- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
I know, let's pull out althogether and let al Qaeda and the Taliban run the show.
I'm not having any trouble following it. Just looking for excuses are you?
... That is the point I am making. The event in question is related to air strikes on a small village(s) in Ghaziabad. In what way did NATO make sure that there were no civilians close enough to the air strikes? If the OP is true (or even slightly exaggerated), then there is no possible way they could have said there were no civilians present before committing to operations.
Yes, that's the only other possible option! :roll:
Obviously you are not interested in an honest discussion. Continue your trolling elsewhere.
Ok, tell us how we kill the enemy and prevent civilian casualties.
Tell me how killing the enemy is helping at all.
You've been "Killing the enemy" for almost 10 years now and it doesn't seem to be working.
You're not fighting a conventional land army, you can kill as many as you want, but I think the greatest challenge you face is, what is victory? Is it when you've brought Taliban and Al Queada numbers to 0?
Do you think that goal is actually achievable?
Is it creating a functioning democracy?
I mean what does "Winning The Afghan War" Actually mean.
I'm still curious on that one.
Yes, that's the only other possible option! :roll:
Obviously you are not interested in an honest discussion. Continue your trolling elsewhere.
Then, what are we supposed to do? Roll over and just absorb the terrorist attacks?
When we can only kill a few at time, it's going to take more time than say, WW2, where we killed tens of thousands at a time.
Victory is when the terrorist movement becomes as insignificant as the National Socialists.
yes, the goal is achievable. It doesn't really matter what kind of government they have, just as long as they leave us alone.
Defeatism isn't the key to victory. That's for sure.
Anyone who expects us to KNOW the outcome before the mission is unrealistic. Do you think they aren't trying to avoid civilians casualties?
Stop with the WW2 crap, dude it's not that way at all. WW2 is a different kind of war, fighting a conventional land army and fighting an insurgency are two different things, I don't know how many times I Have to drill that into your head, but it appears I'll have to keep doing it.
Insurgents hide in the mountains, they hide among people, they are difficult to spot and they strike when they have the advantage, now unless you're intending to destroy mountains, burn whole villages to destroy their cover and slaughter the entire population of Afghanistan to get rid of their source of fighters, you may wanna reconsider your rediculous statement.
See that's rather interesting because most german soldiers you faced on the battlefield were not national socialists, they were drafted men just like their opponents were. In WW2 what you were actually bringing down was a government, and an entire governmental system which had in the end really subjugated their own people. Remember there was such a thing as the "German Resistance".
All insurgents you face on the ground are of their orders whether Taliban or Al Queada and various other groups.
Wait, you're telling me in no uncertain terms, that you can bring the number of Taliban Fighters and Al Qeada fighters down to 0 forever.
Who said anything about Defeat? There is more then the one dimension apdst, come into the light!
It's in your best interests to do so.
Not just for "PR".
But because killing civillians only turns the local populace against you, making it far easier for the Taliban and other groups to operate within them.
If you were poor and had nothing, and the US Air Force killed your son with a rocket, would your first thought be "Well at least they're trying to give me a corrupt democracy, I should be grateful".
When you get past "what people should think about us" and accept the reality, you might find that there is more to the world then "we gotta win USA #1 Woooo hoo!"
If you were poor and had nothing, and the US Air Force killed your son with a rocket, would your first thought be "Well at least they're trying to give me a corrupt democracy, I should be grateful".
I told you why, if your too lazy to do it right, I am not wasting any more time with you. :shrug:
:lamo :lamo :lamo Weak, real weak. :lamo
Then more of them are going to die. That is the reality, vice waging a war where only the bad guys get killed. After enough civilians get killed, they'll realize that it has more to do with terrorists hiding among them, than American ordnance being dropped upon them. If they don't figure that out, then tough **** for'em. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
The first thing I would do, is run those scumbag jihadis out of my hood, then see if the airtrikes stop. If they stopped, I would have enough sense to know that if the jihadis stayed away, so would the bombs.
In that case, you've already surrendered to the bad guys.
There are also laws that prohibit using non-combatants as human shields.
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 absolutely matters if jihadis are using innocent civilians as human shields.
They fight and hide behind innocent women and children then blame their deaths on NATO forces to "hurt our cause".
Islamic jihadis don't "care about those killed" because of their actions and in fact deliberately target innocent civilians.
Whether they care or not, or what their motives are, it doesn't matter if their strategy is effective. No matter how we feel about it, if it is effective, a smart stratigist would change strategies.
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.
Millions upon millions of civilians died in World War II.
It's called war for a reason. People die and crap gets blown up. When you try to strategically kill only certain people, wars last forever. When you go in all out, it's over a lot quicker.
It's not a video game, unfortuntely. You don't get to hit "play again".
It's not that "easy". It's not that "simple".
Millions upon millions of civilians died in World War II.
It's called war for a reason. People die and crap gets blown up. When you try to strategically kill only certain people, wars last forever. When you go in all out, it's over a lot quicker.
It's not a video game, unfortuntely. You don't get to hit "play again".
Whether they care or not, or what their motives are, it doesn't matter if their strategy is effective.
No matter how we feel about it, if it is effective, a smart stratigist would change strategies.
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?