There He Goes Again II
September 27th, 2002 - 11:25 am
Another disgusting lie from Arab News cartoonist Kahil.
The proof that the United States isn’t overly fond of killing Arabs is that there are still Arabs. More, in fact, today than there were before this war began.
For good or evil (opinions vary), Americans are quite skilled at killing enemies. We didn’t flinch from leveling Hamburg or burning Dresden. We dropped not one, but two nukes on Japan. Two million North Vietnamese died to 58,000 Americans.
We want to like you. We want you to have all the nice things we have, such as Lexus luxury sedans, new Buffy every Tuesday night, and the chance to speak your mind without getting a hand chopped off.
But until we can help you get those things, please, please don’t push us too far.
Truth is, Kahil’s a Lebanese ex-pat living it up in London on Saudi dollars. No idea what his grudge is based on, but I hope it had something to do with Israelis cutting his nuts off with tinsnips before he had the chance to procreate.
I’ve been posting the Editorial Cartoon of the Day at my blog and what I find most amusing is the repeated Kahil panels. Just a couple of days ago the Arab News re-ran the Sharon swastika-axe Kahil drawing. I’m not sure if they’re too stupid to realize they’re repeating themselves or if they think their audience is too stupid to realize they’re repeating themselves. Or, my personal favorite, both.
I have no idea how you are winning/losing/leading that poll.
So we’re not going to nuke them?
Sorry to break this to you, but Dresden was firebombed by the Royal Air Force, not by the USAAC.
Nicholas Kristof has a column (Friday?) that says the Iraqis big advantage is that they know the U.S. is very reluctant to cause civilian casualties. So they’re going to hide soldiers and artillery in hospitals, schools, mosques and neighborhoods. His example is flying through the no-fly zone on a scheduled civilian flight. In theory, U.S. fighters could shoot down the plane but nobody on it thinks for a second the U.S. would deliberately kill civilians. And they’re right.
We’re reluctant to cause unnecessary civilian casualties. Where the Iraqis are making the big mistake is in assuming where the line between unnecessary and necessary comes. If soldiers are stationed in mosques, then those mosques will be eradicated (it happened in Afghanistan). And as for civilian flights – that’s nuts. How many ‘civilian’ flights do you think there were in the region during Gulf War I? If we’re willing to shoot down our own airliners if they’re hijacked, what do you think the odds are we’ll just let some random aircraft through Iraqi airspace even if it’s squawking full civilian modes and codes? The first thing that happens when this all kicks off is that all commercial air traffic in the region is diverted. If it doesn’t change course, then it’s hostile, ergo, kablooie.
Seconding what Gillies just said: any aircraft flying in a military zone are considered hostile until they have certain codes (friendly flying codes, I belive they’re called).
I’ve heard an argument for keeping Israel out of the Iraqi war by refusing to give them these codes, thereby rendering the IDF airforce “hostile” to be Iraqi and American jets.
The codes are called IFF’s, for Identification Friend or Foe. Note thate there is no room in the definition for “other” or “civilian”. If you ain’t friendly, expect to meet Allah for your raisin ration right quick.