• 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 Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

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.
 
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.

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".
 
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.

True words.. now if we could just untie their hands......You know, take the Barry cuffs off.
 
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".

I try very hard not to state such things with certainty. I was addressing someone who I thought was doing just that, and sought to present an alternative reading.

Nor do I think they are considered a civilian, but in trying to shoot such a person, and hitting a civilian in the process will have negative effects on the mission. My problem is with the mission. But as long as the mission is what it is, these rules of engagement make some sense.
 
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

Not operating isn't really the same as not there. Keeping them bottled up in Pakistan does require us in Afghanistan, but not nation building. The problem as I see has been in the nation building aspect of both president's policies there (among other things).


Gen. David Petraeus said affiliated groups have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan and that "tentacles of Al Qaeda" have touched countries throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. But he said the terrorist group has suffered" very significant losses" in recent months, and agreed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent assessment that there is no Al Qaeda based in his country.

Still, he said he believes Usama bin Laden and his No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri remain in charge of the terrorist network.

"They surface periodically. We see communications that they send out," Petraeus said.
 
Last edited:
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

OBL has been recently reported to be alive, well, and controlling AlQaeda operations from northern Pakistan. Bush couldn't do the job, so Repugnicans floated a myth that Osama was dying. Please join us in reality.
Osama, deputy hiding in Pakistan: CIA chief - Pakistan - World - The Times of India
 
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
 
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

:roll::roll::roll:
 
Did he really just compare cops to soldiers???? :doh

Well, it could have been worse. He could have made the comparison to Wal-Mart security guards...... Oops, I just gave him another argument to use. My bad. Sorry. :mrgreen:
 
34o37li.jpg
 
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.

So if bombs dont kill people... and the people who plant the bombs dont kill people....then who the hell kills people???? Furthermore how do they kill them?. Because im pretty certian that it's not done by tieing them up in a room and making them watch Fantasia 23 hours a day...wait thats considered torture these days isnt it? :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom