Why US bombs should be banned

Sadly, incidents like this, this and this are becoming all too frequent.

I'll throw in some more examples like this, this and this. If you want more just ask.

We have reached a stage where we must consider that maybe American bombs have killed more civilians and its allies than its enemies.

Afterall, I don't see any stories titled "40 Al-Qaeda soldiers killed by stray US bomb". No, it seems American bombs have an uncanny nack of homing in on civilians and totally missing the actual target. Of course the US military isn't one to admit such immense total failure and produces ludicrous child like lies to make up for its inadequacies.

Take the bombing of an Afghan wedding which occured this week in which 40 civilians are thought to have been killed and 60 more injured. The pentagon tries to convince us that US planes came under fire from anti-aircraft artillery. So why then, did the US airforce bomb a wedding? Does a wedding look like an AA-battery? Wouldn't it have been far more tactical to bomb the artillery rather than a wedding service?

Now, not only does the pentagon make up this fantasy about AA artillery (which I don't believe at all) but then a pentagon spokesman comes out with a real gem. He asks whether the wedding carnage could have been caused by falling anti-aircraft artillery rather than a US bomb. Ie. he tries to remove all blame from the US airforce and instead blame the taliban.

Does the pentagon think we are stupid? Carnage of that scale was obviously caused by a heavy bomb.

At least some of the pentagon spokesman are honest. When US bombs killed 90 civilians in an afghan village North of Kandahar, one pentagon spokesman gave the frank explanation that "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead".

It seems obvious that US intelligence (ho ho) and the US military itself do not have the morality and sense of responsibility required to handle and unleash heavy weaponary. We as civilians (this includes American, European and Asian citizens) should demand that the US military surrenders its bombs and missiles (especially the laser guided ones which funnily enough miss more than conventional bombs). Either that or we will have to force US aircraft to fly lower so that they don't mistake targets, say 10ft.

It's time that we sent a message to the US government that the people of Earth will not accept the pointless killing of Afghan civilians. But keep it up with the Canadians.

	Hell its the only thing where good at god damnit! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:33:07 PM PST

	Thats are talent, BOMBING PEOPLE! The United States air force loves dropping bombs and we bombed all the enemies, so what they going do not bomb things? NO, bomb other people. And if we take away their bombs we can destory any more enemy targets. Also CNN, MSNBC, FAX NEW CHANNEL, all they do is report the bad stuff. You never hear of a bomb hitting a enemy destroying a good amount, why cause people don't care about that story, they want to hear the US screwed up.

	Amusing link: (none / 0) (#2)
	by because it isnt on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:58:50 PM PST

	here. Satirical, yes, but sadly too close to the truth to be humourous. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Civilian deaths (none / 0) (#3)
	by First Incision on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 09:59:04 PM PST

	Would you rather us go back to the days of non-laser-guided bombs? If you recall, those were the days of mass civilian casualties in Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo, and Nagasaki. I have a feeling that the enemy to civilian death ratio is much better in Afghanistan than it was in WWII Japan. Lets not forget that between 15 and 25% of American casualties in Desert Storm were due to friendly fire. Not even American troops are safe from US bombs in Afghanistan. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Underestimate (none / 0) (#7)
	by walwyn on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 06:17:15 AM PST

	Nearer 50 percent apparently.

	Sorry (none / 0) (#14)
	by First Incision on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 08:07:45 PM PST

	I meant to say fatalities, rather than casualties. My mistake. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Please don't apologize. (none / 0) (#16)
	by walwyn on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 01:30:51 AM PST

	Apparently though 367 Americans were killed during Desert Storm of which 165 were killed through friendly fire (45%). See here. The story I like best, which is perhaps apocryphal, was that of the British tank crews that were shot up by the US airforce. The families were invited out to some air display to show the level of training given to aircrews. The demonstration involved a number of tanks painted either red or blue and involved the fighters coming over and shooting up the red tanks and leaving the blue ones untouched. Over come the planes and shoot up the blue planes.

	Weren't we targeting civilians in WWII? (none / 0) (#9)
	by PotatoError on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 10:24:22 AM PST

	I thought it came to pass that every nation said "oh screw this morality shit" and just went all out to destroy as many enemy humans as possible. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Not really. (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 10:31:44 AM PST

	When you fight against an opposing army, who are determined to kill the lot of you, your main priority is to kill off the army first. Civilians don't shoot back, you see? Alright, we may have raped and plundered a few civilians, but our purpose was to nobble the bad guys before they nobbled us.

	Is that why we bombed hiroshima and nagasaki? (none / 0) (#13)
	by PotatoError on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:11:29 PM PST

	Not exactly military targets were they. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Hiroshima (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 07:33:49 AM PST

	Furthermore... Hiroshimasaved from the US firebombing campaign in Japan so that it could later be used as a test subject for other massive bombs (such as the nuclear bomb that was under construction) and exert more pressure on the Japanese government. >> the jaded mouse <^ )~

	In the UK... (none / 0) (#4)
	by gordonjcp on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 01:15:25 AM PST

	... we're on the edge of declaring war on the US. Simply because we're pissed off at them blowing our guys up all the time. It's already illegal to be American in the US (although exemption is granted in certain cases. You have to be from New Hampshire or further north though).

	Can't say as I blame you. (none / 0) (#6)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 05:14:41 AM PST

	The current party line in the US appears to be making sure that nations of the world are held accountable for their actions. Unless, of course, you're looking for accountability from the US. For the first time in my life, I am very deeply disappointed in my country of birth. I've been worried about the increasingly isolationist trend in US politics for many years, and my fears are beginning to come true. A troll's true colors.

	Isolationist - LOL (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by dmg on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 12:39:50 PM PST

	Does the pentagon think we are stupid? On average, you are stupid. Collectively, Americans are amongst the least literate nations (excluding third world countries). And SpaceGoaty, the word you are looking for is not 'isolationist'. Would that America were to become isolationist, the whole world would breathe a collective sigh of relief. No, the word you are looking for is unilateralist. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Unilateralist vs Isolationist (none / 0) (#15)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 09:21:37 PM PST

	Actually, I stand by my statement. I don't argue with the dishearteningly unilateral perception the US is building. It's dangerous, insensitive and generally rude. I believe it's also a precursor to isolationism. Cheer all you want, but I think it's an exceedingly unhealthy attitude for any nation to have. It was possible to do back in Washington's day when travel and communication was measured in terms of weeks and months. Now, when communication is measured in milliseconds and pollution can be tracked to the opposite sides of the globe, isolationism and unilateralism go hand-in-hand. Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Accords was a very strong statement that the US chooses to make internal policy at the expense of global consequences. Everything he's done since then has only reinforced that policy. Sooner or later, I predict that the US is going to come under sanctions that will force the country to choose between compromise and isolation. If you think anyone can win that confrontation, you're even more deluded than normal. Maybe Bush won't stay in office that long. Maybe someone will be able to put pressure on the current administration that will change this course. Maybe Congress will find the backbone to stand up against Bush's popularity and put a stop to these policies. I'm not betting on it. A troll's true colors.

	So Now Hiroshima Actually Happened? (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 12:35:16 PM PST

	According to you, an atomic bomb was not feasible in the 1940's.

	Perhaps (none / 0) (#5)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:15:06 AM PST

	they shouldn't be allowed to fly planes in the first place - it seems that they still manage to kill innocent civilians without dropping bombs. Whilst we're at it banning American troops from controlling vehicles of any description would seem to be a good idea.

	it's raining death, halleluya (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by Mr Somebody on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 06:29:39 AM PST

	maybe the US should deploy it's weaponry using the Palestinian suicide bomber method. It seems to work pretty well in Israel, & it guarantees only one friendly fire victim every time - pretty good stats in my book.

	Repost (none / 0) (#18)
	by phantam on Sat Jul 13th, 2002 at 01:14:41 AM PST

	Why dont we stop driving cars as well hundreds to thousands of INNOCENT people die everyday from driving accidents the fact is that if the USA didnt have bombs and the other military assets that they have at our fingertips, what would you rather, the USA as a Superpower to take a sideline and let the world do what it wants and have Mr. Bush himself go to Afghanistan on a Friegter and meet with Mr. Bin Laden and slap him on the hand and in this "perfect" world i'm completely sure that he will stop. Thats all it takes isnt it? No weapon is perfect and i am sorry to tell you the reason STRAY BOMBS dont hit 40 Al Quade soldiers is because the REAL BOMBS that hit there targets every 20 minutes hit those soldiers... Hundreds and thousands of enemy's were killed by bombs, it is just that CNN and the other news publishers make money by publishing the few mistakes that are made by imperfect weapons.