• 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!

Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation

you're asking me to explain how obama ESCALATED afghanistan?

LOL!

read the link
 
The Prof said:
you're asking me to explain how obama ESCALATED afghanistan?
Click to expand...

What a giant creamy load!

Escalate it?

Because obviously everything was going JUST GREAT until Obama came along in Afghanistan...

What the 7 years before he came into office meant nothing to you?

LOL!
 
Jetboogieman said:
What a giant creamy load!

Escalate it?

Because obviously everything was going JUST GREAT until Obama came along in Afghanistan...

What the 7 years before he came into office meant nothing to you?

LOL!
Click to expand...

It's not really all that funny. It's kind of sad actually.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Escalate it?
Click to expand...

yup, that's what sending an additional 30,000 troops means

deal with it

afghanistan is a LOSER

when are we leaving, again?

what's our exit strategy?

what's AFGHANIZATION gonna look like?

who's running things over there?

how's that not so secret war in PAKISTAN going?

where's al qaeda?

what did WOODWARD say?

stay up
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.
Click to expand...



You understand little about combat, war, etc. Civillian casualties are a reality of war, and always will be. Doing nothing emboldens the enemy as seen on 911.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You understand little about combat, war, etc. Civillian casualties are a reality of war, and always will be. Doing nothing emboldens the enemy as seen on 911.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, outside of actually catching bin Laden or attempting to forestall the terrorist attacks right before they happened, what is it we were supposed to have done to prevent 9/11?

And you DO know that Boo is a veteran of the 82nd, right?
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I'm sorry, outside of actually catching bin Laden or attempting to forestall the terrorist attacks right before they happened, what is it we were supposed to have done to prevent 9/11?
Click to expand...

It was a massive intelligence failure among many administrations. Too long a list of how the elected officials failed and the soldiers had to clean up thier messes.


And you DO know that Boo is a veteran of the 82nd, right?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do. I stand by my statement, as he is not a combat veteran, as can be seen by his civillianesque view on war and combat. I appreciate him as a brother, but at the same time, he shows little understanding of war, the failure of diplomacy, and the realities of battle.
 
It was a massive intelligence failure among many administrations. Too long a list of how the elected officials failed and the soldiers had to clean up thier messes.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.

Yes, I do. I stand by my statement, as he is not a combat veteran, as can be seen by his civillianesque view on war and combat. I appreciate him as a brother, but at the same time, he shows little understanding of war, the failure of diplomacy, and the realities of battle.
Click to expand...

I think war/combat is definitely a visceral experience that is only understood by those who have been through it. However there has to be a distinction made between war as experienced by those at the tactical level, and the politicians and statesmen who formulate and implment at the strategic level. Not many people are qualified to comment on the former, but many are qualified to comment on the latter, and I believe that people who have been in the military at the tactical/operational, and sometimes even at general/flag level, don't necessarily make great strategists, and in our country strategy is mostly the domain of politicians (most of whom are civilians).
 
StillBallin75 said:
I can agree with this.



I think war/combat is definitely a visceral experience that is only understood by those who have been through it. However there has to be a distinction made between war as experienced by those at the tactical level, and the politicians and statesmen who formulate and implment at the strategic level. Not many people are qualified to comment on the former, but many are qualified to comment on the latter, and I believe that people who have been in the military at the tactical/operational, and sometimes even at general/flag level, don't necessarily make great strategists, and in our country strategy is mostly the domain of politicians (most of whom are civilians).
Click to expand...


Strategy and plans all sound great until the 1st 7.62 flies by. I don't discount most of what you are saying, but I do stand by my statement, I have seen some terrible terrible things. Things I still to this day do not talk about. What I do stand up to and comment on however, is when I see "theory" and "blame" for what amounts to the reality of war. We, the US, US Troops, have been killed and maimed, avoiding civillian casualties, to suggest we are wonton in our disregard for civillian life, or that we "kill" poor iraqis soldiers who were "doing nothing but defending thier country" (USA_1 was opining this on another thread), shows just how disconnected civillians and the like are from the war fighters.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Strategy and plans all sound great until the 1st 7.62 flies by. I don't discount most of what you are saying, but I do stand by my statement, I have seen some terrible terrible things. Things I still to this day do not talk about. What I do stand up to and comment on however, is when I see "theory" and "blame" for what amounts to the reality of war. We, the US, US Troops, have been killed and maimed, avoiding civillian casualties, to suggest we are wonton in our disregard for civillian life, or that we "kill" poor iraqis soldiers who were "doing nothing but defending thier country" (USA_1 was opining this on another thread), shows just how disconnected civillians and the like are from the war fighters.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I definitely think that crazies who characterize troops as "baby-killers" and bloodthirsty warmongers who are just itching to pull the trigger don't live within the realm of reality. However, that doesn't keep me from criticizing the decision to go to War in Iraq, or the conduct (at least in the initial stages up until about 2007) of the war itself, which was on the whole a strategic disaster. A distinction definitely needs to be drawn between the war and warriors, something which we failed to do in Vietnam and I think we are doing a better job of it today. I think the points that Boo mentioned just further reinforces the general agreement among most that counterinsurgency operations are a real bitch.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with this. I definitely think that crazies who characterize troops as "baby-killers" and bloodthirsty warmongers who are just itching to pull the trigger don't live within the realm of reality. However, that doesn't keep me from criticizing the decision to go to War in Iraq, or the conduct (at least in the initial stages up until about 2007) of the war itself, which was on the whole a strategic disaster. A distinction definitely needs to be drawn between the war and warriors, something which we failed to do in Vietnam and I think we are doing a better job of it today. I think the points that Boo mentioned just further reinforce the general agreement among most that counterinsurgency operations are a real bitch.
Click to expand...



I truly believe there was much more to the war in Iraq than meets the eye.

The Iraq Oil-for-food Scandal

It was a culmination of UN sanctions, oil money embezzeling of a grand scale and a no way out proposition for the US... among his bluffing about WMD and the policy set by bush's predecessor (clinton "regieme change") etc...


I could go on and on about this etc...

As for the war conduct? We rolled Iraq like a cigarette, How was it a strategic disaster?
 
As for the war conduct? We rolled Iraq like a cigarette, How was it a strategic disaster?
Click to expand...

Too long to explain; for a general understanding of the decisions that went on at the top and the results of those decisions on the ground, I read these books:

Amazon.com: Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (9781400075393): Michael R. Gordon, Bernard E. Trainor: Books

Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq: Thomas E. Ricks: Books

In essence the pre-war planning was shortsighted, and it took the Administration four years to get its act together and start dealing with Iraq intelligently starting with the surge, specops raids, Sunni Awakening etc.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Too long to explain; for a general understanding of the decisions that went on at the top and the results of those decisions on the ground, I read these books:

Amazon.com: Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (9781400075393): Michael R. Gordon, Bernard E. Trainor: Books

Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq: Thomas E. Ricks: Books

In essence the pre-war planning was shortsighted, and it took the Administration four years to get its act together and start dealing with Iraq intelligently starting with the surge, specops raids, Sunni Awakening etc.
Click to expand...

Because they were too busy trying to avoid civilian casualties. When you fight a war on such a surgical and precise level, it's going to take time.

Can you imagine how long WW2 would have lasted, if we hadn't bombed Germany and Japan? Or the Civil War, had Sherman waged total war on Georgia and South Carolina?

Allied ordnance killed 15,000 French civilians during the invasion of Normandy.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Because they were too busy trying to avoid civilian casualties. When you fight a war on such a surgical and precise level, it's going to take time.

Can you imagine how long WW2 would have lasted, if we hadn't bombed Germany and Japan? Or the Civil War, had Sherman waged total war on Georgia and South Carolina?

Allied ordnance killed 15,000 French civilians during the invasion of Normandy.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they didn't give a **** about civilian casualties starting circa 2007 when the DID start getting their act together? The reason 2003-2007 were so ****ed up is because the administration didn't see an insurgency coming and were absolutely clueless about how to deal with it. They had disbanded the Iraqi army and marginalized all Baathists within the country, the CPA was completely ineffective at coordinating the civilian and military side of things, and in addition you had things like Abu Ghraib which was the result of using reservists as prison guards and interrogators. The incompetence that characterized the conduct of the Iraq War pre-surge had nothing to do with trying to avoid unnecessary casualties and everything to do with how the administration didn't have a clue about how to prosecute a counterinsurgency.

I also love how you keep on citing WWII examples when those wars were completely different animals. Defeating a nation-state and its army is not the same as fighting a counterinsurgency.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You understand little about combat, war, etc. Civillian casualties are a reality of war, and always will be. Doing nothing emboldens the enemy as seen on 911.
Click to expand...

You really like to tell people what they don't understand. You're almost always wrong, but I sense it must make you feel better somehow.

Anyway, this isn't a traditional war. Not like WWII, and while more like VN, not quite like that either. You have to know what you're fighting, understand your enemy, and plan to accomplish a mission. Killing civilians in this case defeats our purpose, and in the end, leaves us worse off than had we not invaded in the first place.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm sorry, outside of actually catching bin Laden or attempting to forestall the terrorist attacks right before they happened, what is it we were supposed to have done to prevent 9/11?
Click to expand...

Most those who testified durng the 9/11 commission said there was no one we could have killed that would have prevented it. No country we could have incvaded that would have prevented. Mindless war simply doesn't make us one bit safer. Nothing in either Afghanistan or Iraq is making us any safer.
 
Boo Radley said:
You really like to tell people what they don't understand. You're almost always wrong, but I sense it must make you feel better somehow.
Click to expand...

Oh boo, please tell me about war and combat, i'm all ears...... Tell me how i am wrong....

Accidental killing of civillians has little effect overall on the general populace of a repressed regieme. If you are up for it, i'll give you some books to read.



Anyway, this isn't a traditional war. Not like WWII, and while more like VN, not quite like that either. You have to know what you're fighting, understand your enemy, and plan to accomplish a mission. Killing civilians in this case defeats our purpose, and in the end, leaves us worse off than had we not invaded in the first place.
Click to expand...


It does really? Not invading left us with UNSCAM, unkown wmd, sanctions, it left iraqis with rape rooms, tourture, murder and despotism in all itd glory. So worse off?


I disagree...
 
Boo Radley said:
Most those who testified durng the 9/11 commission said there was no one we could have killed that would have prevented it. No country we could have incvaded that would have prevented. Mindless war simply doesn't make us one bit safer. Nothing in either Afghanistan or Iraq is making us any safer.
Click to expand...

I think Reverend makes a good point when he points out the failure of the intelligence community. But I agree that invading any particular country would not have prevented anything a small group of men had already set their minds on doing.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Oh boo, please tell me about war and combat, i'm all ears...... Tell me how i am wrong....

Accidental killing of civillians has little effect overall on the general populace of a repressed regieme. If you are up for it, i'll give you some books to read.






It does really? Not invading left us with UNSCAM, unkown wmd, sanctions, it left iraqis with rape rooms, tourture, murder and despotism in all itd glory. So worse off?


I disagree...
Click to expand...

Actually I have already explained. And no, we actually knew the wmds were not a real concern. Drinking the koolaid doesn't make the argument valid. And we don't have heaven in either country now, which still have corruption and torture. So, the betterment has been not only mild with no future certainty, but expensive. When the worst of it was happening, we did nothing. We waited until it was mostly over, and then added injury to injury. Not something anyone would thank us for, or that we should feel too good about.

So, no, as realted to purpose, we create more than we kill when we kill civilians.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I think Reverend makes a good point when he points out the failure of the intelligence community. But I agree that invading any particular country would not have prevented anything a small group of men had already set their minds on doing.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be in a position to defend the intelligence community, but the fact is they had the same intel Clinton had, which led to a different conclusion. To get where Bush got, you had to use questionable intel that was highly doubted by the CIA oppertives involved. Curveball was doubted from the beginning. al Libibi's testimoney was coersed, and doubted. We had evidence to the contrary on much of the rest, and we knew most wmds had been destoryed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually I have already explained. And no, we actually knew the wmds were not a real concern. Drinking the koolaid doesn't make the argument valid. And we don't have heaven in either country now, which still have corruption and torture. So, the betterment has been not only mild with no future certainty, but expensive. When the worst of it was happening, we did nothing. We waited until it was mostly over, and then added injury to injury. Not something anyone would thank us for, or that we should feel too good about.

So, no, as realted to purpose, we create more than we kill when we kill civilians.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the wars are going badly. They tried to cover up the latest evidence of torture before the inspectors could check out the allegations.

Iraq operating 'secret prison': Human Rights Watch
Iraq operating 'secret prison': Human Rights Watch - Yahoo! News

Pakistan has "disastrous year" for human rights in 2010: HRW
Pakistan has disastrous year for human rights in 2010: HRW | Reuters
 
apdst said:
There are also laws that prohibit using non-combatants as human shields.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said the Laws of War are what separates us from extremists... Us not honoring it makes us no better than they are.
 
Apocalypse said:
Usually there is no knowledge or certainty as to whether civilians will be harmed or not as a result of the targeting of terrorists and other militants. The blame in such cases is to be placed on those who have placed them in that position, using them as human shields and using their corpses to promote their radical cause. Western forces have no interest to get civilians killed, it's not like they see civilians and think "hey let's kill those innocent bastards". They target militants. You simply cannot assure that civilians will never die when targeting Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...
There is no certainty, but to suggest that there is "no knowledge" of civilian damage when planning/commencing operations is just flat out wrong. Steps are always taken to prevent civilian damage by civilized armies. However, there is no cause to take action when excessive civilian damage is not only possible, but probable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom