• 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...

Based on what the article said. Does anyone have an report by the military or something higher up.

I think it's pretty clear from the first hand account (from the embedded reporter), that the army cpt wasn't targeting civilians. The amount of firepower they were up against implied large numbers of dug-in enemies, with crew-served weapons too.
 
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.
 
It's not. It's the same year in and year out.

Agreed. Some people choose to ignore this.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Because, the media has learned that it can only get away with so much defeatism. The days of the loser piece-a-crap Walter Cronkite saying, "the war can't be won", are over.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



Care to support his position or is this more rear end talking?

If you don't get it, then it's a complete waste of time explaining it to you.

It just goes to show that Liberals will bend over backwards to undermind out military and get soldiers killed to push their agenda.
 
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?

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
 
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.

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.

If you don't get it, then it's a complete waste of time explaining it to you.

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

Some folks can't understand the difference between bad and much, much worse. But, they ain't the ones doin' the dien'.
 
Except that nothing I said supports such a claim or is even relevant. Not surprising you changed the argument.

Your comments claim that civilian lives take precedence over American lives.

You have yet to explain how killing more civilians is a good outcome.

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?



Which is why many people ignore you.


Somehow, I doubt that I'm ignored...:rofl
 
Killing civilians = BAD

Apsdt doesn't seem to think so.

Enforcing protocol wether civilians are at threat or not, effectively getting our troops and many more afghan troops killed = MUCH MUCH WORSE

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?
 
Apsdt doesn't seem to think so.

That's a lie and you know it.



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?

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?
 
Your comments claim that civilian lives take precedence over American lives.

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.

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?

Except that you never argued otherwise. Watch:

Care to try actually addressing what I did say vs. what you invented?

Not even a single word had to be changed.

Somehow, I doubt that I'm ignored...:rofl

True, you're just laughed at.
 
That's a lie and you know it.

Not if we read what you actually said.

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?

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.
 
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.

If that's the case, then the civilians in Afghanistan should be highly intolerant of the Tallies, right about now. Yes?[/quote]





True, you're just laughed at.

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.
 
Not if we read what you actually said.

Especially if you read what I actually said. Or, most importantly, if you have enough intellignce to understand it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one saying the exact same thing.



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 they are the enemy, as well.
 
If that's the case, then the civilians in Afghanistan should be highly intolerant of the Tallies, right about now. Yes?

Some are. Actually from reports many are. They just are highly intolerant of us as well.

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.

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?
 
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?

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.
 
Some are. Actually from reports many are. They just are highly intolerant of us as well.

In that case, they aren't non-combatants and are, therefore, legitimate targets and deserve to die. Welcome to the real world.
 
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.
 
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.

Yeah, no kiddin'.

It's a damn shame when people can't put their political agenda down for a sec t support our soldiers in the field.
 
This story was not even about the killing of civilians, it was about how the new RoEs--put into place in order to prevent that, supposedly--needlessly endanger our troops in unnecessary situations...and need to be fixed.
 
Back
Top Bottom