that nasty nuclear radiation.
Since some have noticed that technically we are still in a state of war
Iraq - and that the areas that get their humanitarian relief from the
such as the Kurdish Areas in the north, are not suffering from the side
what ever the Saddam Hussein Regime is doing with their Oil For
Aid - it should make folks wonder how 'effective' the use of 'sanctions'
certain types of regimes can be.
I drop that into the middle of this debate, since, assume that the
interview with Ossam bin Laden can be taken seriously, then if he has a
deterance, that would make the unpleasantries of 9/11 seem like, well, a
social unpleasantry, compared to a suit case nuke showing up in lower
Mix Slowly and wonder, is it better to support a reasonably quick end by
the military power of the Taliban leading to a coalition government in
will de-arabize Afghanistan, and with it oblige them to find some new
from which to launch attacks, or should we do as we have done for the
last 10 years
and HOPE that there is no unpleasant news out there?
Why, who knows, we might even find a way to finish with the War Against
and the current failing siege....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 13 2001 - 02:09:28 EST