If the terrorists weren't using civilians as human shields, there wouldn't be so many civilian casualties. Wanna blame someone? Blame the terrorists.
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.
So where are all these terrorists we're supposed to be fighting?
All I ever see or read about is how the Afghan and Pakistan people are outraged over civillian casualties.
Is this a real enemy, or is this about gas pipelines?
I think the war on terror is bunk.
Wow... the liberal mind at work, or trying to work. If you had your way during WWII we'd be speaking German. Unreal.
Wow... the liberal mind at work, or trying to work. If you had your way during WWII we'd be speaking German. Unreal.
During combat operations, civilians will die. When the enemy is consistantly using civilians as human shields, even more civilians are going to die. At some point, the civilians have to use some common sense and say, "if these clowns weren't hiding in my village, my village wouldn't get snake-n-naped". If they're unable to realize that reality, then their future holds more civilian deaths during operations against the enemy.
You do realise it was a Democrat in the white House during WW2 right... :coffeepap
Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained?
There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.
You do realise it was a Democrat in the white House during WW2 right... :coffeepap
Yeah, the same Democrat that ignored the situation, until he couldn't ignore it any longer and 400 thousand Americans died, as a result.
Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained? There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.
During combat operations, civilians will die. When the enemy is consistantly using civilians as human shields, even more civilians are going to die. At some point, the civilians have to use some common sense and say, "if these clowns weren't hiding in my village, my village wouldn't get snake-n-naped". If they're unable to realize that reality, then their future holds more civilian deaths during operations against the enemy.
If you were even close to right Germany and Japan would forever be our enemies, but that apposite is true. They are our Allies after we bombed their cities to rubble.
This picture is most often used as what happened to the Cities by our nukes but this is Tokyo after a B-29 raid.
This is Dresden Germany after an allied bombing raid.
So I request that we stick to the facts and the truth.
Very different. One, there was an army to surrender. So, tey surrendered. It was largely done quickly, and decicively, and their governments surrendered, ending the war. Not the case in either Afghanistan or Iraq, making them very different situations. When making comparisons, it's often a good idea to compare things more alike than different.
It has to do with us using common sense. it's why these type of invasions are so damned difficult.
If you paid attention you would know I disagree with Obama on this.
LOL!
why would anyone care about what you agree or disagree with
your opinions---always divorced from reputable links---are not only insignificant
they include telling grammas out a half mil contributed to soc sec to just
LOL!
you have to ask
I really don't know why you spend time here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?