• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

No it doesn't.

American lives > Other Lives

Period

While each case must be interpreted individually, thats what it comes down to. Thats what we have C.O.'s for... and they failed EPICLY in this case.

Except that you completely ignored what I wrote. I never argued that American lives are less than other lives. I argued that our actions now may cost us additional American lives that were unnecessary to lose in the future. If we look at each case independently then we will always do what you folks want, which will likely prolong the war and send more Americans to die. If you are really harping on lives, then why do you support a measure which exposes even more soldiers to conflict?
 
Except that you completely ignored what I wrote. I never argued that American lives are less than other lives. I argued that our actions now may cost us additional American lives that were unnecessary to lose in the future. If we look at each case independently then we will always do what you folks want, which will likely prolong the war and send more Americans to die. If you are really harping on lives, then why do you support a measure which exposes even more soldiers to conflict?

That's not true. You said:

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.
 
That's not true. You said:

* Main Entry: sar·casm
* Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
* Date: 1550

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

Man, you don't even know when people are mocking you.
 
* Main Entry: sar·casm
* Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
* Date: 1550

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

Man, you don't even know when people are mocking you.


Nice try, sista'.
 
I'm not sure if you are either stupid or being intentionally ridiculous, especiallly since the reasons I cited are for not having Americans die.

Maybe you think someone is a fiscal conservative because they argued for massive government and huge deficits?

Maybe you just stop reading after a certain point?
 
I'm not sure if you are either stupid or being intentionally ridiculous, especiallly since the reasons I cited are for not having Americans die.

Maybe you think someone is a fiscal conservative because they argued for massive government and huge deficits?

Maybe you just stop reading after a certain point?

Perhaps it's you that is being intentionally stupid? I mean, fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with the topic. Reach much?
 
Perhaps it's you that is being intentionally stupid? I mean, fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with the topic. Reach much?

* Main Entry: anal·o·gy
* Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
* Date: 15th century

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness

lol.

You think I think American lives are worthless because I said so and then argued that I think American lives shouldn't be wasted. I said something and then justified it with diametrically opposed statements.

Clearly, sarcasm isn't something you can pick up.

And the analogy I gave was you think that diametrically opposed statements directly following a statement isn't obviously sarcasm.

Wow.
 
No counterinsurgency has ever been won by attrition (for the major power). Occupiers mostly lose regardless, but the small number of successes have either from cowing the populace with incredible brutality or by winning them over enough to not want to fight anymore. Considering the political options available to the U.S. winning the war is going to require we can secure the support of the locals. A cynical but accurate assessment would calculate the damage from killing local civilians to stabilizing the nation, to loss of political support back home for dead American soldiers.
 
* Main Entry: anal·o·gy
* Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
* Date: 15th century

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness

lol.

You think I think American lives are worthless because I said so and then argued that I think American lives shouldn't be wasted. I said something and then justified it with diametrically opposed statements.

Clearly, sarcasm isn't something you can pick up.

And the analogy I gave was you think that diametrically opposed statements directly following a statement isn't obviously sarcasm.

Wow.

Ho many times do you have to post a definition? We saw the first time. Are you just looking for attention?
 
The first time I posted the definition of "Sarcam." Can you tell me what word I posted the definition to in the post you quoted?

Is it Sarcasm?

lol.
 
The first time I posted the definition of "Sarcam." Can you tell me what word I posted the definition to in the post you quoted?

Is it Sarcasm?

lol.

So, all you can really do is post word definitions? No kiddin? Please, tell us that that's not all you have to offer to the discussion.
 
So, all you can really do is post word definitions? No kiddin? Please, tell us that that's not all you have to offer to the discussion.

Hardly. You just ignore everything else I wrote.

Btw, are you going to attack Rathi, misrepresent what he said and overall lie about his post despite him saying the same things as I have?
 
The first time I posted the definition of "Sarcam." Can you tell me what word I posted the definition to in the post you quoted?

Is it Sarcasm?

lol.

No, but your post could be used as an example of sarcasm.
 
Well, that would require the ability of people to at least remotely understand and be able to locate it. Clearly, that ability is not present in everyone.

I never saw anything that indicated that it was sarcasm. Nice try at salvaging your post, both by you and Redress, though.

I think we all already knew that you hate our soldiers.
 
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?

It wasn't covered minute to minute. And those embedded journalists that journeyed to Baghdad with their assigned units (the first time since the Gulf War that the military allowed it on such scale) were accused of being too close and unable to remain impartial and "honest" to the realities by those seasoned journalists who remained far behind in Qutar (reporter headquarters). What has occurred after is exactly what the military was trying to prevent. The great rift between military and media was created during Vietnam when it was fashionable to "bring down the man" whether he was a General or a Platoon Sergeant. The military decided to lift this ban on reporters and embed a few, thereby controlling it to an extent. The reasoning was that if reporters placed their lives in the troops they reported on, ate with them, and grieved with them, then maybe they would be kinder. But this went right out the window when it again became fashionable to report on imperfection, mistakes, and drama.

Despite the pundit and the ignorant critic who clinged to whimsical fantasies of possible failure this entire time, Iraq was never going to fail. And despite our politicians and media's greatest efforts, the American military succeeded with what it was supposed to do.

However, this doesn't mean that the media didn't fuel rage across Iraq, causing more deaths than needed, made the effort that much more difficult, and dictated the outcome of battles. I have already mentioned Fallujah I. The violence and structural devistation that came out of Fallujah II was the direct result of our military hastily striking before the media cameras could ruin it again. It is impossible to tell just how many soldiers and Marines died from the hands of enraged insurgents who were bombarded with photos and coverage of Abu-Ghraib for a year (the two American soldiers that were captured, tortured, and beheaded mere two weeks before Abu-Graib didn't rate such media attention, you see.)

I'll offer another example on how ther media has made matters worse for those in uniform. Sadr lives to this day because the news cameras lobbied for his life. We had at least two chances to rid Iraq of his fanaticism. On one occassion, he was trapped in a Mosque in Al-Nasr after three days of fighting. The military surrounded the Mosque and awaited the order to destroy. But with the media watching and every news camera making military business a global drama played out in their living rooms, his life was spared and we simply left. Another occassion saw him wisk away through the streets of Baghdad towards the news cameras where his life was again spared. Today, he is a politician and represents the fanaticism of the Iraqi government.

So, the news cameras were never going to dictate the end of this war unless Bush buckled to the mass public who whined and complained about what they didn't understand anyway (as it did over Vietnam). But it did cause one disaster after another for those tasked to "win" this war by the very people who treat them like yo-yos. I place exactly the emphasis deserved and earned upon our media.

IMO, Afghanistan is a waste of time because there aren't any realistic economic development paths it can take. Which apparently is the fundamental basis of why my old former marine teacher explicitly stated from the very beginning as to why Afghanistan will fail. Without development, we're going to be fighting this war forever.

Understand it for starters. This "war" is exactly what it was going to be as far as back as 2001. Afghanistan is a tribal waste land like much of the Middle East and this is what will ultimately define failure for them. And we need not to force ourselves to believe that we owe anything to these people. If they aren't willing to at least meet us half way, then our role should simply be one of disciplinarian.

"Punitive Strikes" used to resolve many issues in the days of old. When it comes to the Afghanis/Pakistani region, our special forces, UAVs, and missiles are more than capable of exacting revenge and order. But with the media dictating military action as it does, our people behaving like fools, and our politicians having no sense of military affairs, we will continue to place an unfair burden upon our military. Considering who our enemy is, our strikes need to be so vicious and devistating that even our allies cringe.

But it will take a lot more American deaths on our soil before they pull their heads out of their asses. Our people are quick to cry for blood. They are quick to send other Americans into the fray to destroy and slaughter in their name. And they are just as quick to buckle the first time they see through their television sets what destrucion and slaughter looks like. And this is where the militrary finds itself fighting the enemy, the critics at home, and the media.
 
Explain to me how killing civilians makes the situation better.

It doesn't make it better. Nor does it make it worse.

You think these civilians had it made before Americans had to step in and do what they should have been doing for themselves? You think these people haven't been massacred purposefully over the decades by their own Muslim people? You know the worst slaughter Palestinians have ever gootne came from the Syrians and the Jordanians on two seperate occassions? The greatest slaughter Persians have gotten came from Iraqis? And the greatest slaughter Iraq has seen in centuries came from their own Muslims over the past 5 years? Afghanii tribes are constantly under the Muslim gun. The greatest enemy a Muslim can and does have in the Middle East has always been another Muslim. Not the West and certainly not the "Great Satan." A few Muslims killled in a "NATO" attack only matters as long as the media is emblazoning it across the sky and the ignorant gives it nmore creedence than it deserves.

1. "Thirty Muslims slaughtered by Tali-Ban forces for aiding American troops."

2. "Sixty Muslims killed in NATO attack upon Tali-Ban forces."

Which do you think the media will gravitate towards? Do you think this helps the effort at all? Muslims who already look for excuses need only to read our own media rags to get it. Our media enables them to deny their own culture of slaughter and focus on the big bad wolf in their midst that wouldn't even be there were it not for their inabilities to behave civily and with a sense of responsibility.


And by the way....as far as "if killing civilians makes a situation better".....dropping two atomic bombs on two civilian cities in Japan ended the war in the Pacific in quick fashion. Not saying it's right. Not saying it's wrong. But there is no disputing the fact of the event, and the 60 year result.

History has shown that the world's longest lasting "peaces" have only come after enough slaughter has occurred. We continue to fool ourselves by thinking that we can "win" without killing our enemies in a devestating manner and catering to the rediculous idea that was must be perfect. Victory is victory. We haven't tasted complete and utter uncondictional "victory" since WWII because people who don't wear uniforms fancy themselves capable of sending their military to kill, then cry when it does, and then insist that peace comes via a flower.

The sword brings peace. This is historical and there is no denying it. Hell, even a two bit dictator in Iraq knew this.
 
No counterinsurgency has ever been won by attrition (for the major power). Occupiers mostly lose........

Um...no this is not true at all. We have a very long history of insurgencies being defeated and broken throughout the world. The Romans have a history. The Japanese have a history. The British have a history. The Americans have a history - Morro...Boxer Rebellion...Cuba... Hell, all the European colonial powers had success against local insurgencies. There are entire books written on this topic.

The only difference now is that every time a media camera captures imperfection or when a soldier dies the masses paint it with "failure." And they do so because they don't know any better and simply form opinions that are based off of some idiot commentator who also doesn't understand what he looking at.
 
Last edited:
This is sad, and hopefully doesn't happen in any similar cases.

Just because a person does not pick up a weapon for or openly declare to be an enemy combatant, does not mean that they aren't one. The article states that the observed "civilians" were helping the group shooting at our soldiers. That makes them enemy combatants, not civilians.

Now I do agree that civilian casualties should be kept to a minimum during war. However, that should not mean that we unnecessarily risk our soldiers' lives to keep from killing civilians who are not just in the way, but aiding the enemy. As was stated earlier, losing the support of the people may lose the war, but losing the support of the soldiers (or potential future soldiers) definitely will.

A couple of other things to keep in mind:
-Losing a good, experienced soldier because someone is afraid of killing civilians in the hostile area is not an effective way to keep body counts low. Experienced soldiers are likely to save more innocent lives the longer they live and do more killing of people-who-have-no-problem-killing-innocents. Keep in mind, the people that we are fighting have few problems with killing innocent people, whether its because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or on purpose. The more of this type of people we are able to kill, the fewer innocent lives that are put in jeopardy.
-Soldiers who feel that their lives are less important than the lives of civilians who happen to be in hostile areas, especially when they know said civilians are aiding the enemy, are not going to be as effective soldiers as they could be. This particular problem would not only affect the morale of the current soldiers, but could also detrimentally impact the recruitment of future soldiers. How many people (and what kind) would really want to join if they thought that their lives were less important than the lives of civilians who are aiding the enemy or even just those civilians who might happen to be in the area where a conflict between us and the insurgents starts.
 
Feel free to write to the military and tell them how to do their jobs.

I am sure they will give your letter all due consideration.

Iirc, the manual on counter insurgency operations is available online if you desire to understand more. Or if you merely want to talk about how you knw better than they do...

Four Marines are dead because they couldn't get affective arty fire. Where is that in the CI manual? Please, show me.
 
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.

Soldiers and Marines need indirect fire support. That is part of warfare. Collateral damage is part of warfare. Stop trying to tell us how to do our jobs.
 
Soldiers and Marines need indirect fire support. That is part of warfare. Collateral damage is part of warfare. Stop trying to tell us how to do our jobs.

Strategy is precedence. A key tenet of NATO strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and convince them that the Afghan government and foreign forces are not the antagonists. Now, if calling in any type of indirect fire is going to serve as a tactical victory in exchange for a strategic blunder, the answer should be simple: Tactical actions should never be inconsistent with strategic objectives.

The problem I had with the entire thing is that the coordinates they called in were out of the 500 meter safety zone. It wasn't near a village and they supposively made that clear, so what the **** was at stake?
 
You are all missing the point. The Target was not threatening any civilians and still they received no artillery fire.
 
Back
Top Bottom