a reply to: douglas5
Yes, I said "WE", as I am an American and WE were responsible for the greatest portion of the described military activity (for better or for worse,
it's history). I do sometimes forget to modify my verbiage to reflect ATS' wonderful multinational constituency. It was an apt description from my
POV, however, regardless of whatever ephemeral indignation you meant to imply with your response.
This does not limit the activity to the US...every military has done it since time immemorial. Just as the US was testing new stuff in 'Nam, so
were the USSR and China. Goes all the way back to that first hypothetical 'monkey with rock' who clobbered the opposing monkey who didn't use one.
Do you think bleeding hearts went to the temple in Egypt and etched sarcastic hieroglyphics about the Hyksos because they invaded by chariot, which
the Egyptians didn't have? No, of course not. They made their own chariots and took it to 'em.
I ask again: what is the conspiracy here? I see lots of indignation, but little substance. Yep, new weapons and tactics used on both sides, check.
Very nasty shrapnel used by both sides, check. I don't see any great moral difference in one side dropping a shrapnel bomb and the other loading up
a shrapnel suicide vest, if that is indeed the implication. The end result is very similar - nasty injuries and dead people when either is used.
FWIW, I wish none of this were going on. It's kind of stupid really, the way this area has been at each other's throats for the past few thousand
years. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of any of this 'tech', which I guess is why they were created in the first place. The feuds run
deep in this area, for sure.
The point I was trying to make in posting is that there isn't a moral high ground to be had from a technology standpoint on the fletchettes.
Shrapnel is shrapnel, and nobody wants any part of it, no matter who's lobbing it and how. Both sides of this conflict have utilized the referred to
I saw no mention of 'land robbing' in the OP, other than the oft-suggested "return to pre-1967 borders". This seems an attempt at deflection from
the subject at hand on your part (bad form, good sir!)...but can you describe exactly why you feel Israel should be obligated to do so? I see that
this is often suggested as a 'solution' to this issue. Would this not equate to an attempt to negate the outcome of the 6-day war? On the face of
it, the losing (military) side has failed to accomplish their governments' collective political goals to remove Israel by force. In doing so, they
lost land those governments formerly controlled, which ticked them off. Having realized their military bid had not only failed them but incurred
territorial losses, those entities seem to now be trying to erase the impact of that loss politically. That's how I see it, but I am always keenly
interested in other views. I simply haven't seen anything credible that indicates the situation is otherwise.
After all...it's only by the combination of multiple views that we get the real story, in my experience. Firsthand knowledge is best, but as we're
not omniscient (shh, don't tell anyone), sometimes other's viewpoints are all we have to develop our own from. Multiple-source info may conflict,
but points of commonality will generally point to the real deal. The more info you have to apply to a problem, the greater the probability that the
solution is a correct one. Not that this is 'my problem', but a greater understanding of our world and it's inhabitants is always...well, greater.
BTW, it's "continuum"...I'd tell the others you said "Hi!",but they already know...and I always liked that Picard. Mon capitan was so much
! Starfleet hasn't provided me with anyone more interesting before or since.