Yesterday's news was about 9 Afghani children who were dismembered accidentally by American military attacks. The fathers of the dead children ask "what kind of terrorists were these?"

Indeed...

I know. Imagine the guilt that father must be feeling. All those years we allowed the Taliban to rule us. All those years the Taliban supported Al Queda (sic). If only we hadn't been a nation that harbored villians capable of the 9/11/01 disaster. Then this ACCIDENT would have never happened. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I read about another such screwup today. A number of civilians dead, children among them.

@ The Great Snook

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone in Afganistan is going to blame this or any other problems that theyhave in the future on the Taliban's support of Al Qaeda.

As tradition dictates, the United States will be blamed for all of it.

Hell, "they" blame us for World War 1 and 2 - if you can believe it. :rolleyes:

The problem is that, as far as I can remember and with the possible exception of Chechenya, the american armed forces are the only ones who are involved in such "accidents". The chinese embasy in Belgrade, the civilian convoy in Kossovo, the Canadian troops in Afganistan, the wedding in Afganistan and the list goes on and on. Are they incompetent, cold blooded murderers, or just scared kids who are afraid of their own shadow and therefore they shoot everything that moves? The choice is yours.

With all due respect to my American brethren, the Afghans have every right to blame this particular tragedy on Americans. After all - our military did do it, right or wrong.

Tradition, sentiment, or politics have nothing to do with it. It's a fact. We just killed several innocent children. Please don't piss on their graves.

The Taliban or Al Quaida have nothing to do with the fact that even the most precise, well funded and well trained military in the world can f*ck up and hit the wrong target sometimes. Just ask Canada if we're capable of mistakes like this.

Are they incompetent, cold blooded murderers, or just scared kids who are afraid of their own shadow and therefore they shoot everything that moves?I would have to say neither in this case. It was an air attack, so it's not like they knew they were killing the kids.

Not that that really makes it any better; we'll have to wait for the investigation results to find out why it happened.

@Blackthorne TA

The question to ask is would they still have done it if they knew that the children were down there. Would this knowledge have detered them from their goals?

@ Jaguar

No doubt. Americans, like most civilized people, consider acts against the weak and young as the most depraved and evil.

There are very few societies which will consciously target children.

the american armed forces are the only ones who are involved in such "accidents".Quite true. Of course, America is usually the only nation doing the actual fighting. As a result, we will be responsible for the majority (if not all) civilians casualties.

But, in all, this was a horrible incident. Its certainly not the worst that has happened in that very chaotic part of the World, but still very unfortunate.

No doubt. Americans, like most civilized people, consider acts against the weak and young as the most depraved and evil.Dresden. Hiroshima. My Lai. Enough said.

@ Sojourner

War then is very different from war now. The techinology of the time was very "dumb" and civilian casualties were commonplace.

Look what happened to the people of Berlin?

The military made a decision - a rather unforunate one - that using the bomb would, in the end, save lives. All in all, we shouldn't have dropped it

BTW, did you know that the military did not understand the long term consequences of nuclear technology? American troops were killed while training with test nukes in Arizona.

Quite true. Of course, America is usually the only nation doing the actual fighting. As a result, we will be responsible for the majority (if not all) civilians casualties The Brits have participated in all the major military campaings or peacekeeping missions the last years and they were never responsible for such accidents. Many other nations have participated in such campaigns or missions and they have never caused such accidents. I don't know if you remember an incident in the last gulf war when an American A-10 attacked a british armored convoy. One of the british soldiers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926237,00.html) said that the A-10 was just 50 meters off the ground and that before he attacked he flown above the british convoy. The fact that the pilot could not see the difference between British Scimitars and Iraqi BMP-1s shows just two things, incompetence and lack of training.

Brits kill four Iraqi protestors. (http://www.oakridger.com/stories/062503/new_20030625019.html)
Gallipoli
Bombing of civilians in N. Ireland (http://www.michael.donegan.care4free.net/ireland_on_sunday121003.htm)

... I got bored of looking after I got this far. Let me just say it's stupid to say that Brits don't make military mistakes.

Well shoot, I was beaten to the punch. I was just going to say I randomly picked nations and started looking.

Pakistan killed 16 civilians in a hospital.

India killed 26 civilians, including a 6 year old girl by mistake.

France special forces accused of civilian deaths in Algeria - numbers disputed.

Germans kill civilians in the Balkans.

I stopped there. I think people notice the US' mistakes for a couple of reasons. 1) They want to notice them - the world press doesn't care nearly as much when Pakistan or whoever kills civilians. It isn't as "news worthy." 2) The other reason it seems like the US is involved in more accidents is, as noted above, because it is. I saw where Germany had ~60k abroad in 2002 according to one paper. For comparison, the US had 68,000 in Germany alone. More troops abroad equals more accidents. It seems like common sense to me.

The US Military is perhaps the best trained, best equipped in the history of the world. They perform missions that no other military could, using hardware no other military has. I am certain that the statistics are out there to support it, but I would be willing to bet that the number of civilian deaths per involved combatant is lower than in any other armed conflict.

The US goes out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties, even to the point of dictating a "rules of engagement" in Afganistan that actually puts our soldiers at greater risk. There were supposedly opportunities for us to get bin Laden, and the authorization to strike came too late because of concern about collateral damage.

At a personal level, if it had been my child who died as the result of a misdirected bomb, I would be hard pressed not to hate those who dropped it.

I heard of a documentary a while back. Apparrently (and this was in Afganistan as well I believ, allthough in an earlier conflict) Some US troops' tank had broken down, so they were waiting for the repair crew to get back to them. Sometime later an envoy of US troops came upon them, all standing outside their tank, and immediately opened fire, most were killed before it was realised they too were American. The Government ordered everyone involved to tell the families of the dead soldiers, and everyone else, a fictiotious story that they were shot by 'terrorists' or something ridiculous similar, on penalty of court-martialing. Someone leaked it. The program was entitled 'Friendly Fire' I believe, and this was just one of the stories.

US trops also recently chain-gunned an Iraqi villiage at dawn, because some of the houses might have been harbouring 'terrorists' I believe someone here actually linked an article regarding it.

Now I've seen some footage of the troops, I know this must be taken with kilograms of salt, but it doesn't seem like the majority of the troops treat the others with much respect, indeed, they seem more than happy to shoot first and ask questions later. The Government has more than showed its contempt for civilian life, and such buildings are frequently bombed - now I'm not talking about the buildings in Iraq which have weapons installed upon them, but so-called 'missfires' with long-range missile attacks.

Now I'm certain a good deal care greatly about human life, I am in no way denying this. But perhaps it is the exception and not the rule. Please understand I am not portraying every soldier as a trigger-happy or cold-hearted murderer, I know this is not the case, but either some are, or those same are callously inept.

By no means am I trying to portray that no other nation is innocent of this. I live in a country which has been long used to being sent in as allied cannon-fodder. That seems to be our main purpose in the wars we have previously been ordered to participate in by our 'commonwealth'.

I did a search for 'Friendly Fire' to try to find Manus' documentary. I found two news articles I thought worth linking. If anyone is interested they can read those articles and then do a compare/contrast on how they are presented. The difference in presentation is... interesting. Note that both news sources are respected UK sources - both at least relatively against the Iraq war (with the Guardian publicly against it and the BBC less publicly):

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1104539,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm

Now I'm certain a good deal care greatly about human life, I am in no way denying this. But perhaps it is the exception and not the rule At least this statement is backed up by your having seen some footage of troops before. Sheesh.

This is a two-fold issue, with the issue of American involvement in the killing of children being deftly turned aside by the smoke and mirror approach used by the apologists for the "mistakes" made by the American military. Oh, yes, "well Pakistan does such and such, or "India does this as well." As if that is really the issue of the topic before us. The first issue is the killing of children plain and simple; and I am surprised by some on this board who most often show some senitivity on other matters and are overlooking the moral consequences of these "mistakes." Or should at least be willing to render the "reponsibility" word used so often by my countrymen when it is in their best interest to pull out the big "R" word.

To say that the children died because of the Taliban is a gross mischaracterization of the issue. What have the children to do with the Taliban? Did they personally install the Taliban in their country? Did they vote them into the offices of high government? Yet, they are the ones who are dead. And those who would deflect blame off the US government for their deaths are only producing the worst kind of excuses for the tragedy before us. The children paid the full price, and are now left with the legacy of "blame" for a brutal and totalitarian regime that did support and harbor the murderers of several thousand other innocents in New York City. But that is the pattern; the innocent die, then they are blamed for the deaths of other innocents. The real perpetrators wash their hands and walk away, smug and as arrogant as before. I'm sure Bin Laden is "laughing" somewhere. How utterly pathetic.

The second issue is the involvement of America in accomplishing two things: Frist, chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and second, chasing the terrorist network out of the country that had become entrenched there since the Russian retreat left the power vacuum which allowed them both to gain control. That is good thing for everyone, except the bad guys. Are innocents going to die in the process? Well, probably. Should America be willing to take responsibility for their "mistakes?" And perhaps rethink a few things? I would hope so.

And, sorry for the sarcastic tone of this post, but the thought of my country killing children for the "good and noble cause" just doesn't sit so well with me at the moment.

did a search for 'Friendly Fire' to try to find Manus' documentary. I found two news articles I thought worth linking. If anyone is interested they can read those articles and then do a compare/contrast on how they are presented. The difference in presentation is... interesting. Note that both news sources are respected UK sources - both at least relatively against the Iraq war (with the Guardian publicly against it and the BBC less publicly):
Laches, I am not sure if I get the correct meaning of your post. But if my assumption is right, and you're implying some "bias", by comparing/contrasting them, then I think you mix apples with oranges. The BBC one is from March, the linked Guardian article is from December. The Guradian article which should be contrasted with the BBC-march article is the according Guardian one from march, I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,926167,00.html

@Shralp and Laches

If by Gallipoli, Algeria and German in Balkans, you mean WW1, the algerian war of independence and WW2, you compare apples and oranges. All these examples took place at least 50 years ago (if you haven't noticed, in my post I have written "last years" meaning the last 15-20 years) and furthermore these examples were deliberate killings not accidents and mistakes (I include to this category Sharlp's links about Iraqi protestors and Nothern Ireland as well). The soldiers, who killed these people, did it on purpose knowing exactly what they were doing. All the incidents caused by americans that I have mentioned happened because of bad information (chinese embasy) or because of incompetence and lack of training (civilian convoy in Kossovo). Of course if you mean that these incidents were not mistakes but deliberate actions, then I agree with you.

PS1. Laches, I've searched the web but the only thing I found about your examples on India and Pakistan was a pakistani report that Indian artillery had caused civilian casaulties. Could you provide some links?

Laches, I am not sure if I get the correct meaning of your post. But if my assumption is right, and you're implying some "bias", by comparing/contrasting them, then I think you mix apples with oranges. The BBC one is from March, the linked Guardian article is from December. The Guradian article which should be contrasted with the BBC-march article is the according Guardian one from march, I think.
@Yago:I'm not implying that there is a difference in how the two papers report the same incident. That isn't what I was comparing/contrasting. They are from different dates because they are reports of different incidents.

by Gallipoli, Algeria and German in Balkans, you mean WW1, the algerian war of independence and WW2, you compare apples and oranges. @BOC
Nope. The Algeria stuff came from a report covering 1992-2001. The Balkans stuff is recent - Kosovo et al. The Pakistan/India stuff is also recent - within the last few years. I didn't link anything since I came back and Shralp had already done it. The Pakistan/India report was pdf and the France/Algeria stuff was a Guardian report taken from Le Monde. The German stuff was from the bbc I think. If you want links you can try google, which is how I found them, or I'll see if I can find them sometime when I've got a chance - I'm off to work.

To say that the children died because of the Taliban is a gross mischaracterization of the issue.... @Chandos: I think you totally missed the point of his post. I think your entire post kind of misses the point. I'm not sure anyone has said the military isn't responsible for its screwups. What I think has been said is that being responsible for screwups/accidents doesn't = being terrorists (see the first post of this thread) and that the US soldiers aren't callous/evil for the accidents (see Manus' post for example) and that these accidents are unavoidable when you are engaged in wide scale combat and that is little comfort to the victims and doesn't mean the US isn't responsible for an individual incident (see BTA's post).

The discussion is generated because individual incidents are being taken and used to paint folks with an exceedingly broad brush. In responding to that broad brush stroke other folks may want to point out that it is sadly happening with lots of other folks and since it isn't reasonable to paint everyone in the world perhaps it isn't reasonable to choose to paint just one group. And of course there is the implication that certain folks are evil which is highly ironic coming from folks that argue elsewhere that evil is relative or doesn't exist - go figure.

You can either figure that is what we are talking about or that we're just callous and cruel and don't care about killing children. It's your choice.

[ December 11, 2003, 14:26: Message edited by: Laches ]

This is a horrible tragedy. My prayers go out to the families of the victims.

@Laches

Very well said.

I have to make it a point to check in here more often after I post :D

Laches - Evidently you missed the meaning of my post entirely, so let's get basic. What BOC, Manus and others have observed is a pattern of blunders by the US military in recent years, mostly during attempts at "nation building." These patterns of blunders can be attributed to two things - either incompetence or disregard for the lives of the civilian population. The former is my take on the matter. That is why I keep hoping that the people in charge may rethink how they conduct their operations while engaged in the policy of nation building. The mistaken bombing of the guy they placed in power in Afghanistan is an example of this kind of incompetence. They almost killed him, and did manage to kill his body guards and several American soldiers. This pattern can be "painted" as you suggest as "evil intent," since if you or I make a huge blunder of this magnitude we would try to correct our mistakes, learn from them and move on with life. So, when blunders are repeated in this manner it is understandable that some may reach the conclusion that it is blantant disregard for the civilian population that we are supposedly there to help.

But apologists for the military and adminstration are giving them a free pass by the smoke and mirror games they play with feeble attempts at drawing the attention to the examples I cited in my post - it's a smoke screen, and because this is a pattern that needs scrutiny, I refuse to be drawn into a debate over the conduct of India, or WWI, or anything else other than the series of blunders made by our guys over and over again as a part of recent policy decisions. Either the execution needs to improve, or the policy needs to be reconsidered if the execution results are not what is intended. It's that simple.

[ December 11, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Yago:I'm not implying that there is a difference in how the two papers report the same incident. That isn't what I was comparing/contrasting. They are from different dates because they are reports of different incidents.
Oops. Oops. You're right. I've only read the headlines and the date from the Guardian. :aww: :heh:

This is a two-fold issue, with the issue of American involvement in the killing of children being deftly turned aside by the smoke and mirror approach used by the apologists for the "mistakes" made by the American military.Captain Insano, I hope you're not claiming that those of us on the boards who advocate freedom for Iraq are the ones who are using some sort of smoke and mirror approach in this thread. A remark was made claiming that the US makes more mistakes than other militaries. It was then refuted. If you need to see more beating of breasts over the loss of innocent lives, then start another topic about it.

Well, I see they also engage in name calling as part of the dog-and-pony show. Iraqi freedom? Take a gander at this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003831.asp?0dm=C14LN

The return of the old regime - under new management of course.

No, no, we're not going to take this thread into Iraq. Stay on topic please.

I find it so funny/sad/ironic that the US doesn't learn from their mistakes. I mean, sure, they saved the world in both WW, but get over it!

They're always hiring "Freedom Fighters" to do their dirty work.
* Contras in Nicaragua
* Taliban (and then the NA to fight them when they turned)
* Laotian troops were supported by Nixon, even though his whole campaign was based around stopping Vietnam war.
* Chili
* Panama
...and too many more to list.

Are they doing more good or harm with their constant international interventions?

Individual incidents are always sad. They aren't a good reason to determine the entire policy of a nation imo, but put that aside.

There is an implication though that things are getting worse and nobody cares. That's not true. Things are actually getting safer but as there are fewer deaths in actual engagement with the enemy it seems like there is more friendly fire incidents and accidents because, well, what else is there to report on? An accident where 3 are killed for example isn't news if there is a battle of thousands one town over. If there is a rout and a slow news day though the accident that kills 3 may be front page news. It doesn't mean that things are getting worse - it means we are focusing on these things more and more than we had in the past.

For example, friendly fire incidents are now widely reported as the reporting above and the previous threads on the Canadian soldiers killed show. The death of the 4 Canadian soldiers was very sad but compared to the 400+ soldiers killed in a single incident in WWII... I think it is safe to say things ARE getting better whether we choose to appreciate that or not. Historically, these type of things happen. Stonewall Jackson died from friendly fire. Incidents during WWI resulted in hundreds dead and thousands injured. Unfortunately, these types of incidents and accidents have historically occurred. At least the consequences are being reduced.

Does that mean that individual incidents shouldn't be looked at? No. And they are. But I don't think it is inappropriate to hope that things are kept in context. And I also don't think it wrong to hope to avoid this silly blame game whereby certain groups are branded as callous or cruel or evil or stupid or some combination of the above.

The ugly irony is that many of the reasons there are today's friendly fire incidents and accidental attacks on innocents are the same reasons why modern wars kill far fewer civilians and result in far fewer deaths of combatants than at any so many other points (any?) point in history.

I know. Imagine the guilt that father must be feeling. All those years we allowed the Taliban to rule us. All those years the Taliban supported Al Queda (sic). If only we hadn't been a nation that harbored villians capable of the 9/11/01 disaster. Then this ACCIDENT would have never happened. Hindsight is always 20/20. Imagine the guilt the family of the victims of 9/11 must be feeling. All those years they allowed the government to rule. All those years the government to support the military (sic). If only we hadn't been a nation that harbored attacked other countries that were capable of retaliation. Then this ACCIDENT would have never happened. Hindsight is always 20/20.

@Blackhawk

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I just wanted to say that I didn't mean would the US target a child, I mean if the US had a goal, and a child stood in the way, would that child be killed?

As for the rest of the statistics above, just comlete the old saying.

"The first casualty in war is _______."

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I just wanted to say that I didn't mean would the US target a child, I mean if the US had a goal, and a child stood in the way, would that child be killed?Absolutely. It goes further than that. When it comes to "Force Protection", the policy is shoot first, ask questions later.

@Baezlebub

Are you insinuating that the 9/11 attacks were ACCIDENTS?

To compare an accident in a war zone with an act of mass murder is preposterous.

The only other thing I can think of is, that you are implying that American foreign policy is causing people to turn into terrorists. If that was the case all of our terrorist problems would be with Soviet Bloc nations.

From what I can see the world's terrorist problem is from people who have bastardized a peaceful religion and turned their followers into fanatics.

I'm still waiting to hear a workable solution for that problem. The only ones I've heard so far are to kill them all. Being civilized I have a fundamental problem with that one.

So it doesn't get buried, the first casualty of wr is the truth. Do you really think that anything happening in Afganistan will reach the sensitive ears of American voters? I doubt it.

Laches - I'm glad you brought Stonewall into the debate. He was a rare kind of bird, but his actions at Chancellorsville while brilliant(as usual)were also reckless. He was shot by one of his own men while returning from a night raid near the end of the Battle of Chancellorsville(perhaps Lee's greatest victory). The risks he took were, for the most part, unnecessary, and probably cost him his life. I don't think we could find a general like him today. Risk taking is certainly part of the dynamic of this debate, only we are talking about civilians instead.

Trying to find an acceptable threshold for these kinds of tragedies is difficult. Weighing military necessity against civilian lives is problematic for not only the military planners but the policy makers as well. A degree of risk must be built into the planning. But your feeling is that we have not even come close to that threshold. Let me ask you this, Laches, given what we know about the controversy surrounding some of the pentagon directed "media reporting" (I'm talking Jessica here) are you satisfied that every instance of this is reported by the media? and accurately? I'm not satisfied. But I think it comes down to how much faith you have in the system: media vs administration control of the flow of information. Looking at Al-Jeezera, could they be trusted? Much of the media has been taken over by advocates and I think we are only getting only half the story from our side as well. All of us have to be skeptics now. And there must be a certain threshold, and once it is approached, we have to hold those who are involved in these tragedies accountable.

I did not want it to be my own children whose bodies had to pulled from a pile of rubble. That is one of the reasons I supported the war in Afghanistan. We owed it to the victims of 9/11 and their families to bring those responsible to justice, and swiftly. I pray that I never have to stand in the shoes of that father at the top of the post, and I see his words as an expression of the overwelming grief he must be feeling.

But now the objectives for Afghanistan are becoming less clearly defined and must be seen in the context of other endeavers in the region. The objective seems to be becoming that of nation building. If the cost is a set of tragedies such as this, then I think the cost in civilian life and suffering may be too high a price, including the cost of American blood and treasure. A good part of that treasure could be used in "nation building" here. But America doesn't seem to appear on Bush's list of countries designated for nation building anyway (sorry, I couldn't resist that one).

As reasonable people we are both aware that the administration has an over-arching plan for the entire region, with Afghanistan as just a piece of a larger scheme. I guess it comes down to how much faith one has in that scheme and the people who are engineering and administering that scheme. I really agree with those on this thread who see our role in nation building in the region as misguided, if not heavy-handed arrogance.

[ December 13, 2003, 06:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@ Beelzebub/The Great Snook

FYI: AfganiSTAN was a soviet bloc nation (of sorts) until America (apparently with the help of Rambo) kicked out the Soviets and put the Taliban in power. This is one of countless examples of dictators propped up by the US that come back to bite them in the ass.

It seem that the US is quite skilled at deposing leaders, but inept at selecting new ones.

Are you kidding? Do you know how extensive and time consuming the process of searching for the right maniacial dictator or asinine cover-boy can be?

The entire world domination scheme focuses completely on systematically placing fanatical yet somehow inept targets in head positions of every country within the specificially orientated occult and esoterically-geometrically aligned seven-pointed stars in order to rain forth the allotted litres of bloodshed to stain the world-psyche designed to summon the great dark lord of chaos himself- Saureorge Shrublor, or as I know him, Mr. Snuffle-upagus -and usher forth a new era of coca-cola and hatch-back automobiles; while simultaneously befuddling the unsuspecting inhabitants by reducing any thoughts of fear or awe of this new regime through it's enplacement of a leader so ridiculous, so literally unaware of the world around him, it's natural laws -or that unbreacheable law of pronounciaion- so amusing in his child-like attempts to grasp at anything resembling a rational thought, or any thought rooted in a universe of any kind, rational or no, so mind-boggingly non-seriously-atakeableable that they are all left as unsuspecting putty for the hands of the true leaders, THE FRENCH!

My many thanks to Hacken Slash for corroborating on this, and for his inspirational advice. The French are definately to blame, they are still sore that the US tries to steal all the credit for WWII, which the rest of us all know was won by the French and the French alone. Peace Brutha's. We love ya.

No but seriously folks, the Horse$hit aside this is no laughing matter. Whatever the reasons or however this may seem justified to some of the people out there, people are dead, that's all there is too it, that's all there ever is. Life or Death, Spirit or Matter. In the long run, it doesn't matter, nothing does- but here and now I have to ask myself why it keeps happening, again and again, and again? We don't seem to be learning from our mistakes, we don't seem to be approaching some sort of solution- all I can see on the horizon is some world event so horrendous that people are forced to listen to the tiny voice out there telling them to stop. If anyone could answer me that, and is able to convince me that there is not something intrinsically wrong with this, I'll give you a dollar. A whole shiny dollar ;)

but here and now I have to ask myself why it keeps happening, again and again, and again?Are you kidding me? You might as well ask why people keep dying in traffic accidents.

I would understand if it was demonstrated that these incidents are always because of the same person in the same situation, but these look like isolated mistakes made by different people in different circumstances.

People make mistakes, and sometimes they're deadly; especially when you're dealing with equipment that's whole purpose is to be deadly.

Do we want to prevent these occurrences as much as possible? Of course, and that's why there's an investigation into the cause. If nobody cared, they wouldn't even bother investigating it.

Yes, I do keep asking why people keep dying in traffic accidents, I know why, but that doesn't mean I think it's any less stupid, or any less avoidable. You don't drive cars, none of this happens. You don't enter into war, none of this happens. I know why it happens, I'm saying that it is both unexcusable, and totally avoidable. I'm not laying the blame on any one party here, but on everyone, everyone that contributes to this entire mess. We can learn from each other's mistakes, and we can learn from our own. People stop making weapons, people stop buying weapons, people stop mining, people stop trying to achieve political power or material gain- we know the root reasons behind these things, but, like cars, they seem too valuable to people to want to give them up. People don't care if it's right or wrong, they don't want to know. It takes two to tango so to speak- if someone *just someone* starts leading by example, and not taking any part of this whatsoever, they cannot be included in any of it. But I don't think enough people will do the same until it's too late, until the damage is done.

Are you going to honestly sit there and say none of this bothers you? I know it's the situation the world is in, I know it takes time for people to get things right, and I know that not everyone is going to see things the same way- but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

You haven't convinced me, no dollar for you ;)

Edit: I hope that didn't come across as depressing or despondant. I can't say that I am surprised or baffled by the world around us, it's a hard word to explain. Like knowing the course someone is going to take, that they will learn it the hard way, and being able to understand why they have gone down that route, but still almost amazed that they will- and being powerless to stop it, if not from a physical or authoritarian sense then from a moral one.

Well, one last thought;

"Do Nothing, and things will right themselves: That is Heaven's way."

[ December 14, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: Manus ]

@ The Great Snook

I was making a comment on the irony of your statement. You said it was the fathers fault his children died because of his government. Well, thanks to the gift of sarcasm, I turned it around to bite you in the arse. If you fail to notice the irony, I'm not going to explain it to you.