Well Wil, lot less died in this war than most wars.
Look up the history of Dresden Germany.

Wil,

You have suddenly really put things in perspective for me tonight. I was just getting seriously annoyed with the TV for cutting out during the programme I've been watching all evening (Pop Idol - it's a British thing) and so I came online. I'm really glad I did. I completely agree with everything you've said and I really appreciate you making me see things as they truly are. Thank you.

Didn't you hear? American lives are more valuable than the lives of those of other nations. That is why it is not a big deal. Why did I just do that? I HATE when people do that... Anyway, what's with Osama? If anybody seriously thinks this guy is some master of disguise that can't be found they are just being naive. GPS can read an automobile's license plate from space, yet it has been 6 months and still no trace of this guy? Convenient? Is the huge funding for the war too good to stop it anytime soon? Btw I'm Canadian. I don't know anything.

Right on Wil. Seconds after I heard the news of the attacks on the towers I said, "Oh no, the wrong people are going to die because of this." I respect all the men women that are doing their job and fighting our country, they are our heroes. But, the leadership that sent them over there to do these things is at the very least misguided. There is nothing heroic about what the administration is doing. Unfortunately, it seems that this course of action is always what happens. I wonder if there is something in the mind of the politician that automatically leads to this. I don't know. Anyway, good post Wil.

Drew: you're correct. I didn't mean to, by omission, minimize the losses in any other conflicts.

My position on civillian deaths remains the same.

oops... my /sarcasm didn't how up. that's what I hate.

How long has the U.S. been in conflict with the Taliban? Because the President get's 90 days to do whatever he wants with our troops before it is suppose to be declared a war.

Yeah, the killing of civilians is bad, but when you are in a war, which this is, innocent people are going to die. The people that we should be blaming are the Taliban. Without their attack we would've never gone into Afganistan to fight this war in the first place.

25,000-35,000 killed at Dresden

Wil,this is not a war this a police action against not a country,but a people and a way of life.The civillian's are also raised to be terrorist's and would kill you just because of who you are.I understand your position and respect that but be careful of those you doin't know.

Hey Wil,

It very much bothers me that this action against 'terrorism'is being called a war yet no war has been declared by congress. It makes me suspicious of the administrations motives.
Ít is shocking that so many innocent people are being killed in this conflict. Our modern weapons are a lot more sohisticated nowadays and supposedly they can hit a very specific target, why then are so many people being killed by accident?'
Ón the one hand I want my government to take action against terrorism. On the other hand it seems there has to be a more effective way to do so.

There is one major difference that you forgot to mention. The planes that hit the WTC were targeted at civilians wheras our bombs were not. Our bombs accidentally killed civilians.

Granted, dead is dead. But, in my mind at least, the intentions of the killer mean a lot.

For example: Someone gets shot in the head while hunting. If the gun was aimed at a deer but the aim was bad, it's a tragedy. If the gun was aimed at another human and the aim was good, that's cold blooded murder.

Unfortunately more civilains die in a war than soldiers. Soldiers made the choice to put their lives on the line. Amazing that it isn't
"important" anymore to inform people of what's
really going on.

The US hasn't declared war because they can only declare war against another nation and in this case, there isn't a nation to blame (directly, anyway).

While I do feel for the innocents dying, and I'm sure that it is only going to cause more children to grow up hating the US, there isn't a way around it. The military is doing everything possible to minimize the civilian causalties while still effectively fighting the war. It sucks, but all war does.

Yup.

War sucks.

Even things remarkably similar to war suck.

Fighting sucks.

Death sucks.

Anger sucks.

Hate sucks.

So many things suck. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell who was evil before they kill them? Wouldn't it be nice if they bad guys had some sort of insignia? Wouldn't it be nice if we knew who the frick the bad guys were? Aw, hell wouldn't it be nice if there were no bad guys?

Damn, back to the real world. I'm going to make ice cream. I'd like to think that the world would be a nicer place if everyone could make ice cream today (or just go buy some).

Hey, if some psycho militiant org took over our country, would you be willing to give your life so that others could be free?

I'd like to think that I would.

Gotta go buy cream, and pizza. And vaccuum.

Vaccuuming sucks, but the alterntive sucks more.

O

Wil, have you ever seen the movie "Swordfish"? Two very good points were brought up:

1. Would you kill one innocent child to cure, say, cancer? How about 10 children? A 100? A 1000? You see where this is going.

2. The "west" must do whatever is necessary to show the world that terrorism will not be tolerated. If "they" kill 5,000 Americans, then America should kill 50,000 of them. They blow up a building, America blows up 10. The message must be sent loud and clear that these cowardly actions will not be stood for. The message must also be sent that countries loyal to terrorists, providing funding or safe havens for terrorists, must re-evaluate their position or face negative consequences.

Or, we can all hold hands, pray, and sing cumbayah for world peace.

I just hope your wife and kids aren't in the next tall building.

Better yet, get off your ass, drop out of the next trek film, grab the wife and kids, and hop on a plan to Afganistan. Sell your house, ebay all your trek shit, and donate your cash to rebuilding those poor, "abused-by-America" folks over there.

Hey buddy, actions speak louder than words.

Violence begets violence. I quote one who phrased it much better than me:

"Perhaps this final act was meant to clench a lifetime's argument that nothing comes from violence, and nothing ever could.

For all those born beneath an angry star

Lest we forget how fragile we are..."

What a total bunch of bullshit. I am sick of you radical left winged assholes bitch about innocent civilians dying. Thousands died September 11th and you bitch and moan about shit that dosn't even compare to the attrocities that happened on Sept 11th, and you offer no fucking solution. What were we supposed to do after Sept 11th, jam our thumbs up our asses and watch a Star Trek TNG marthon on the Sci Fi Channel while Bin Laden plots to blow our asses up again? Its thinking like yours that let Hitler take over half of Europe in World War 2. If we didn't do anything then, you'd be speaking German right now.

Have you watched the news lately and seen Afghans thanking the US, playing music, buying t.v.s, singing dancing and all that shit? Why don't you bitch about these regimes like the Taliban, like Iraq, Iran, Somalia, and Colombia? You can't bitch about your government in those countries Mr Wheaton. Granted nobody should die from any war or terrorism, but thats just not realistic. The US military does do its best to MINIMIZE civilian casualties. They could have bombed the whole place into the stone age like the Soviets in the 80's, but they didn't. The US is not as bad as you depict them.

There are assholes everywhere in the world, and some only understand one language, violence. You can't reason with whackjobs that are willing to kill themselves to kill innocents. You bitch, but offer no solution. Life sucks, shit happens, people are assholes, DEAL WITH IT.

Wil I agree with you, that is what bothers me too.

I think that, despite those who have died so far, the out come will be worth it. These people will no longer be under the rule of the Taliban—they'll be free.

We will help them rebuild, and even though that can't replace those who were killed, it will at least suppliment it.

What the one person said about cancer...I would kill 1000 people if it meant I could eradicate cancer forever. To kill a few thousand civillians accidentally in a quest to save the lives and secure the futures of tens of thousands more is a trade off that must be made.

I just met somebody who was bombed by Americans in the nineties (fast war, peace-keeping deal, you might have forgotten. Yugoslavia? It's in Europe). This is quite a long story but it's illuminating.

She's a Serbian filmmaker I met at a festival in Sweden last month. Very clever woman; cosmopolitan; intellectual. Even during the war American entertainment was available in former Yugoslavia and she told us a story of how she had taken her daughter to see "George of the Jungle", how she had to explain to the kid that even though the American government is bombing them, the American people is not necessarily the enemy. Which the kid accepted. But even though this woman was trying to be rational about it, she noted how the few months of bombing made her bitter and filled her with a kind of rage she didn't believe herself capable of. She described how she had the impulse to scream at American tourists on the streets of Budapest (which is in another country, she went there right after the war, look at a map).

In all fairness, I think the American bombings in Afghanistan have been among the "best" yet. The number of civilians killed is relatvely small; the precision of the bombings occasionally miraculous (based on very random eye-witness accounts in European media). The problem is, that killing a few hundred or a few thousand civilians is more than enough to create a new cycle of resentment.

The Serbian lady got over it, because she works in an industry where she meets representatives of other nations all the time - including Americans. Makes it more real.

Tactical studies of WWII seem to pretty much prove that there is absolutely no gain in bombing cities. Precision attacs on infrastructure is one thing, but when that turns into trying to crush the spirit of the civilian population it's another kind of sport. I believe the technical term is "pissing contest".

Now everybody knows the US has the biggest bomb, and nobody wants nobody to ever use it again. This alone should be a reason to stay the hell away from pissing contests. (And, incidentally, to try and megotiate peace between India and Pakistan, but never mind that).

And the other thing is, the terrorists dropped two bombs on the US. That was a terrible, terrible, tragedy. Multiply the rage you feel and the patriotic commitment that spawned by a thousand, and you'll start to get a picture of why so many nations have a grievance with the US to start with.

Even though the targets America has bombed might have been enemies, or rogue nations, at the time, the civilian population has a nasty habit of not feeling that way at all. It only takes the one guy to be pushed over some kind of edge to have yet another dangerous terrorist on your hands.

This was incrdibly depressing to think about. Not much anyone can do about it either. Except for you Americans, who get to vote.

Oh yeah I forgot, your congress - your elected representatives - didn't get to vote on the whole war thing. My bad. Yea democracy.

wil i'm dissapointed with your potty mouth :(

Cody,

It weren't the Taliban that attacked the US. Evidence still points to Al Quaeda, and Bin Laden who is/was hiding in Afghanistan, which was under the Taliban rule. The Taliban themself didn't attack the US.

Okay, now that's out of the way, I too oppose bombing any country, although my reasons are (besides ethical) more personal.

I am from Yugoslavia, which got bombed in '99. My grandmother's house partially collapsed because of the heavy raids - she was lucky that she heard the sirens go off and went to sleep outside, out of fear that the house might collapse. Civilians guarded the bridges (my grandmother and aunt were one of those guards) and still bridges were bombed. God knows how many people died like that.

What strikes me as odd is how quickly anything can become a military target. Army bases being attacked? I can understand that. Destroying the infrastructure still makes sense. Not a lot, but still.

But bombing children's hospitals, tv stations, trains and bridges with civilian guards, and Chinese embassies (even though that was a 'mistake'), what the hell were they thinking?

I was glad that Al Jazeera had been in Afghanistan from the beginning so the world could see what happened there, not some biased figures and graphs from CNN (that are retracted 2 years later). I hope people will think twice before ever bombing another country.

Sub,

Actions do speak louder than words, but they don't necessarily get the right message across.

Think about this one, "An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind."

Brian Gerrard,

The media only shows you what they want you to see. I'm sure that there must be plenty of Afghans left that either support Al Quaeda or the Taliban.

Media=propaganda. I've seen it happen with the civil war in Yugoslavia, where they failed to mention that Muslims and Croatians also participated in mass murder (I've lost half of my family that lived in Mrkonjic Grad in Bosnia)

And don't start about whose lives were more important and where died more or less, because as I recall, even to this day CHILDREN are dying in Iraq, because of the bombings there (the depleted uranium causes birth defects). I vaguely remember that the number of dead CHILDREN ran in the millions. Still dead is dead is dead.

It's all terrible, no matter where and how many people died.

I agree that innocent civilians being killed as a result of war that has nothing to do with them is terrible. Of course it is.

I'm not sure what the alternatives are.

There is a difference between those killed on Sept. 11 and the innocent Afghans who have been accidentally killed. Of course, it's no difference to those who have died and to their loved ones, but there is a difference. Those killed on Sept. 11 didn't get killed accidentally by someone targeting U.S. military installations. Those killed *were* the targets.

In any case, war is terrible for a thousand reasons, but that innocents are killed as a by-product is one of the biggest. Again, I just don't know what the alternatives are. There are unfortunately, some instances where war is just about the only option. (Although I certainly agree that there are instances when the war option is used a little too hastily, when other options are available, as well.)

I have to agree with some of the others who posted before. There is a big difference between targeting civilians and accidentally killing them. We support the people of Afganistan, we want them on our side, and when we make a mistake, the government usually steps up and takes the blame. I remember several times when the military would admit that they made an error while planning military targets and civilians were killed. It's not like we're doing it on purpose or trying to cover it up.

We have every right to be in Afganistan. Mistakes will be made and the best we can do is apologize, make reparations, assist the populace, and try to help their new government as much as possible. It is unfortunate that our world favors survival of the fittest over turning the other cheek, but that is how it is. If you want to survive, you have to defend yourself.

Wil, I'm behind you 100%
two wrongs don't make it a right!!
I mean for me I'm all for peace. I mean if we want to show Bin Laden something, I want him to see kids from all races, creeds and nationalities playing with each other (at the age of 5)
by that age kids don't care about the color of their skin...they are SO innocent!
We need to reunite instead of fight!
Hey great slogan!!!

Wil I don't blame ya for being SO upset!!!!

"Those killed on Sept. 11 didn't get killed accidentally by someone targeting U.S. military installations. Those killed *were* the targets."

This is an excellent point, which has been made many times here, and elsewhere, and somehow, I missed it. I'm really glad that you pointed this out, because it *really* puts things into perspective.

FWIW, I'm really not trying to start a fight with anyone here, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. I was just thinking about this, and I write about what's on my mind. Let's lay off the name-calling, okay?

And the "if you don't like it move to [country currently being bombed]" is so laughable, it doesn't even warrant rebuttal.

Daniel Kratz: Very well said. Comments like yours are one of the reasons I write about this stuff in the first place.

Sincerely, thank you to those of you who have brought up this very important point.

I'm tempted to change the post, to reflect this revelation, but I'll leave it as is, and just say, here, for the record, that I stand behind my point, but the way that I made it is way, way off.

Innocent people do not deserve to die because of a conflict between nations, but until we can settle things like this with a WWF-style cage match between the Al-Qaeda and...I dunno...some members of Congress maybe...we'll still be sending people who had nothing to do with the original argument over to kill and be killed. Our people get killed, their people get killed and at the end of the day there are more dead people, more angry people, and more people who feel that [whoever died] got exactly what they deserved.

As far as "collateral damage" not bothering people, I think people in general are bothered just as much about the civilians being killed as they are about "troops" being killed: i.e. "Gee, what a shame...oooh, Millionaire's on!" The plain fact is, most people just don't really care about much of anything as long as their individual lives don't change. The plain fact is, everyone dies.

Gah. I'm awfully cheerful today.

Americans are systematically taught to hate all arabic people by the awful corporate media. Whenever images of Arabs (or Persians) are shown on the awful american media, they are shown on a horse shooting guns into the air..

I ask you this:

Don't these people ever do normal things like go to work and celebrate holidays? OF COURSE THEY DO, but typical americans (who are either unwilling or unable to question the images they are shown every day) are not allowed to see this.

This "war" on terrorism is just another extension of US foreign policy in a region (coincidentally I'm sure) that happens to have a lot of energy reserves. Bush talked about bombing Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11, that just gave him a "moral imperative" to do so. Let's see if we help them set up the pipeline Bush was hoping for before 9/11.

Bush keeps talking about how there is no set date when this war will end. I'm SURE the lesson learned by Bush Jr. from his father was that people forget about "glorious military victories" when the economy is in the toilet. And I'm sure Bush will drag out this war against middle eastern culture until RIGHT BEFORE the next presidential election cycle. Bush might be stupid, but even he (or someone truly smart like Colon Powell) is smart enough to give him that advice.

It's also interesting to see our administrations backpedal during these times. They spend years turning the arabs into the devil, and then when arab-american citizens suffer abuses in these times they like to pretend they never planted the original seed of hate.

It will be interesting to see how bad our economy gets before people start telling Bush to shut up already about this war. Interesting indeed.

Rich...

Hi Wil!

Well I just want to say that I agree with you. It has not necesary to kill all of those people if they had nothing to do. But as you can see these events, as tragic as they have been, have also helped all of those poor afgan women. They have found freedom. Now the most simple things we do on a regular day are the most exciting and trilling events afang women are living. Maybe this war has killed may inocent, but it has also saved may lives. I once read that the average life spand of a afgan women is 37 years!! that is very frigthning.

Another thing I will like to mention is that these event have not only afected the US but it's neighboring countries as well. I live in a border city with the US, and I have to cross to the US every day just to go to school!!. After the event of sep 11, inspection to cross the international bridge has been very intensive. In the past I used to make 40 min to cross now I have to wait more than 1:30. The consecuense of having so many cars on the crossing bridge for a great period of time has caused the death of 2 children. They died because the levels of carbon monoxide gas were to great!!. When I hear this I was devastaed!!

Now I just pray things like these don't happen again!!

Okay, after much consideration, I'm amending the front page.

Dang it, Wil, I'm going to start caching your pages somewhere so that people can see what it *used* to say before you changed entries. C'mon, add an addendum entry! :-)

Hey all, just a thought...

Everybody familiar with the whole controversy now about the statue being erected to commemorate the three NYPD officers who raised a flag at Ground Zero? (Three white officers being turned into a white officer, an African-American officer, and a Latino officer). Ok, call this a debatable attempt to inculcate further interracial solidarity in the U.S. So, aside from the fact that it's being debated on grounds of historical accuracy, has anyone else noticed that racial issues (as far as they affect African-Americans and Latinos) have been put on a "back-burner" so to speak, at least in terms of the media and current politics?
Everybody's got the new enemy now, and the problem is making sure we don't associate those in our homeland who may look to us like him with him.
The point I'm trying to make (badly, I might add) is that it is human nature to need someone (or several someones) by which to define one's own group/society. Look at any history book or evolutionary biology book to see that. Everyone in the U.S. now has a common enemy, so we are no longer dividing ourselves out of lack thereof. This might seem obvious to most of you, but what I'm getting at is that the "innocents" who are dying in Afghanistan are no more or less "innocent" than anybody else. Lots of countries have very legitimate reasons for considering the U.S. as the enemy by which they define themselves as a group, and had little problem doing so before Sept. 11. And just because the Taliban didn't directly set into motion the attacks, didn't mean that they didn't help to cause them. And btw, just because we've driven the Taliban out doesn't mean that the Afghans will be free. After all, look at what happened after we helped drive the Russians out.
This is just a drawn out way of me saying that most adults aren't innocent. They may be innocent of actions, but not of beliefs. And maybe beliefs shouldn't get you killed, but then neither should complacency, and look where that's gotten us.

It seems to me that war wasn't formally declared by Congress because then -- perish the thought!! -- the pros and cons of doing so would actually have to be discussed in a public forum! (by people elected on a much more generous margin than our President, too... but I'm getting off topic here).

I think there are 2 reasons (aside from accessible, public debate) behind not declaring war:

First, it seems that if we did so, then actual conventions of war would have to be followed (e.g. Geneva etc.) This, in particular, is a sticking point for the many who are calling the Guantanamo detention camp "inhumane." While I disagree with the assertion that there are human rights violations going on there, how anybody can call the detainees there anything other than Prisoners of War boggles my mind.

Second, if you follow the Dubya rhetoric, war was "declared on us" so retaliating is par for the course. Ergo, we don't "need" to make a formal war declaration.

The question you pose, Wil, is logical and one that I had hoped would be discussed more extensively in the media here. Unfortunately it seems to have been overlooked. And I belive it is perfectly defensible to question the actions of our (so-called) leaders while at the same time being patriotic - supportive of our armed forces - and sympathetic toward the victims of 9.11.

I dare anyone who is not bothered by "collateral damage" in Afghanistan to read Howard Zinn's article, "The Others," in the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020211&s=zinn

Wil, I like your wording, and the examples you used. It's exactly the way I'm thinking about this 'collateral damage' issue.

Chris, you mean like what happened the Christians in the Roman Empire and the Jews in the Middle-Ages? Very interesting idea indeed.

Although I don't get that "people are less innocent" part, do you mean that members of one group tend to think that people of another group are "lesser" and therefore "less innocent"?

Like the Romans who thought that the Christians were cannibals and used that as a justication for prosecuting them?

Also voting for addendum entry. That way the rest of us who took exception to what you wrote won't look like we're making stuff up and putting words in your mouth :):)

Then again, we can just have free rein to misquote you horribly, then just say that you changed what you originally said ;)

That'll teach me for not using the preview function.

For some reason, I feel a need to point out that the US is billed as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Whether you believe that this is the case with the US today, a lot of The People really, really wanted BLOOD after 9/11. I mean a LOT of really Vocal People. Even some people who later, after calming down a bit, thought, "Hrm, maybe I ought to slow down a bit and not just start yelling Nuke the Mideast after all," people who ordinarily would consider themselves quite humanitarian, turned a bit bloodthirsty after 9/11.

Lots of very vocal people still want blood, and it's hard to blame them, especially those who've lost families. It is a bit of a vicious circle, though, in a live by the sword, die by the sword, reap what you sow sort of sense, though.

Why, oh, why can't I stop posting to this discussion??? :-)

P.S. And if we can't cache the pre-change page, can I post the "diff" in the comments? :-)

It's 1:34 AM here.. Damn you Wil, for starting interesting discussions and depriving me of my precious sleep :)

Sadly, It is human nature to create such horrors.
I wish that the Good could prevail every time - but that's not reality. My greatest fear is this - That such conflicts will result in a nuclear war - thus ending all life on this earth.

Violence begats violence. But that's an easy thing to say sitting here in my cozy office.

We have no control over others, only ourselves and our children, and that is for what, 30 seconds at a time? :) We MUST teach our children to be kind to everyone regardless of their faith, colour, nationality etc.

This whole thing is bigger than you and I and we all need to take care of each other and be kind.

-nicole

Zorya:
Re: "more or less innocent"

I guess what I just meant by that was that "innocent" is such a strong word to bandy about without clarification. By the time a person becomes an adult -- especially in a very religious society -- a person has become so much a product of his or her own environment and culture (I'm dancing now around the point of cultural relativism, which is more complicated than I'm willing to grapple with right now) that using a term like"innocent" amid a conversation of politico/religio/cultural enemies and actions resulting from that animosity is IMHO too simplistic. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but NONE of Us or of Them (ooh, the Floydian undertones) can POSSIBLY be termed innocent in this cultural clash. I mean, come on. Babies are innocent. Most lower forms of life are innocent. Neither we nor they are innocent, even if through a process of subtle or not-so-subtle brainwashing.

Hi Wil,

It's so hard to know where to stand on this issue. On the one hand, I agree that killing innocent civilians is wrong. But as so many people have pointed out, our civilians *were* the targets, while theirs just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't believe in an eye for an eye, but something has to be done so that they cannot have another chance for a massive strike such as sept 11th. I find it hard to believe that our military is having such a difficult time locating Bin Laden. I sincerely hope that Bush doesn't drag this out, just to keep his rating high. And, for the record, it is possible to support the military and Bush's actions against Afghanistan, without actually thinking he's a good president. I would give my support to whomever had won the election through this, because this is a time when we need unity, but I think that Bush has ruined the economy, and will do his best to ruin the environment,, as long as Big Business benefits. Let's face it, he is their president, not ours. Sorry, I know that was a little off topic, but my rantings tend to get the best of me!! ;)

Actually, Nicole, what I think we need is to be found by a race of aliens so we can just transfer all our hate and mistrust onto them. Only then can there be world peace. That, or we just genetically engineer that need for the outsider out of our basic chemistry. Thanks Wil for putting me into Doom&Gloom mode. ;)

Wil,

Firstly, thankyou for being brave enough to post your feelings on your site. The government, media, and propoganda could and probably will slate you for it.

I am English, and since 9/11 our 'government' has declared our country to be US best friend in this issue. The media has identified what happened in fine detail, they have identified who did it, in fact the full when,where,who,how, but interestingly not WHY ?

Having travelled extensively in the middle/far east, I'm afraid I have some bad news for some of the advocates of truth, justice and the American way. The US is not just disliked in these countries, they are absolutely hated. Why ? Well, try Korea - Vietnam - Iraq - Iran - Palestine - Somalia - El Salvador - Nicaragua - need I go on !
The 'third world' views the US as bully boys who wander around the world imposing themselves upon any country they decide they have an issue with, strip that country of it's wealth and live the life of luxury in the US. Take from the poor and give to the rich. Osama Bin Laden is not the root of 9/11, he is just a symptom and focus of what a lot of the world think.
Was Bin Laden a terrorist when he was blowing up Russian tanks in the 1980's. No - he was a freedom fighter then. Believe this - in the muslim world Mr Bin Laden is a hero ! That is not a joke - children in muslim countries have posters of this man on their bedroom wall.
The answer the American government has produced for 9/11 has absolutely not helped the situation either. What happened on that day was dispicable in the extreme, and my thoughts and sympathies are entirely with the family and friends of the victims of that attack. The answer however is not to go and blow the fuck out of a weak defenceless country. Mr Bin Laden is a billionaire. Do you really think a man with his resources is going to stay in Afghanistan.
This is a terrifying demonstration by the US that if someone hurts them, the consequences will be devastating. While the people of the US may sit at home thinking they won't try that again, the truth is that the actions of the US have made these countries/organisations even more determined to exact revenge on the US. Violence begets violence.
There are two scenes I have seen on the TV that just about sum up the current situation.
The first is of an Iraqi mother who had a newspaper which we were told was reporting the recent US increase in military spending of nearly $50 billion. The mother was using the newspaper to wrap her baby in to keep it warm.

The second is the sight of the Pakistan president welcoming the US military advisors to his country while outside the civilians are rioting and demonstrating against the US attack on Afghanistan. Why wasn't that countries leaders heeding the obvious message his populous was portraying. Fear ?

Here in Europe more and more people are questioning the actions and motives of the US government. This is the nightmare apocalypse we all feared in the 70's , 80's. The peoples of the third world are hungry, humiliated, and angry. They have nothing to lose. Yes some of those countries do have weapons of Mass Destruction, and why the hell shouldn't they, lets not forget that there is only one country in the world that has used atomic weapons in anger, perhaps that country should be the state banned from having these terrible weapons.
This is a war no side can win. Unless the US proposes to annihilate all the muslim countries in the world. So, what is the answer?
How about instead of increasing the Military budget by $50 billion, spending that money on paying off some of the third world debt. How about the US ceasing to provide enormous military backup to rebel groups they want to install as 'puppet governments' in foreign countries ?
How about stopping multinational organisations from exploiting the workers in foreign countries ?
How about the US using its enormous wealth and power in a benevolent fashion helping to solve some of the problems in developing countries, instead of building up a military arsenal to threaten the world with.
Perhaps then the rest of the world might see America with smiling eyes. But then perhaps that isn't on the Whitehouse agenda.
Be afraid, a storm is coming, and those who live by the sword .......

Chris: Yep. Gotta have someone to hate, after all. I think it's human nature. One of my favorite quotes on that topic is actually from Disney's Beauty and the Beast:

"We must kill what we don't understand because it scares us."

Big ugly green aliens with slime would be my choice. :-)

Ladies, Gentlemen, Those who aren't sure....

I've been reading the above notes, and although I agree that it's an important distinction that the terrorists were targetting the people in the World Trade Center, and the US military is not specifically targetting Afghan civilians, I don't know that the distinction does much to absolve the guilt of killing hundreds or thousands of civilians for the purpose of trying to kill a group of terrorists.

For those of you who were reading Mr. Wheaton's (SIR!) page just after the destruction of the World Trade Center, you're already quite familiar with my views on the whole "war against terrorism." For the newer monkeys, it's unfortunate that the old comments sections were lost in the WW.N "dark ages," because a lot of people made a lot of valid points. Although the vast majority of people in the country seemed to support the war unconditionally at that point in time, the people here seemed to realize what would happen when trying to use bombs to target single individuals in a populated area.

Even now, a lot of things said here date back to that discussion. My "sheep" and "cattle" comments, the occasional mention of supporting the military but thinking the government is misguided, the discussion on whether or not it's right to support the government now, and the short tangent re: patriotism, for example.

If it's at all possible, Mr. Wheaton (SIR!), could You add links to a couple of those discussions for a few days, if the comments are recoverable? The general populace might find them interesting/enlightening not only from the standpoint of the present discussion, but also as an example of how well-behaved (almost) everyone was, despite how emotion-charged the discussion was at the time....

JSc

Wil,

I very much agree with your comments and always enjoy reading them (even when I don't agree - which is rare). I do think though that someone should point out something that seems to be being overlooked in all this. And that is:

We're the fucking idiots who put the Taliban in power in the first place!

http://www.wilwheaton.net/greymatter/archives/greymatter.php is the index

http://www.wilwheaton.net/greymatter/archives/00000041.php is the first post that I made about it, entitled "The World Has Turned"

Now, you can read them, but if you try to add comments, the window will spin and die, so I wouldn't suggest trying to make any comments there. You *could* make some here, with a link to the old discussion, if you really wanted to.

And I think it bears repeating once again, because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding: I grieve deeply for the victims of 9/11, and their surviving families, and my thoughts and questions about the action currently being taken by the US government is not meant, in any way, to minimize or marginalize, or dishonor their memory, or the memories of the valiant firemen and others who lost their lives trying to save them.

of course the victims were targets themselves. anytime someone is killed intentionally they are a target. they were targets, capitalism was a target, we were targets, western ideals were targets. everything, hence the term "terrorists."
and other countries will always hate us. always! that's just how it is. i don't think we should conform to please every country that hates us. especially ones that supports actions against us like 9-11. and don't tell me that any gov't in the mid-east was "sorry" for the victims. i don't care how much money they donated to "save face", it was their back-handed sympathy that stood out to me.

I think there's something else that needs to be considered here. Yes, we bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, and killed civilians in the process. What would have happened if we didn't? I believe that over the course of, say, a year since the US bombing started, FEWER civilians will had died in Afghanistan than if we didn't do it. I can't back this up, and there's really no way to know for sure, but now the government there isn't (as) oppressive, (much more) humanitarian aid can get into the country, and I believe over all the bombing saved civilian lives. I'm not saying this is justification for doing it, just an interesting point to consider.

Quote from Brian Gerard:

What a total bunch of bullshit. I am sick of you radical left winged assholes bitch about innocent civilians dying. Thousands died September 11th and you bitch and moan about shit that dosn't even compare to the attrocities that happened on Sept 11th, and you offer no fucking solution. What were we supposed to do after Sept 11th, jam our thumbs up our asses and watch a Star Trek TNG marthon on the Sci Fi Channel while Bin Laden plots to blow our asses up again? Its thinking like yours that let Hitler take over half of Europe in World War 2. If we didn't do anything then, you'd be speaking German right now.

***

Hmmm, and I suppose that all the German people who blindly supported Hitler without questioning him had nothing to do with his success. Question away, Wil - it's people that freak out the second anyone dares question the government that scare the sh*t out of me...like we're all supposed to sit there quietly and let GWB and company use this "war" to justify attacking any country we want (i.e., the oh-so-well thought out "axis of evil"). Sounds a hell of a lot closer to Nazi Germany to me...but what do I know, since I refuse to believe that American casualities are supposed to be more horrifying simply because they're American. We certainly didn't care about anyone else's terrorist-related "atrocities" until it happened to us.

Flame away, people - I had my daily dose of asbestos with my cereal.

Chris, very interesting point.

If I understand you correctly, you were talking about (I'm generalizing a bit, but I don't know the exact name for it) 'cultural backgrounds' (education, culture, religion & the role religion plays in one's life, how one's raised etc?) -> and the effect it has on the way one thinks about all this. And since no one, except for very young children/babies, isn't affected by this, no one's innocent?

That's very interesting indeed. But a bit too hard for me to discuss now, since my brain is gone at the moment - I'm practically sleeping at this point. You should make a topic at the soapbox, maybe we could discuss about it when I'm awake :)

What Mark says is true, about how the world sees the USA as a big bully. I'm not saying that it's *true*, but a lot of countries look at it like that.

Attacking Afghanistan was the only way to take away Al-Queada's ability to attack America. At least temporarily.
It is the president's job to prevent attacks on American people. If bombing Afghanistan to disrupt the terrorist's plans to continue to attack our country killed a few innocents, well that can't be helped.
What happened on 9/11 was only a taster. Did you not see their training camps? They have thousands of terrorists in training to launch similar and much worse attacks. Maps of U.S. nuclear power plants and water reservoirs were found in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. That gives us an indication of what kind of condition the U.S. would be in now if Bush had not sent in the military.

The terrorists could and would and maybe someday will crash a plane into a nuclear power plant. Millions would die.

Wil, ask yourself how many Nuclear power stations are in California.
Ask yourself how safe your dronking water will be tomorrow. There are countless ways the terrorists can attack us.

Bush has to do everything in his power to stop that. He was elected to protect the American people and even though all lives are equal, his priorties have to lie with the protection of us.

Don't underestimate the dangers we are in.
I'm glad he doesn't.

No-one (except Al-Queda) likes to see innocent people killed anywhere but given the choice, I'd rather not see terrorists having a field day crashing our planes into New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, my house, your house, childrens' schools, packed sports stadium, power stations etc....

Hm....

Having reread Mr. Wheaton's (SIR!) initial post (on the main page), I have to bring up one point that even He seems to be forgetting at the moment.

The "war on terrorism" is supposedly a war on **TERRORISTS**, not a war between nations. As such, the idea of national borders ceases to have any meaning, and it is misguided to think in terms of a "war between nations" when considering a war against terrorism. The traditional ideas regarding war become irrelevant and, in fact, dangerous to the US just as much as to other nations. The terrorists, on the other hand, profit immeasurably if the US and allies continue to use traditional tactics against the terrorists.

Consider.... Terrorist group "A" are hiding within some city. For convenience, we'll say it's Kandahar. The US government says, "hey! We can kill them all by dropping lots and lots of bombs!" So they do that, and kill (for convenience) 10% of the terrorists in their first assault. At the same time, a huge number of civilians have their homes destroyed, and family members maimed, crippled, or killed in the bombing because the terrorists were smart enough to hide within a city.

So what happens. Will these civilians who just got crapped on by america be happy, and say "Well, I lost Mom and Dad and little Timmy can't walk anymore, but at least they killed some terrorists!" or will the civilians say "What the hell are the americans thinking? I'm no terrorist! Why are they bombing my city?"

Me, I'd lean toward the second as far more likely than the first. And what will the average civilian do? Probably cry over their losses, complain about america, and go on with life. Then again, there is a small percentage who will be so enraged at the attack that they will join the terrorists against america.

End result? Maybe a few less terrorists. A lot of pissed off civilians. Destroyed homes. Far more dead civilians than terrorists because the terrorists are such a tiny minority no matter where they go.

I often wonder why it's rarely mentioned that what the US is doing right now falls under the UN's definition of 'terrorism'...

For the innocent people who have died, I am sad for them. No matter that their nationality is.

Yes, many Afghans who have died, and they were not killed on purpose. But they were killed because our military is careless. We don't consider them to be human, but as second class citizens. How do I know this? The media reports protray the news of innocent casulties abroad so cold, so calm. You would almost think they were talking about toasters. Our society shrugs it off. Underneath all the political correctness, we consider Afghans citizens to have a "secondary responsability" because we were attacked by "their people". We forget they were victims, victims no one cared to know about before 9/11. You never hear any talk of how to prevent innocent casulties from happening in the future, never any talk about learning from our mistakes. It's an outrage to me.

Did not mistake my sympathy to be apathy for Americans. My mother works in the Pentagon. If the pilot of that plane decided to hit the side to the right, she would have been a dead woman.

I care for all people. I do not fall for the extreme nationalism bullshit that makes Americans better than others. One world, one human race.

"I care for all people. I do not fall for the extreme nationalism bullshit that makes Americans better than others. One world, one human race."

If only more people thought like this...

hi wil,

i love that you speak your mind so fearlessly. i am so sick of watching celebrities having to make public apologies just for questioning u.s. foreign policy. probably because their publicist told them they had to appease the american need for revenge. the american victims of 9/11 got way more financial aid than the afghani victims. the difference between financial aid received by american and afghani victims is astrofuckingnomical.

i'm not a total pacifist or anything either, i mean, i'm a kick-boxer and wing chun fighter, so i'm no stranger to that lust for revenge, but for the love of god man, must we all become bloody, murdering, savages?

i wonder if this will be enough for people to finally turn to more feminist/socialist politics.

how many more people have to die?

a concerned canadian

peace out
j-la

your right wil they shouldn't be killing those innocent people!! hopfuly this all will end soon......

"The media reports protray the news of innocent casulties abroad so cold, so calm. You would almost think they were talking about toasters. Our society shrugs it off. "
_This is not a flame._ I just feel the need to remind us of the Iraqi populace video'd revelling in the streets at the news of the Towers' crash. EVEN IF they didn't know the extent of the catastrophe, they were cheering at the loss of American lives.
BOTTOM LINE: People are not as concerned about deaths occurring in an enemy country - regardless of whether they are "innocent" - as they are about deaths of people who are considered friendly. It's basic Tit for Tat.

"We forget they were victims, victims no one cared to know about before 9/11."

Too true. It infuriates me to see Bush and co. acting like the great liberators, especially when they take credit for helping the women of Afghanistan. Before 9/11, they could not care less about what the Taliban were doing to women. Now they're patting themselves on the back as if they acted not only out of revenge but out of a deep-seated desire to unseat an immoral regime. So many people were concerned about the Taliban before 9/11, but no one in the government (this Administration or the last, to be fair) deemed it important enough then to pay attention. If not for 9/11, the Taliban would still be in power and we'd still be making back-door deals with them. Such hypocrisy.

Chris-

This isn't a flame, either :)

Remember when the Lakers won the NBA championship, a couple of years ago? A bunch of idiots decided to set some cars on fire, and act like jerks.

If you watched the news here, and weren't familiar with the geography of LA, you'd think that the whole city was going up in flames, and everyone was out of their mind.

I live just 20 minutes from downtown, and my whole neighborhood was completely quiet, except for the tinny sound of Britney Spears coming out of a neighbor's radio a few houses away.

Would it be accurate to say that all Laker fans were idiots who set things on fire? Yes, if you'd only seen that news footage of the 5 blocks around the Staples Center.

See what I'm going for, here?

and one more thing to think about...Bush and Co would LOVE to march into Baghad (sic?), and finish daddy's war...and didn't that footage of Iraqi's dancing and singing make everyone's blood boil?

Enough to say, "Let's turn Iraq to glass, when we're done with Afghanistan?"

Totally not a flame, but just something to think about.

I sympathise with you Wil that there are civilians dying in this war (and yes, even though there is no declaration, this IS a war), but I don't see how we can design a bomb that is compact, yet deadly enough to kill a single person. I also realize that there have been a few mistaken bombings in this conflict. The errors of computer guidance systems are inevidable. No computer is perfect, it only does what it is told. My point is, I'd like to hear what you think about how they could develop a weapon that could deliver its payload on a target without during minimal damage on a surrounding area.

F*%$ You, I won't do what'cha told me!!!

MEDIA PROPOGANDA MY ASS!! The American media can report about the US president getting blow jobs in the oval office, about the the bush twins using fakes to get drunk, they can report on any damn thing they want. You people that claim that the INDEPENDANT MEDIA is full of propoganda are full of horse shit. They have a freedom of speech and exercise it, and openly criticize our government, as opposed to STATE CENSORED MEDIA, like in China, Iraq, Iran, and many other countries. If you left winged conspiracy theorists actually fucking believe that horse shit, then maybe you are watching too much Al Jazeera thinking that 9/11 was orchestrated by Jews and that Israel runs the US. You people who say this about the media need a serious wake up call.

Brian S Gerrard
-middle winged average joe american that can make up his own damn mind about shit due to facts and not what some ideological social group tells them what to think, like radical left and radical right winged assholes

"The first casualty of war is truth"

Hey Wil...

I think I'm pretty much on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you. I'd like to share with you this fact: most military members feel the same way you do about the killing of innocents. Even those killed accidently by US forces. Find a soldier or pilot who has accidently killed civilians, and I will show you a man who has probably had some long talks with the chaplain since then. Very much like a police officer who accidently hits a bystander during a shootout with armed felons. Perhaps we differ on what should be done to prevent these tragic deaths (i.e, we think training and better equipment and intelligence; you may think just stay home and play it safe,) but that's a different subject. You're OK, my man.

And another thing: the term "collateral damage" is NOT used by the military to describe the deaths of innocent civilians. I think that term is bandied about by the liberal press to make the military appear heartless. Collateral damage is generally considered good, like dropping a bomb on a hangar and getting the nearby fuel farm to blow up also. Killing innocent civilians is never good and never "acceptable."

I have this thought to add to this topic: a lot of people here are pointing out that the people in WTC, the Pentagon, and the hijacked aircraft were the targets. Were. As in past-tense.

Wrong. We are STILL the targets. And this is not a war of nations. This is a war of ideologies. And we are still in grave danger.

Forget it at your own risk.

Oh, and Karol reminded me: nice Rage allusion. I also liked the line in Bulls on Parade about "that five sided fistagon." And "...they don't have to burn the books, they just remove 'em." Great music. But they don't know jack about the military.

Wil, I just wanted to say that I totally agree with you. I wish there was some way out there to support the military and not the "war on terrorism." All of these deaths of innocent people has been my major disagreeance since Day One, and I think you really covered everything that I didn't have the words to express.

>
That is sooo true. I think that Bush and the media and everyone are twisting our minds so that there's no room for sympathty for ANYONE in Afghanistan, and that's not right. Don't get me wrong, I think that what happened on 9-11 is horrible and terrible and an absolute nightmare, but I think Bush is over-exaggerating what we have to do to "get revenge." And that's all that it is -- revenge. We're bombing them because they don't like us, and they are letting us know. And this whole "no negotiations" thing is a load of BS. if these people were willing to negotiate, that means they were willing to give up and stop the deaths. But some big-headed W. decided to be big and mighty and respond with bombs.

I'm never offended by any of your thoughts/posts -- I find them thought-provoking and almost exactly how I feel. (I find it a little "scary" that a 15-year-old girl like myself thinks so much like Wil Wheaton, though....) My comments, however, may offend some people, and I'm sorry.

What disturbs me about all this is our countrys lack of respect for people outside the country. Do you know that thru NATO that there is an anti-missle aggreement that the US can blow up Nucular missles over Canada before they get to the US. the US government is too much a bully and the people of the US have to suffer. And it doesn't help that the media is in the governments pocket. I look at the information being given with the US patriotic slant and I just want to scream. I whatch the BBC news to get any kind of clear "tell it like it is" objective news. You think that the people of the US have control of our government, but it is really scarey how much we don't. We don't elect a president every four years ....we elect a King. The congressmen and Senitors are Lords and Dukes. I am so tired of seeing everything the US does as some kind of show production.

-I know this will probably get a lot of strange feedback if any one reads this part but,It unfortuanatly needs to be realized. Now over there in their world all the Taliban and those types I can't even begin to name the types- Afganistan and such they beleive what "there" Government tells them. Just like now they are thankfull that they have music back and t.v.yet there are those small remote areas that don't get the news and are still unfortunatly ruled over and guarded by Terrorists. These small villages of people who have to live in fear and are fed lies that make them want to turn and shoot every amarican the minute they get a gun in their hands because we have it so much better over here.I know that this can't hardly be considered as far as how my point gets across but in the movie "Three Kings"- Marc Walberg, George Clooney they are at a point were Marc W. Charactor gets captured and the Saudi man keeps assuming that "Marc" is from Arizona that were he lives everything is just fine for him- he then goes to tell "marc" about how his little child was killed in her sleep after a bombing causes the roof to collaps and cave in on the child's crib crushing him/her while sleeping- that's it the child is dead- the bombing he blamed the american's and for that he was going to not just die but suffer.
-Now while the fact remains that 9/11 wtc,pentagon and the other flight all of them people died- and people are quickly forgeting that already that some died slow and in pain the crews of those on the plains were cut w/razors and stabbed.
-the people in the buildings for so many of them that is their tomb! It is one huge Crime Scene! that No, errecting a statue is not enough but for some of us will have to do in the American Effort to show we haven't given up.To show our spirit hasn't broken.
....Yes war sucks
....Yes death sucks
....but life goes on and continues.The sun rises and sets, my children will grow and how I teach them to understand "and hopefully they will" will affect tomorrow.i don't understand War, nor do condone it/dissapprove of it. But it's been around since before my time, people spilling Valuable blood for their beleifs all in the name of their (deity).We could cut off the hands of theives and terrists so then we will know who they are, just like they used to cut off the prick of rapists.Or We could find them brand them with a burn like cattle- to be pelted by rocks from passers by to be singled out.Then we are back in the dark ages and yet it seems we've learned nothing.One of the first things said after the bombings by a reporter who's name escapes me,"We are paying for things our Parents and Grandparents did in past wars-" So when are we going to start getting it right? We can only hope to live a world "the utopia" but at the rate we are going it's not going to happen in this life time- I don't always have to perfect thing to say and I often have foot in mouth syndrome,
but how are we suppose to make it better?

to climb the walls over thousands of innocent afgani civillian casualties today, months after the first US bombing is missing a very obvious point: THE US HAS BEEN BOMBING AFGANISTAN FOR MONTHS. it amazes me when people act so shocked that innocents are dying in a war, when that's exactly why war is so frickin bad. do you feel misled by the nature of "surgical " strikes that actually kill good people instead of bad people? would you feel better if 10 people died than 1000? why? why do those ten deserve to die any more than the thousand? as much as this and previous administrations (also led by a Bush...hmmm) like to flaunt the sophistication of the US arsenal's accurate weaponry, let there be no mistake that a bomb is a bomb, and bombing equals killing. if you have a beef, you should back-date it to the first day of US air strikes. to complain now, February 8, that bombs are killing people is like someone who voted for Nader complaining about Bush being president.

what I'm trying to say is "duh."

Wil,
This is NOT a flame. :):) In fact it's not even a cherry-tipped piece of cardboard which might, if struck on a rough surface, result in a flame.

Of course one must take whatever is shown on the media, be the media openly controlled by one's own government or only ideologically, with a healthy helping of salt. All things are either exaggerated for the sake of news or hushed up for the sake of politics. Sure. Granted. My point wasn't that everyone in the Middle East, or even Iraq popped open a bottle of champagne and sang Old Lang Syne to the memory of the two towers. My point was to illustrate that human nature dictates that we will view more favorably the death of a construed enemy -- especially one at great distance -- than that of an ally. WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that everyone in the middle east is an enemy (or that everyone in the Middle East sees every one of us as the enemy). This was, I believe, in response to the antiseptic nature of our media coverage of Afghan civilian deaths. But even if you don't buy that argument, should the media as an industry be expected to take a partisan position on military actions? IE, it's not as if they are saying "YAY! Another 500 Afghans have been annihilated in Kandahar! Don't you love it when the radar goes awry!!" Why would that be more inherently absurd than using the news of those deaths to undermine the nation's solidarity? Just a question. Not even sure what I think about it.
Pffffft!

Well, I've been silently following this discussion thread and decided it was time to say something.
To Daniel Kratz -- you presented your arguments well but this caught my eye, "If you want to survive, you have to defend yourself." It is simply impossible to defend yourself when you are half-starved, uneducated, impovrished,and repressed, when your home is being bombed.
And for people who would too quickly generalize about "The Enermy" (whom ever they may be), I can tell you that, as a person who has traveled in the third world and witnessed astounding poverty, people who are in a serious state of destitution often have little, if any, say in the government, even if it was elected "by" the people. People in impovrished states often know very little about their governments and its' policies, have little if any education, and hardly any knowledge of international affairs. Whatever they are told by their government is often the only knowledge they may have. If they are told America is Satan, well than, America is Satan. If getting rid of America will be a panacea, than America needs to be dealt away with. Poverty makes people very, very desperate.
And to Brian Gerrard -- yes, you see exactly what the media wants you to see, how they want you to see it and when they want you to see it.

Well, I'm off to hold hands, pray for world peace, and sing "combayah."
And on a more serious note, there is *nothing* more devestating than having a child beg you for food -- anything -- just one piece of bread, because they are so hungry... America is a terribly fortunate country and we are lucky to live here.
Kate H.

No Kate, you are wrong. The media does not report at all on what people want to hear. Like who really gives a shit about the people in guantanamo bay in cuba, if you look at current polls nobody gives a shit. nobody gave a shit about Clinton's hummer in the white house but that shit was all over the news. you are very misled.

I didn't know congress hadn't declared. Kinda odd. YOu know why the rest of the world hates us. Because we can't keep our asses out of things. But you also know the rest of the world wants us to help. Sometimes I think we are caught in a catch 22. You know Palastine wants us to mediate the stuff over there. But you know if we do we are going to get a huge back lash from everyone over there. So do we go or don't we go. I say we let everyone over there do whatever they are going to do. If that means killing each other so be it. We are hated cause we do too much. We aren't the police of the world. I know we care but sometimes its alright to care but stay out of it. This war on the other hand is different. We were attacked so I think we have a right to defend ourselves and feel safe. Innocent people dying sucks and that should never happen. But I think in war we can't be perfect which sucks too. So it's do you let them try to control the USA or do you defend yourself. Sucks big time. It really does. I just want to be safe and the men over seas fighting I am proud of. And hopefully they make this world not just the USA but this world a bit more safer. Ok thats my ramble.

Hi Wil,

I do have to agree with you, the killing of innocent Afghan civilians does make my stomach turn. But your post does have a decidedly Evil-American-Government tone to it. Unfortunately, "collateral damage," as the military calls it, is a fact of war. It happens. I'm not justifying it or condoning it, but unless we want to send our own military suicide bombers into Al-Qaeda's cave offices, this type of "collateral damage" is most likely going to occur.

Just think of it this way: You're an Air Force officer flying over Afghanistan in your plane when you see something that looks suspiciously like an Al-Qaeda secret meeting. They match the descriptions you have of some known terrorists, and your intel says that they had direct links to the 9-11 terrorists. But then again..you can't be SURE. They could just be local civilians. What do you do? It's an easy answer in the military, but it's not an easy answer for a human being, and even thought that pilot has to follow orders, that doesn't mean he or she isn't struggling internally with the ethics of the decision. With all this talk of having utmost respect for men and women in the military, there certainly seems to be a lot MORE talk implying that they are cold, heartless bastards willing to bomb anyone and anything. Let me just say that EVERYONE in the military grapples with their decisions, from the commander-in-Chief to the Chairman of the Joint Chief to the corporal who is forced to pull the trigger in what MIGHT be self defense. These are people, and yes, the military desensitizes you, but it doesn't make you inhuman. And by the way, the US hasn't fought a formally declared war since World War II.

Want to hear something REALLY sick? Two of my professors have repeatedly suggested that the real culprit for the 9-11 attacks was none other than George W. Bush, who engineered the hijackings in order to rally the public around him and bring legitimacy to his "skeptical" presidency. That's sick.

I give a sh**.
And I never said that the media reports on "what people want to hear."

Kate H.

And whoever referred to the USA as terrorists you just make me mad. If you want to live in fear so be it. I want to live in a safe world. Hopefully you get to enjoy that safety too. *sighs* Or lets all agree that we all are idiots and suck and are bitches to each other and all deserve to die and move on? Eh? Okay? Everyone happy?

No way Kat!! I would like omg. I am speechless at that. Frankly Bin Laden and the terrorists were a problem long before Bush came into office. The USS Cole. The first WTC bombing. The Embassies.(sp?) So you can tell your professors to shove their heads up their asses cause it already sounds like thats where they are.

Let's say 3,000 civilians died in Afghanistan from our bombs. But what if we were now able to save 30,000 through vaccinations and other aid that wasn't possible when the Taliban was in power?

Brian,
You are led like a blind sheep. the US should report on other things. the US media should talk about other stuff. How can the US people get a real world objective and imformed opinion of things?? the Afgan problem was going on well before 9/11 but nobody in the US saw it coming because the media made it low priority. Why should something have to happen to us for us to pay bloody well attention to us. We are a bunch of spoiled attention getting brats. Shame on us.

Wil,
I know what you're saying. I went through a lot of emotions after 9-11. First shock...then fear...then saddnes...and finally anger. Although I mourn the losses of fellow Americans and want vengence, I do not want to fight a war that cannot be won. There will always be nations that do not agree with our beliefs and way of life. Some in this country no not agree. We can't kill them all. Who will be next?

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who is and has been participating in this discussion.

This is not exactly a non-emotional issue, and I just wanted to commend everyone on their conduct, regardless of what opinion you hold on this subject.

I've been sitting here, hitting F5 for quite awhile, and each time there is a new comment, it causes me to think, and thinking is a good thing.

The diversity of opinions here is equalled only by the civility of the discourse.

Thank you, everyone. We honor the memories of the victims, by debating what the world will become, I think.

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

Dang. :/

What do us the people of the US want? personally? In general? What do we need??

What I responded. Refresh Wil Refresh. LOL!! We love you anyways no matter how much you annoy us. :)

I as a US citizen need a husband. No on a more serious level I think we need to know we are safe more than anything. Or at least need to know that we can be protected.

It is such bad Karma that we dish out. There never seems to be totally good in anybody nor total bad...such deep desturbing grey.

And it suddenly got quiet.

Wil, I actually posted this story on my own site when I ran across it earlier today. But my reaction to it was a lot different than yours.

Your position on this is VERY weak and narrow. While we may not like the concept of "collateral damage", it's just a fact.

We are over there in Afghanistan because the Afghan people are either unable or unwilling to solve the problem themselves. I have yet to get a straight answer on that question. I keep hearing Islam = Peace... but CNN says different. And we all remember the thousands of people dancing/cheering in the streets after Sept. 11.

In any war there will always be casulties and suffering. And there is usually a LOT more leading up to the war, which is the reason for the war.

You can cower in the corner and cry "peace" or get up and kick the crap out of the bad guys. No offense, but your attitude helps to empower the very evil we're fighting.

I'm sorry that there were innocent casulties, but who is to blame? The United States, the terrorists, or the terrorists and the lack of action on the part of the civilians?

You say, "I realize that, in war, civilian deaths are inevitable, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it, and I fear that there are people who will read this story, and it won't bother them a bit that a mother lost a son in our pursuit of the terrorists."

Duh, but should we sit around crying with the girls, and feeling sorry for ourselves? I mean come on. Be a man.

"Countless Iraqi civilians died during the Operation Desert Storm, simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time"

That is complete falsehood. You paint an image of a family tending the flowers in its garden when all of a sudden, from nowhere, a bomb drops and it turns into a scene from 'Platoon'. What a bunch of crap.

These innocent victims supported the Iraqi government. They put Saddam into power, and follow him. They volunteer to place their kids into terrorist camps. They willingly execute someone caught with a Bible, practicing homosexuality, or doing anything that is against the peaceful Islam.

Our servicemen die to protect us, and these *innocent* people, and it's our fault? Don't try and back out of the statement by saying you support the defenders of this country. If you really did then you would not have dedicated so much of your front page to this peacnic crap. You could have posted one of a million other stories out there talking about what they are doing, but you chose to speak on this instead.

Wil, I think it's great that you're trying to releive suffering, but all you're doing is prolonging it.

Some of the anger that come out of people scares me but also it makes me proud to know they care so much. ROCK ON PEOPLES!!

I live in Los Angeles. I take cabs often. The day before yesterday, my cabdriver happened to be Afghani. His name was Takaa. He told me that 32 members of his family were wiped out last month by an American bomb. 32 members of his family. His two uncles, their wives, and all of their children. One bomb. How many Takaas do you think there are in Afghanistan?

I posted somewhere and I know its sorta of crappy but we are all mean and bitches and jerks and all deserve to die. So move on. And shit happens. It sucks but it happens. But BUT! At least we aren't killing because we just feel like that they should be wiped out. If you think we are then you are saddly mistaken.

"Our servicemen die to protect us, and these *innocent* people, and it's our fault? Don't try and back out of the statement by saying you support the defenders of this country. If you really did then you would not have dedicated so much of your front page to this peacnic crap. "

Andrew, that's unfair. One of the best things about having a government that at least parades around like a democracy is that of questioning its decisions without fear of being shot. There's no conflict between a person supporting those pursuing the policies of the government while questioning the wisdom of the policy. And it certainly doesn't bespeak a lack of manhood. To NOT be ambivalent on an issue like this is to oversimplify the ramifications of EVERYONE'S actions.

DaleJr.
Than why are we starting war type of threats to those other countrys?? They have not attacked us...there is only thought that they will do something to us.

A series of commentaries on Afghanistan if anyone wants to do some reading.
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/columnists/whitneyazoy.html

I just wonder at what point we become the evil we're fighting against. And while I can't speak for any service men or women, our government certainly isn't over there to protect innocent people - it's been said a million times already tonight, we didn't give a shit what happened to the people in Afghanistan until Sept. 11 - we're over there for revenge and to make sure no one attacks us again, not to try and help the Afghani's who have been suffering under the Taliban's regime. As for the "innocent" people, (and I know someone said this earlier, but I don't want to wade through the old posts to credit them - just know it's not my original idea), no adult human is truly innocent. That doesn't mean that killing them to serve our own ends is justified, regardless of what they've done in the name of Islam. I'm sure there were some racists or gay bashers that died in the WTC attacks that used Christianity to justify their actions - does this mean they were any more deserving a target of the terrorists than anyone else that died that day? We're not bombing Afghanistan (or Iraq, before) because they executed Christians or gays in the name of Islam - we're doing it for our own reasons, and they don't have anything to do with Afghani civilians. In other words, we're not seeking justice for anyone but ourselves. Regardless of whether or not you support the government's stance in this "war", at least be honest about our reasons for being in it, instead of trying to make this out to be the US taking on terrorism and the Taliban to help everyone else out. As a nation, we only care about ourselves and our interests. Period.

I agree with Chris. I appreciate all that the armed forces for protecting and fighting for us. Maybe I'm selfish. My brother is a marine. I'd much rather have him home right now. I worry for his safety, but I know he doing what he thinks is right. We have to agree to disagree.

This country didn't attack us but the terrorists that did are there and they were warned. Remember we told them all you have to do is hand them over and we won't do anything hell we even delayed the date to start bombing to give them the option to turn the terrorists over to us but they refused and we acted. If they didn't want us to bomb them they should have turned the people they were harboring over. Plain and simple they didn't do as we asked and we acted.

And Iraq is just something that should have been dealt with a long time ago. I believe also he said he would do something not that we just think.

After reading all that is here, and thinking it over, I'd figure I'd put my opinion in. it's a bit long, so please bear with me.

First, I grieve deeply. For the lost way of (my) life, for those lives lost here and abroad, for a number of things. I happened to be uncomfortably close to the Trade Center when it collapsed. Secondly, I'm about as Anti-war as one could get. The rant in the URL should prove it. Frankly, I don't care if it's not formally declared. When we drop bombs on targets and cause 'collateral damage', it's war, no matter what we say it is. Vietnam was a war, dammit.

I realize that the trade centre was an intentional target. The terrorists have tried this before? Remember 1993?? That should have woken up the government then. But no one paid attention, and here we are now.

Terrorism is unlike any 'traditional' form of war that history has seen. Pardon my trip down history lane here, but I'll keep it short:

In the Renaissance, it was people on horseback, and guys wielding spiky clubs, axes, etc. in the Revolutionary times, it was a bunch of guys wearing colorful clothing lined up in a row shooting muskets at each other. The Colonists was called uncouth because we broke that mold of 'traditional' and use guerilla tactics. The Brits were stunned. How could these heathens go running around, hiding in the brush, and shoot down people?

Terrorism is war on civilians in an attempt to force the attacked country to recognize the group's sovereignty/ cause/ point/ demands. Except that the 'cause' in this case is to get the US to stop meddling in the affairs of the world. In certain ways, I agree. We Americans do a lot of stupid things in the world and are hated for a variety of reasons that other have mentioned above. But if they looked around a bit, they'd also notice that Americans are also trying to do good. Can you not fault us for at least trying?

I just want to give a thought to everyone...Because what you read. There is alot of editorials on things but you got to remember what an editorial is...It is someone elses opinion/viewpoint.

Ah, didn't know what the URl in the commetns thing-y did.

Please direct flame to this addy.

yes Afganistan should have been dealt with along time ago but my problem is the US seems to get the big brother effect....even though there is the UN. The world should help and decide what to do about dangerous countrys or people not the soul desiion of the US. BTW the US hasn't paid its UN dues in a long long time.

1) I agree with you about 9/11.
2) Stop apologizing for your beliefs.

That's all...

Chris, you're right. You can support the servicemen while being against the men giving them orders. I did not mean it that way.

Wil threw in some words of *support* to the servicemen in an attempt to not appear totally anti-war (or anti-american)... but that's exactly what his news post relveals.

His post is an emotional reaction, and completely lacks thought. His lack of 'manhood' is not in questioning the policies of our government, it's in having an emotional anti-war reaction without using your head. It's a very weak-minded attitude.

Our efforts over there are intended to accomplish 3 main things.

1) Proect the U.S. from any further casulties. Our number one responsibility is to protect our own. If a million civilians have to die to accomplish that then so be it. Family first, charity later.

2) Seek out and punish those responsible for attacking us.

3) Liberate the innocents in Afghanistan and give them their country back. If these people truly are *innocent* then they should be damned thankful to have our help. The government that they empowered is responsible for all this. We'll see what they do with our charity.

Don't forget:

5) Prop up fake economy by giving assloads of money to war profiteers.

6) Build "Dick Cheney Memorial Oil Pipeline" right through downtown Kabul.

Wil:

I am glad you realized your error. It's a common one, so don't feel bad about it. You see, the problem with nations at war is that the wrong people almost ALWAYS die. Joe Taliban or the Al Queda members in Afghanistan didn't start this war, it was Osama Bin Laden. The responsibility for any war can ultimately be placed upon the heads of just a handful of men, usually the head of totalitarian governments or any system other than freely elected leaders.

Unfortunately, the people are often the victims on both sides of war. I wish I could give the President and Bin laden the handgun of their choice, place them ten meters apart, and let them blast away. However, it doesn't work that way. So, the United States has two options. Have defenses so strong that any attack will fail, or have sufficient retaliatory capability to make such a foolish attack so God-Awfully expensive that no one would ever try it again.

Remember, people are ultimately responsible for the type of government they have, even in dictatorships. It's a harsh truth, but that is the view from the cheap seats.

Wil, please keep writing what you do. I don't agree with a lot of the political stuff (at least the foreign policy stuff) you write, but I respect you for having the guts and the innate interest in the subject to post it.

(insert Deity Here) Bless Us, Everyone

Trevor Paul Pyle

oops.

4) Further ignore domestic social issues such as education in favor of short term poll gains which are always achieved when some incompetent goofus decides to get himself out of a popularity slump by bombing some underfed conscripts in the name of Mom and Apple Pie, Inc.

Andrew,
Ok, I'll bite.

Rebuttals mostly around.
1. "Proect the U.S. from any further casulties."
To believe that we can do this is sheer naivete. At best, military action can stamp out the seeds of the current militants while sowing the seeds of the next generation. We can NEVER protect ourselves from future casualties solely on the basis of armamaments. That is, unless we bomb THE REST OF THE WORLD. In which case, our country would inevitably dissolve into warring factions.

2. Ok, making a martyr of Bin Laden will satisfy our need for vengeance, but at what price?

3. "Liberate the innocents in Afghanistan and give them their country back. If these people truly are *innocent* then they should be damned thankful to have our help. The government that they empowered is responsible for all this."
Riiiiiight. If you think for one moment that any government we put back into power over there (ie, friendly to American interests) is "giving them their country back" you're wrong. Any sane Afghan would want to obliterate us after what we've done to their country. They were bad enough off before. They're worse now. Also, WE put the Taliban into power after we helped them shove out the Russians. Now that the dog has bitten two fingers off the hand that fed it, so to speak, we're to replace it with another dog and expect the pack to be grateful?
Apologies for the crudeness of the metaphors, all, I intend no white man's burden here.

I agree with you almost entirely, Wil. Except for this:

"If you're a serviceman or woman, I don't have a problem with you, or the choice you've made to defend our country."

Isn't that similar (not EQUAL TO, I said SIMILAR) to telling Nazi soldiers that you're okay with them, because they're just following orders?

No, no, I am NOT saying that U.S. servicepeoples are on the same boat as Nazi soldiers -- not at all. But saying you don't have a problem with these peoples' choice to "defend their country," when they obviously have no problem (or not a big enough problem for them to question what they're doing) with wiping out innocents?

Anyone else see this as a little strange?

Hey Trevor,
Bin Laden isn't some Satan wannabe. Nor is Bush. Both are products of the environment and history in which they live. The Middle East has been RIFE with people who would have waged war on the U.S. if they had the means by which to do so. Bin Laden happens to be the name of the millionaire who did it and Bush happens to be the name of the Pres. who's here during it. Sure, the extent might not have been the same were the variables changed -- it could possibly have been worse. [not that I am in ANY way diminishing what happened.]
Hey here's a question. Anyone have any hypotheses on what Gore would have done?

Andrew Davis,
I think that your view of will isn't well thought out and shows your lack of emotional sensitivity towards his differance of opinion to yours. I think Wil has plenty of manhood for being able express his thoughts and feelings on something with out a cockiness common to the testosterone driven typical male.

This might piss some people off, but I'm going to say it anyway...

Wil, you asked why the government hasn't officially declared this a war. I think it's because they are afraid we won't win. I think it's like the Vietnam war...we never offically declared it a war so we have an unblemished official record. We are 100% perfect.

Get it?

I relate to what you're saying, Wil. I don't agree with the war on an ethical level either, but at the same time, I feel like it HAS to be & is the only solution. It's only rational for our government to protect our country by dealing with terrorism first hand. I'm grateful to my country, my governtment & all of our service men & women that do everything they can to keep us safe. At the same time, I wish we could all keep some perspective & realize that it's not about wiping out a certain race or country & not about revenge or even "making things right". NOTHING can make right what happened to us. But we do need to deal with terrorism against America & the rest of the world. Amercica is the only country that can cope with it, & we will.

Now about your burning question: "...of course it's a war. But why hasn't it been formally declared?" Not that I'm an expert, but it seems rather obvious to me, the reason it hasn't been *technically* declared a war is because war in the conventional sense is waged against countries, not concepts. This war, however, is one against the concept of terrorism, not the Afghan people or any country. Without a tangible, quantifiable "target" or enemy, how can war ever really be declared?

Also, you cited the way the rest of the world holds a grudge against America. I feel, personally, that this has less to do with our foreign policy as is so commonly pointed out, & more to do with the simple fact that America is the most powerful nation in the world. That contempt & attention we get from other countries is nothing more than the price we pay for our status. Afterall, the terrorists of Afghanistan are convinced that we're evil & commited to their destruction, but if not for their attack on the World Trade Center, most of us would never hear or think about their country or their people. Think about it: we never gave them a passing thought, but they focused on us -- just because we're in the spotlight.

I know war sucks, but it's neccessary to supress evil in this world.

If the US had not gotten involved in WWII against Japan and Germany. Far worse things would've had happened.

If the US and Europe had decided not to fight back against evil, Germany would have won the world.

Germany would have killed every single Jew, Gypsy, blacks, homosexuals, disabled people and everything that the Arian Nation would have considered non-arian.

Germany would have created a total white population around the world. (especially his dream of a white world with blonde hair and blue eyes).

But we did get involved and we kicked evil in the ass and we won.

Germany had the biggest army in the world, Hitler had more soliders than any nation in the world, they had more tanks, planes, and all kinds of weapons of war.
They had the best ships (including the Bismark, which took hours for it to sink to the bottom, they had the biggest cannons in the world. One shot would've blown up one single ship out of the water.)

It was a miracle that we even won given the odds that was against us.

While the terrorists blew up two of our WTC buildings and nearly 3,000 lives was lost. We were not purposely bombing innocent civilians. Like all the wars in the past, innocent lives do get killed.

The Afgans got killed by bad bombs gone astray, it's unfortunant, but it happens. This isn't the first time that innocent lives died because of bombs landing in the wrong places.

But if we don't do something, more lives will be lost to terrorists.

So sitting back and give no response to the WTC bombing will not keep the terrorists from doing it again.

When Pearl Harbor has attacked by Japan, are you saying that our response by attacking Japan and eventually dropping the Atom Bomb twice was all wrong? Should we have just said, "Ok, we're lifting the sanctions against Japan so you can get your oil! We learned our lesson!" ???

Hey Wil, here's an idea.
Listen to what people in Afghanistan actually say about the bombing instead of what your liberal media says. Listen to Karzai (The new leader of Afghanistan) talk about people who lost loved ones (which is a tragedy and unfortunate, no doubt about it) but at the same time feel the joy that freedom brings. Afghans, unlike many other people, realize the price of freedom. Many people here in America take it for granted. Afghans do not.

Do you truly have any idea what freedom means to these people? I'd like to see how you would feel after living under the Taliban, who constantly killed Afghans, beat Afghan women, limited everything they could do, etc.
I am sure there were people in Afghanistan prepared to die so that their children would have freedom.
Would you give your life so your children could be free, Wil? Think about it.

About the handing over of the terrorists- the Taliban stated that they were willing to hand over Osama to a third party nation if they were presented with evidence proving that he was complicit in the attacks. The U.S. never did so, although it presented said evidence to all its allies, who were quite vocal in stating that it fingered Osama and Al Qaeda as planning the attacks. Why didn't the U.S. just give it to them? If they had and the Taliban had still refused, they would have further justification to attack, and if the Taliban gave up Osama, then problem solved.

re: declarations of war

The goverment of the u.s. has not historically declared war upon people or groups, only on nations. I suspect *THAT* is why congress has not declared war upon anyone.

Despite the spin that the government is attempting to put on the "war," I suspect that targetting a nation would probably cause far more foreign backlash than america is currently getting, because there is no way the terrorist attacks can solidly be blamed on any one nation.

Suppose the u.s. did try to pin the attacks on, say, Poland. There's no clear evidence that Poland supported the attacks, of course. If the u.s. attacks Poland because of the terrorist attacks, then, there is good cause for every other nation in the world to wonder when america would turn on them without specific provocation.

Note that this scenario is a "WHAT IF," not an indictment of Poland. Of course, Poland *IS* a historically militarily weak country.

Maybe america will target them next.

Re: Karzai and his statements

Hm. A ruler installed essentially by american diktat supports american actions.

Shocking

About the U.S. and Europe going to war with Germany and Japan for moral reasons- For one, I don't how it can be called a moral war, since the European powers that declared war on Germany did so because of treaty obligations with Poland, and the U.S. only entered the war after being attacked by Japan. Also, it's debatable whether the U.S. would have declared war on Germany, since the United States easily matched Germany in terms of industrial output and would have been at little risk of attack. Germany declared war on the U.S. in solidarity with Japan, a quite foolish move, especially since the military alliance signed with Japan only required them to defend Japan if attacked, not attack other countries simply because Japan had. As well, Germany's armed forces, although well trained and well led, had some defiencies- France actually had more and better tanks than the Germans, they simply deployed them ineffectually. As for the largest army, the Russians quickly surpassed the Germans in terms of size, greatly exceeding German estimates, and is quite likely that Russia could have defeated Germany on its own, albeit with much more bloodshed on both sides. This isn't to insult the contribution of the U.S. during World War 2, which was very substantial and helped bring about the collapse of three fascist governments, making the world a better place, I'm simply pointing out the war wasn't originally fought for moral reasons-towards the end of the war, military leaders were aware of the significance of the trains heading towards the death camps, but didn't divert military resources in order to disrupt the transport of the Jews to their doom, since they were concerned with defeating the Nazis.

this whole posts reminds me of the jab you took at George Bush about the Choice issue (playing the abortion card)

I dont remember any other posts about all the suffering