Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation

Erod said:

Not today, you're right.

It used to be.

Click to expand...

Conventional Land Army Vs. Insurgency.

There's a big difference between fighting this:



And fighting this:

Ron Mars said:

Of course it matters if their methods are effective. If their methods were ineffective we wouldn't be talking about it or have to develop an effective strategery to counter it.



What strategery do you use against an enemy who straps children to their chests in an effort to blame their deaths on NATO or US forces?

We have no choice but to fight and defeat them.

Click to expand...

Well, you don't shoot the children, but it does show that an army, large and blunt, may not be the best method for fighting small groups that can hide this way. As always, I think invasion and using the entire military for this job was a foolish move.

And we have always had a choice. By our choices so far, we've mostly helped then and have not effectively fought them. Instead we've fought others, like in the civil war in Iraq, that our enemies have taken advantage of to hurt us as much or more than hurt them.

Boo Radley said:

By our choices so far, we've mostly helped then and have not effectively fought them. Instead we've fought others, like in the civil war in Iraq, that our enemies have taken advantage of to hurt us as much or more than hurt them.

Click to expand...

not even coherent, let alone reasonable

Boo Radley said:

Well, you don't shoot the children, but it does show that an army, large and blunt, may not be the best method for fighting small groups that can hide this way. As always, I think invasion and using the entire military for this job was a foolish move.

Click to expand...

As far as Iraq, using a very large and blunt army was the only way to topple Saddam and the tens of thousands of loyal military forces, fedayeen and foreigners who fought to the death for him. The US made lots of bad decisions in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, both military and political. We made lots of good ones as well.

Boo Radley said:

And we have always had a choice. By our choices so far, we've mostly helped then and have not effectively fought them. Instead we've fought others, like in the civil war in Iraq, that our enemies have taken advantage of to hurt us as much or more than hurt them.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that theory. What’s the recruiting slogan: “Sign here if you want to kill other Muslims”

Iraq became a magnet for al-Qaeda and they showed up by the thousands. They promptly proceeded to kill and maim Iraqi civilians by the score. I don’t believe that fact went unnoticed by Muslims around the world. It’s kind of hard to hide the fact that it was Islamic jihadis, not US forces, that were blowing up mosques and deliberately killing innocent Muslims despite the best efforts of al-Jazeera.

Boo Radley said:

That may be true. But I'm asking you to explain.

Click to expand...

Give it up boo, its like asking tinnitus why its there.

Ron Mars said:

As far as Iraq, using a very large and blunt army was the only way to topple Saddam and the tens of thousands of loyal military forces, fedayeen and foreigners who fought to the death for him. The US made lots of bad decisions in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, both military and political. We made lots of good ones as well.

Click to expand...

The worse decisions was invading in the first place. There was no need for it, nor was it our job to topple him. And what happened in Iraq was that the void needed to be filled and iraqis started fighting each other, just as Iraqis predicted before the war. Many knew how badly Iraq would go before going in. There was plenty of foresight, just no one in charge who would listen.

I disagree with that theory. What’s the recruiting slogan: “Sign here if you want to kill other Muslims”

Iraq became a magnet for al-Qaeda and they showed up by the thousands. They promptly proceeded to kill and maim Iraqi civilians by the score. I don’t believe that fact went unnoticed by Muslims around the world. It’s kind of hard to hide the fact that it was Islamic jihadis, not US forces, that were blowing up mosques and deliberately killing innocent Muslims despite the best efforts of al-Jazeera.

Click to expand...

That's not really true. Most of those who showed up, a small number, had no connection to terroist groups before Iraq. Instead, we inpired people to join. So, we were nt thinning their numbers, but increasing them, which is counter productive.

And it doesn't matter who was killing them. The killing was because of the war and destabilaztion we brought to Iraq. We can't fain no responsibility.

Boo Radley said:

The worse decisions was invading in the first place. There was no need for it, nor was it our job to topple him. And what happened in Iraq was that the void needed to be filled and iraqis started fighting each other, just as Iraqis predicted before the war. Many knew how badly Iraq would go before going in. There was plenty of foresight, just no one in charge who would listen.

Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone predicting al-Qaeda and pals would flood into Iraq and that Iran would fund, arm, and support them. They did their level best to start a war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq by killing people and destroying religious symbols. They failed. There were lots of predictions on all sides about what would happen. As usual, most of them were wrong.

I respect the opinion that we should not have gone into Iraq. There are some good arguments why we should not have. I disagree and believe it was the right thing to do.

Boo Radley said:

That's not really true. Most of those who showed up, a small number, had no connection to terroist groups before Iraq. Instead, we inpired people to join. So, we were nt thinning their numbers, but increasing them, which is counter productive.

And it doesn't matter who was killing them. The killing was because of the war and destabilaztion we brought to Iraq. We can't fain no responsibility.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely true. al-Qaeda made Iraq a central battlefield. Thousands of jihadis came into Iraq after Saddam was toppled. They were soundly defeated.

Of course it matters who’s killing them and why. It also matters who risked their own lives to protect them. The very actions of US forces as opposed to jihadis in Iraq have proven the jihadi ideology and propaganda to be a fraud.

Ron Mars said:

I don't remember anyone predicting al-Qaeda and pals would flood into Iraq and that Iran would fund, arm, and support them. They did their level best to start a war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq by killing people and destroying religious symbols. They failed. There were lots of predictions on all sides about what would happen. As usual, most of them were wrong.

I respect the opinion that we should not have gone into Iraq. There are some good arguments why we should not have. I disagree and believe it was the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

1. Al Qaeda didn't. Al Qaeda in Iraq was made up overwhelmingly of Iraqis who took the name. But if you type fly paper strategy, you will see some actually arguing that the Iraqi people should be the bait for bringing Al Qeada into their country. That's not exactly what happened, as I said, there was little of those connected to any group prior to taking up arms in Iraq. These were mostly Iraqis, and those coming into the country were mostly new recruits.

2. You can't start a war between people not already willing to fight each other. Anyone looking at the history ahd to know this was going to be a problem. The divisions are artificial and deep seeded.

3. I can't argue what you think any more than I can argue what I think. But I can argue that it wasn't a good idea, and here's why: a. It cost too much in terms of lives and money both, and for little to no real gain. b. At the end of the day, it favors Iran. At best, it allows for more friendly relations between the two nations. At worse, Iraq eventually alines with Iran. c. It ebenfitted our enemy by helping with recruitment, adding to their status (being important enough to have such a powerful nation openly decalre war agains thems), and hurt our reputation everywhere.

It's absolutely true. al-Qaeda made Iraq a central battlefield. Thousands of jihadis came into Iraq after Saddam was toppled. They were soundly defeated.

Of course it matters who’s killing them and why. It also matters who risked their own lives to protect them. The very actions of US forces as opposed to jihadis in Iraq have proven the jihadi ideology and propaganda to be a fraud.

Click to expand...

No, that's conservative myth. Iraq was a civil war plus. Or enemies merely were smart and took advantage of it and got more bang for our buck. And very few outsiders came. Of those fighting, only some 5% were foriegn (and only an estimated 5% of those ever had any connection to any terrorist group prior to coming to Iraq). That's a small percentage. Outsiders did not invest heavily, they just talked a lot because it keep it going longer and we were too easily led on this.

if it were any kind of CENTRAL battlefield, our eneimies would have invest much more. Instead, they got training and used Iraqis. This makes Iraq a loss for us no matter what eventually happens in Iraq.

And no, I still maintain it does not matter who is doing the killing because we brought the war. With us invading, those 100,000 would not have been killed. At the end of the day we cannot pretend that isn't true. So while soliders did a great job, and may well have made inroads with some, the act itself, of which or leaders hold responsibility, cannot be divorced from the consequences.

Jetboogieman said:

Conventional Land Army Vs. Insurgency.

There's a big difference between fighting this:

And fighting this:

Click to expand...

Care to explain the difference from a tactical point of view? Please, be specific and use tactical principles in your explanation. I don't think you can do it, but I reckon I owe you a shot.

Like always, thanks in advance.

Jetboogieman said:

Conventional Land Army Vs. Insurgency.

There's a big difference between fighting this:

And fighting this:

Click to expand...

Oh, wait! The guys at the tops are carrying shovels and the guys at the bottom have a rocket launcher! You're right, there is a difference. :lamo

apdst said:

Care to explain the difference from a tactical point of view? Please, be specific and use tactical principles in your explanation. I don't think you can do it, but I reckon I owe you a shot.

Like always, thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

A major one. The smaller group is harder to tackle with a large and blunt hammer. They won't win many battles if any, but they can keep running and hiding and keeping the war expensive and alive, hurting their enemy slowly and in degrees. The huge army can be tackle rather straightforwardly and they will be beaten or not, and sommeone will surrender, ending the war.

Not knowing the difference would explain the flaw in a lot of thinking.

Boo Radley said:

A major one. The smaller group is harder to tackle with a large and blunt hammer. They won't win many battles if any, but they can keep running and hiding and keeping the war expensive and alive, hurting their enemy slowly and in degrees. The huge army can be tackle rather straightforwardly and they will be beaten or not, and sommeone will surrender, ending the war.

Not knowing the difference would explain the flaw in a lot of thinking.

Click to expand...

Basically, you're stating that we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Fine, but we'll be fighting this war for 100+ years, killing millions of people slowly.

It's like trying to pick fleas off a herd of a thousand camels.

Boo Radley said:

A major one. The smaller group is harder to tackle with a large and blunt hammer. They won't win many battles if any, but they can keep running and hiding and keeping the war expensive and alive, hurting their enemy slowly and in degrees. The huge army can be tackle rather straightforwardly and they will be beaten or not, and sommeone will surrender, ending the war.

Not knowing the difference would explain the flaw in a lot of thinking.

Click to expand...

Ok, let me see if I can this in terms that you can understand more easily: from a tactical perspective, how do you destroy the will of each of those enemies to wage war?

Don't give us some crap about how irregular warfare fighters can't be defeated. Winning a war isn't all about a surrender ceremony.

Also, while you're at it, please explain to us at what point the tallies are going to have to transition to a conventional force to bring an end to the hostilities.

Erod said:

Basically, you're stating that we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Fine, but we'll be fighting this war for 100+ years, killing millions of people slowly.

It's like trying to pick fleas off a herd of a thousand camels.

Click to expand...

No democracy would do what I think you're suggesting, which in part is why democracies should avoid such conflicts needlessly.

And we never had to invade either country. We could have done a much more effective job, will much less loss of life any number of ways. We might even start by being honest and try to win the battle of ideas, and make a better argument as part of our strategy.

Boo Radley said:

No democracy would do what I think you're suggesting, which in part is why democracies should avoid such conflicts needlessly.

And we never had to invade either country. We could have done a much more effective job, will much less loss of life any number of ways. We might even start by being honest and try to win the battle of ideas, and make a better argument as part of our strategy.

Click to expand...

It's very possible Libya isn't going to be able to get this done without our military help; perhaps an invasion. Just like it wasn't possible in Iraq.

Now what?

Battle of ideas? Here's one. Stop stoning your women to death and killing each other over Muhammed's successor. You way overestimate these people.

apdst said:

Ok, let me see if I can this in terms that you can understand more easily: from a tactical perspective, how do you destroy the will of each of those enemies to wage war?

Don't give us some crap about how irregular warfare fighters can't be defeated. Winning a war isn't all about a surrender ceremony.

Also, while you're at it, please explain to us at what point the tallies are going to have to transition to a conventional force to bring an end to the hostilities.

Click to expand...

You have to understand what motivates them. If your interference is what motivates them, more interference, no matter how brutal, only encourages them. Wars, like in WW2, was a top down affiar, the common soldier less linked to the ideaology, thus more liely to walk away when the ruler surrendered or was beaten.

This si different, and more linked to the individual combattant. You can't do enough in any one place that will disuade those allover the world who hear the call. In fact, you merely increase their numbers. You can pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, but the call rings beyohnd that and you increase the numbers, thus defeating your purpose. And those in that country who see you as the problem. hold hard feeling for your actions, linked to them personally and not to a leader, harden and stay your enemy, merely waiting for the chance to speak as such, violently.

Erod said:

It's very possible Libya isn't going to be able to get this done without our military help; perhaps an invasion. Just like it wasn't possible in Iraq.

Now what?

Battle of ideas? Here's one. Stop stoning your women to death and killing each other over Muhammed's successor. You way overestimate these people.

Click to expand...

How is done is important. If we go in alone, it will go badly for us. The lybians have said, I beleive, that they do not want us to. If the Arab league works with us, it will be better received. There is a differenc e bewtween helping someone who wants it, and thinking we know best and doing it for them.

Remember, as terrible as that is, and I agree it needs to stop, thinkhow well you take another nation telling you what to do. It does need to stop, but us invading countries really won't do it. We don't rule the world.

Boo Radley said:

You have to understand what motivates them. If your interference is what motivates them, more interference, no matter how brutal, only encourages them. Wars, like in WW2, was a top down affiar, the common soldier less linked to the ideaology, thus more liely to walk away when the ruler surrendered or was beaten.

This si different, and more linked to the individual combattant. You can't do enough in any one place that will disuade those allover the world who hear the call. In fact, you merely increase their numbers. You can pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, but the call rings beyohnd that and you increase the numbers, thus defeating your purpose. And those in that country who see you as the problem. hold hard feeling for your actions, linked to them personally and not to a leader, harden and stay your enemy, merely waiting for the chance to speak as such, violently.

Click to expand...

OK, fine.

Now can we please drill our own? Pretty please.

Erod said:

OK, fine.

Now can we please drill our own? Pretty please.

Click to expand...

How about fine an alternative as we know that will end one day.

Boo Radley said:

How about fine an alternative as we know that will end one day.

Click to expand...

OK, but for the next 50 years, we're going to need that oil.

With a cherry on top?

Erod said:

OK, but for the next 50 years, we're going to need that oil.

With a cherry on top?

Click to expand...

As long as we use it and not sell it to other nations. Sure. Only for what we need.

Boo Radley said:

No democracy would do what I think you're suggesting, which in part is why democracies should avoid such conflicts needlessly.

And we never had to invade either country. We could have done a much more effective job, will much less loss of life any number of ways. We might even start by being honest and try to win the battle of ideas, and make a better argument as part of our strategy.

Click to expand...

How old were you on 11 September 2001? Yes, we had to invade Afghanistan. We were attacked, remember?

Boo Radley said:

How about fine an alternative as we know that will end one day.

Click to expand...

Sure. Sounds great. um, fine one yet? Please, let us know when you do.

Boo Radley said:

You have to understand what motivates them. If your interference is what motivates them, more interference, no matter how brutal, only encourages them. Wars, like in WW2, was a top down affiar, the common soldier less linked to the ideaology, thus more liely to walk away when the ruler surrendered or was beaten.

This si different, and more linked to the individual combattant. You can't do enough in any one place that will disuade those allover the world who hear the call. In fact, you merely increase their numbers. You can pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, but the call rings beyohnd that and you increase the numbers, thus defeating your purpose. And those in that country who see you as the problem. hold hard feeling for your actions, linked to them personally and not to a leader, harden and stay your enemy, merely waiting for the chance to speak as such, violently.

Click to expand...

Our interference in WW2 didn't motivate the enemy? :lamo

Keep trying, son. You might hit on something, sooner or later. Hell, even a blind hog finds and acorn.

Boo Radley said:

As long as we use it and not sell it to other nations. Sure. Only for what we need.

Click to expand...

Deal. But we'd better get started because we've got some refineries to build, too.