Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88

Thread: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

  1. #71
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    Good effort. Though I note: Some say.

    But more important is the mission:

    NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.
    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.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In


  3. #73
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    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

  4. #74
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    Yes, they've always been in Pakistan. Which is why I would say our nation building mission is misplaced right now. The concern is Al Qaeda and such groups. Controlling them, not Afghanistan, should be the mission.

    But if you are going to nation build, interfere in a nations civil strife, you have to win the hearts and minds of people. This requires you don't kill the innocent.

  5. #75
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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".

  8. #78
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: US Deaths Double In Afghanistan As Troops Pour In

    from west point:

    The president reaffirmed that destroying al-Qaeda is the chief objective of his strategy
    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

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •