• 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!

U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

What anti-American rhetoric? I do not consider ignoring American atrocities to be patriotic.

I do not think they get ignored. Practically all atrocities in the war, committed by Americans, came to light after the military reported on them. Abu Graib, murder in Haditha, etc.. Those responsible were found guilty and punished. That's to be admired. It certainly astonishes the Iraqis.
 
Funny, that is what AQ says on its propaganda tapes as well....you are in dubious company sir.


j-mac

Its also what the Rand Report to the Pentagon concluded. It is why the terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide, despite our 8 year "war on terror"!
 
Its also what the Rand Report to the Pentagon concluded. It is why the terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide, despite our 8 year "war on terror"!

You have the link to that report? Could you post it. I'd like to read it.

Most innocent deaths have been at the hands of the terrorists.
 
Last edited:
iraqbodycount.org

Excellent source! Iraq Body Count shows how innocent civilian deaths increased dramatically due to our invasion and occupation as opposed the levels before we attacked them.

You also might read up on how we bombed dual use targets in Iraq during Gulf War 1, which followed by 10 years of sanctions resulted in the deaths of 100,000 innocent civilians. That of course was the biggest reason for the retaliation strike on 9/11.

I don't condone killing of innocent people on either side.

"Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore!" - John Prine

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp1mIYJNKWQ"]YouTube - John Prine - Flag Decal[/ame]
 
I do not think they get ignored. Practically all atrocities in the war, committed by Americans, came to light after the military reported on them. Abu Graib, murder in Haditha, etc.. Those responsible were found guilty and punished. That's to be admired. It certainly astonishes the Iraqis.


Hmmm....... I thought Bush and Cheney were still walking around free men.
 
You also might read up on how we bombed dual use targets in Iraq during Gulf War 1, which followed by 10 years of sanctions resulted in the deaths of 100,000 innocent civilians. That of course was the biggest reason for the retaliation strike on 9/11.


:lol: as a tac-p I can take credit for much of those targets getting hit with such accuracy. :shrug:


10 years of UN sanctions that the UN and other countries used as an embezzlment scheme in the oil for palaces program..


Why don't you hold them responsible? That's right. it doesn't jive with your anti-american rhetoric.



I don't condone killing of innocent people on either side.

"Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore!" - John Prine

[]


We who served have been shot, wounded, and killed avoiding civillian casualites. We spend billions figuring out how to lower that rate as much as possible...

THEY hide among school childeren and shoot at us.


Your feigned outrage is betrayed by your anti-americanism.
 
Hmmm....... I thought Bush and Cheney were still walking around free men.

They weren't responsible for the atrocities commited. ;) They were only responsible for sending us there in the first place. Was that a crime?
 
You have the link to that report? Could you post it. I'd like to read it.

Most innocent deaths have been at the hands of the terrorists.

Where is the proof most innocent deaths have been at the hands of terrorists???

Article on the Rand Report to the Pentagon - "War on Terror" a failure!

"Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians."


"Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all." If the politicians take this study seriously, and they should, they should abandon current plans for an increase in U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq."
 
They weren't responsible for the atrocities commited. ;) They were only responsible for sending us there in the first place. Was that a crime?

According to some, yes, because Iraq was just a happy little well-governed country before we came along a mucked it all up.

They were fine without us - they had everyone under control.

:aliens2:
 
Its also what the Rand Report to the Pentagon concluded. It is why the terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide, despite our 8 year "war on terror"!


Aw BS. You wouldn't give anything Rand has to say any time at all unless it agreed with your view that America is ignoble.


j-mac
 
According to some, yes, because Iraq was just a happy little well-governed country before we came along a mucked it all up.

They were fine without us - they had everyone under control.

:aliens2:



Hope you are being sarcastic here. Nevermind I get it......


j-mac
 
:lol: as a tac-p I can take credit for much of those targets getting hit with such accuracy. :shrug:

You must be very proud! My son left the Air Force after 13 years service due to our treatment of the Iraqi citizens.


10 years of UN sanctions that the UN and other countries used as an embezzlment scheme in the oil for palaces program..

ten years of sanctions that the US pushed for and enforced. We would not even allow in emergency water pumps in to get clean water to the civilians because we had targeted water treatment plants.


Why don't you hold them responsible? That's right. it doesn't jive with your anti-american rhetoric.

I do. Why do you deny responsibility.

We who served have been shot, wounded, and killed avoiding civillian casualites. We spend billions figuring out how to lower that rate as much as possible...

And still we killed more than the terrorists did on 9/11.

THEY hide among school childeren and shoot at us.

They do not have the benefit of the remote killing weapons of the most powerful nation on earth. They use the tactics they are forced to use to defend themselves.

Your feigned outrage is betrayed by your anti-americanism.

You like the name calling thing, huh?

So because I expect the US to be on a higher moral ground than the enemy, that makes me anti-American?
 
Where is the proof most innocent deaths have been at the hands of terrorists???

I don't have "proof" at my fingertips. I make the assertion based on observation that all of those suicide bombings on bridges during religious festivals and car bombings in markets kill large numbers of Iraqis and are most definitely caused by terrorists/insurgents.


Thank you.

"Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians."

You posted this before and I commented. This goes to 2006 and so leaves out the publication of the new Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the Surge, and the implementation of the new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. It goes through the breakout of civil war in Iraq and so obviously counts it a failure. The rule is "less is more".

The observations of the report make perfect sense. You cannot oppose an insurgency with direct military force. You have to protect the population (the battlefield), separate the insurgents from the innocents and their potential support and discredit their activities and establish your trustworthiness. They have done this successfully in Iraq now in 2009.

"Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all." If the politicians take this study seriously, and they should, they should abandon current plans for an increase in U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq."

I disagree with the conclusions in this paragraph. It says: "means a light military footprint or none at all". If you are going to do counterinsurgency, you need the force capable of protecting the population. If local forces are up to the job then that is GREAT! Otherwise, our forces will need to be deployed to protect, as well as to train the new local forces.

The Surge in Iraq, a move that this report was opposed to, succeeded. If I were you I would stop using this report in your arguments here.
 
I heard an Admiral on the Rusty Humphries show last week, I think, that was on that ship, and he was explaining that the sign was the brain child of the ships XO, that put it up to signify the end of that ships mission. But, we see what happens when we let a biased liberal media get ahold of it.

Poor XO gets the blame! Man!

Perception is everything, though. It didn't help that the banner was behind Bush on international TV declaring that we'd essentially won in Iraq.
 
They weren't responsible for the atrocities commited. ;) They were only responsible for sending us there in the first place. Was that a crime?

I believe so. Attacking a country that never attacked us, nor had the capacity to attack us was a moral crime.
 
Aw BS. You wouldn't give anything Rand has to say any time at all unless it agreed with your view that America is ignoble.

You prefer to ignore their findings because it does not match your world view???
 
You like the name calling thing, huh?

So because I expect the US to be on a higher moral ground than the enemy, that makes me anti-American?





I don't respond to posters who won't quote right, if you don't care enough to do the work youself, don't expect the Greatness that is the Good Reverend to do do...



As for name calling? I think you are anti-American. your posts seem to prove this. Feel free to prove me wrong. I am not "name calling" just pointing out your true nature. :shrug:


Prove me wrong.
 
I believe so. Attacking a country that never attacked us, nor had the capacity to attack us was a moral crime.

I'll skip arguing this point, since 1) I've done it 3 times in 3 days already, 2) I am currently internally debating the point (did Bush know there were no WMDs? - I don't think he did. Is being in the national interest sufficient to justify an invasion or does it have to be in national defense? - I think national interest is sufficient).
 
So because I expect the US to be on a higher moral ground than the enemy, that makes me anti-American?


Oh please.....The question is two fold. One, do you think that what America is doing there is the right thing? and Two, do you want America to succeed?


j-mac
 
That would be correct. How does his indecision on future strategy cause soldiers, fighting under the current strategy, to die there today?
Why do we need a new strategy, if troop aren't dying under the old strategy?
 
Poor XO gets the blame! Man!

Perception is everything, though. It didn't help that the banner was behind Bush on international TV declaring that we'd essentially won in Iraq.



But see, that is the spin that the media put on it, not what it was, or was it the only way it could have been construed, no?


j-mac
 
I don't have "proof" at my fingertips. I make the assertion based on observation that all of those suicide bombings on bridges during religious festivals and car bombings in markets kill large numbers of Iraqis and are most definitely caused by terrorists/insurgents.

Yes, by Saudis mostly. The one country we did not attack. Yet still we killed more.



Thank you.

You are welcome!



You posted this before and I commented. This goes to 2006 and so leaves out the publication of the new Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the Surge, and the implementation of the new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. It goes through the breakout of civil war in Iraq and so obviously counts it a failure. The rule is "less is more".

That just relates to successful occupation, which I have never argued. It does not negate their findings that terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide through the 2008 report date.

The observations of the report make perfect sense. You cannot oppose an insurgency with direct military force. You have to protect the population (the battlefield), separate the insurgents from the innocents and their potential support and discredit their activities and establish your trustworthiness. They have done this successfully in Iraq now in 2009.

No, all we have in Iraq, is a successful occupation. Until we remove our occupation forces that prop up our puppet government, and stop the American taxpayer payola to the bad guys, we cannot claim anything else.


I disagree with the conclusions in this paragraph. It says: "means a light military footprint or none at all". If you are going to do counterinsurgency, you need the force capable of protecting the population. If local forces are up to the job then that is GREAT! Otherwise, our forces will need to be deployed to protect, as well as to train the new local forces.

If it is important to them it will be done by them. We have no right to enforce our way of government on others at the end of a gun.

The Surge in Iraq, a move that this report was opposed to, succeeded.

Where is the success?????

We still have 150,000 troops there! Until all those troops are brought home and our puppet government continues to stand can you claim success.

If I were you I would stop using this report in your arguments here.

Why is that? It is the most authoritative report on the failure of our "war on terror." To ignore it is to increase the threat to our National Security!
 
Back
Top Bottom