Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You realize the only way this logic works is if you assume that 100% of people who put down their weapons or walk away after planting a bomb are not likely to raise up a gun again or manage to plant a bomb unseen at a later time.
An assumption that's amazingly idiotic.
No, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I say you save any lives by killing him. There are plenty of people to plant what he won't be able to. There is no link between the two. So, while I understand what you're saying, the nature of this conflict, and others like it, does not work that way IMHO. There are too many in line to take his place. And even more are added if you kill civilians in the process of getting him. Which may be more likely to lead to more deaths than getting this one individual.
Stopping the war wont end casualties. It is very sad to see soldiers dying, but we must finish the job in Afghanistan, don't let their sacrifices go in vain.
One does not equal another. One can not say, with certainty, that you "save lives" by killing the person because there's a likelihood that said person, having come so close to being killed, may end up not doing such again and thus more lives would've been saved by not shooting them.
Likewise, its exceedingly unlikely that every person, or even a majority of people, who have weapons drawn on troops or are planting an IED are going to not perform that action again if they're allowed to escape. As such, stating with a certainty that letting them go doesn't cause any casualities is ridiculous as it would most likely be extremely likely that a majority of those people ARE going to caus causalities, or attempt to, in the future.
Additionally, someone holding a gun on a marine or planting an IED is not one that would be considered a "civilian".
The president reaffirmed that destroying al-Qaeda is the chief objective of his strategy
from west point:
Obama: U.S. security is still at stake - washingtonpost.com
but his own centcom says aq's not there
FOXNews.com - Petraeus: Al Qaeda No Longer Operating in Afghanistan
fundamental incoherence
wrong mission, wrong rules
sorry
All because Obama wants to nail a man who is probably dead. It's common knowledge that OBL was dying. OTOH, if Obama pulled all the troops, the Reps amd Cons would call him a weak quitter (or worse) and he probably wouldn't get reelected. How many troops does it take to assure a reelection?
ricksfolly
so obama interrupts his iowa to maine swing to sell the health care bill he already passed and his entire party is now trying to run away from to go to afghanistan for 6 hours (LOL!) to announce his big summer offensive into KANDAHAR
U.S. Plans Huge Afghan Summer Offensive - CBS News
well, guess who ISN'T in southern afghanistan
"the chief objective of his strategy," that's who
wrong war, wrong rules
pathetic
Did he really just compare cops to soldiers???? :doh
do you have any evidence they do? Or is this another you just know deal?
Good effort. Though I note: Some say.
But more important is the mission:
You can't accomplish the mission if you lose the people.
However, if a fighter puts down a weapon and walks away, this has not caused more casualties. If you see one plant a bomb, that bomb isn't likely to kill anyone, so not shooting them doesn't cause more casualties. Nothing I can see about the rules leads directly to more casualties, so while making things more difficult may be true, or not, it has to be seen in the context of the mission.
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?