Poor, Edmund W wrote:
To Daniel: It's only the article title I wanted to
change in the
"attack on/invasion of" thing, which I discussed with The Cunctator
The POV, that the US invasion amounts to an attack, should definitely
be in the article -- but attributed to a source, even a vaguely
defined one: as in, "many critics regard the invasion as an unwarranted
attack on Afghanistan" or "Already talk has begun of indicting Tommy
Franks for [[crimes against humanity]] for the attacks."
Eh? I don't understand why the word "attack" is supposed to be
here. Did "attack" suddenly become a bad word while I wasn't looking,
that a military operation involving actively lobbing ordinence at one's
enemy on their home turf should not be called an "attack" just because
the persons doing the attacking believe they're justified in doing so?
"Invasion" is better in the title because that's what it ended up as; US
soldiers entered the country with intent to seize it from the former
governing body (which was not legally recognized), and many are still
there today months later. Nothing POV or NPOV about it, it's just a more
accurate description of the event as a whole.
Naturally, it would be POV to say that the attack is or isn't warranted,
or is or isn't criminal, but that's a separate issue from the use of the
word "attack" in my understanding.
BTW, when is someone going to write [[The Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan]]?
There's already scattered information in [[Afghanistan]], [[Soviet
Union]], etc. It ought to be collected and improved perhaps...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com