- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
no civilians would've been killed in this situation, arty should have been employed.
Based on what the article said. Does anyone have an report by the military or something higher up.
Care to explain how current Afghanistan is any better then it was under Bush?
Or are you going to be a hypocrite?
It's not. It's the same year in and year out.
But our military has to be able to wage war the way it knows how to do. When our military excursions become politicized, the result is always far more death than need be. We have a history of this. Fallujah II was a result of the media's exaggerations over Fallujah I. To place perspective on this....
- Vietnam saw the media dictate the outcome of a war.
- Iraq saw the media dictate the outcome of a battle (Fallujah I).
Today the media's dictating military decisions and encouraging restrictions to our politicians more than ever. This trend is a guarantee to our military that failure is the only product.
By that measure, we should just evac the troops and glass the country.
Remember that the soldiers are there to do a job. The restrictions are on them to ensure that we aren't doing this job 50 years from now.
Killing civilians is not the way to get the Afghans to tolerate us.
Then why hasn't Iraq been a total failure as that was really the first war of the 21st century to be fully covered almost minute to minute? I think you place way too much emphasis on media rather than things like economic development that are key towards eliminating insurgencies.
And, that logic is exactly what is going to insure that this last 50 years, unless an abundant amount of US soldiers die, the current leadership gets squeemish and we tuck tail-n-run.
The problem that I see you folks having, is that you believe that the Afghans are only going to blame American troops for the collateral damage; that they're too stupid to realize that the enemy is using them as human shields.
Explain to me how killing civilians makes the situation better. Maybe you're pro-genocide? It wouldn't be the most insane argument you've given here, and actually comparatively, it would be reasonable.
Care to support his position or is this more rear end talking?
Explain to me how killing civilians makes the situation better. Maybe you're pro-genocide? It wouldn't be the most insane argument you've given here, and actually comparatively, it would be reasonable.
Care to support his position or is this more rear end talking?
I got a better idea: explain to me how killing more soldiers than anyone else is going to make things better. Maybe you're anti-military? It wouldn't be the most un-informed argument you've given here.
If you don't get it, then it's a complete waste of time explaining it to you.
Killing civilians = BAD
Enforcing protocol wether civilians are at threat or not, effectively getting our troops and many more afghan troops killed = MUCH MUCH WORSE
Except that nothing I said supports such a claim or is even relevant. Not surprising you changed the argument.
You have yet to explain how killing more civilians is a good outcome.
Which is why many people ignore you.
Killing civilians = BAD
Enforcing protocol wether civilians are at threat or not, effectively getting our troops and many more afghan troops killed = MUCH MUCH WORSE
Apsdt doesn't seem to think so.
This depends. For instance, if we always choose to go how you want, but result in killing civilians, doesn't that prolong the war which exposes even more soldiers to risk of death? So all we really end up doing is trading the lives of soldiers in the future for the lives of soldiers now. How does one measure this? In lives?
Your comments claim that civilian lives take precedence over American lives.
Nice try at twisting my words, but I never that killing more civilians was a good outcome. Care to try actually addressing what I did say vs. what you invented?
Somehow, I doubt that I'm ignored...:rofl
That's a lie and you know it.
What if the civilians realize that the reason they are dieing, is that the Tallies always start a fight amongst civilian areas? Are the Afghans too stupid to figure that out?
Reducing civilian losses reduces resistance to toleration. Increased toleration reduces insurgency and promotes development. Reduced insurgency and economic development is our ticket out of this conflict. If we constantly kill civilians, we prolong the insurgency, reduce development and expose more soldiers to conflict.
True, you're just laughed at.
Not if we read what you actually said.
Perhaps they are supportive of the insurgency? You clearly haven't studied insurgencies at all. The water is at least nominally supportive of the fish. If it wasn't there wouldn't be any fish. I highly doubt you'll get that, but it is key as to understanding the role of civilians in insurgencies.
If that's the case, then the civilians in Afghanistan should be highly intolerant of the Tallies, right about now. Yes?
Naw, I think there's quite a few posters lauging at your ass, right now. I mean, you think that American lives are worthless and count less than Afghan civilians who are endangered by their own people. You aren't even smart enough to see that.
Apsdt doesn't seem to think so.
This depends. For instance, if we always choose to go how you want, but result in killing civilians, doesn't that prolong the war which exposes even more soldiers to risk of death? So all we really end up doing is trading the lives of soldiers in the future for the lives of soldiers now. How does one measure this? In lives?
Some are. Actually from reports many are. They just are highly intolerant of us as well.
Yes, I think American lives are worthless...
Some are. Actually from reports many are. They just are highly intolerant of us as well.
Yes, I think American lives are worthless because I argued for resolving the war quickly to reduce the risk of death to American soldiers. I'm against prolonging the war because it risks American soldiers' lives and therefore I think those lives are worthless.
You wonder why we laugh at you?
You are the only one laughing.
If I was out in the trenches, and i saw "civilians" running ammo, guns, and explosives out to enemy combatants, guess who just got mowed.
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?