NPR Interview Response (Wk 2 Tues. Class)

Morally, I think that the U.S. military should have engineers whose job is to cut down on as much collateral damage as possible. Over in Iraq, it's very difficult to tell who is on your side and who isn't, so the need for accuracy is very important. It just wouldn't be right to drop bombs left and right like we did back in Japan and Germany in World War 2. On the other hand, from an ethical standpoint, as Mr. McCann mentioned, random bombardment did bring a fast end to a grueling war. I think that if U.S. forces just bombed the hell out of the Middle East then we wouldn't have anything more to worry about because everyone, civilians and terrorists, would be dead meat. Also, this whole engineering-to-figure-out-where-the-bombs-should-be-dropped thing could be viewed as a rampant waste of tax dollars for something that was never needed before and isn't needed now. People die in war. It comes with the territory. But that is why this is an easily debatable topic. Do we spend more money to ensure the safety of civilians caught up in something that is entirely not their fault, or should we look out for our own interests by saving money, bombing everything in sight, and executing our objectives with extreme prejudice? Talk about being in between a rock and a hard place. I'm a staunch Republican so I guess if I had to make a decision between the two, I would chose to save money and just bomb everything in sight. America fell victim to a sneak attack on September 11th, so it should be an eye for an eye. No Americans asked for it to happen, but these terrorists did. All of this terrorism is some one's fault, and if we have to kill everyone else to ensure the safety of the American people, then so be it. A century ago this would not even be an issue; the Middle East would already have been obliterated.