Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[Journeyman]

A dossier released by Iraq Body Count.....

  sigh  ...and I told myself I was done with this mindless exchange.....  :brickwall:

You do know that Iraq is two countries to the left of Afghanistan, right?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You do know that Iraq is two countries to the left of Afghanistan, right?

DING! DING !  Quote of the day!!!

hippz,
Please do some serious reading before you try to debate with some of the "big boys" in this thread.
I consider myself somewhat well informed [thanks to folks on this site] and I wouldn't even think of jumping in here.

 

[Searyn]

Every news report, every independent survey, every scientific journal has an agenda. I'm not saying those numbers were inaccurate. But, did you notice that the report also did not mention how many of Iraq's military personnel (or civilians) loyal to, or just obedient to, Sadam were killed. You don't win a war by simply destroying the enemies military stength. You break their support structure, which includes the civilian population loyal to the enemy.

Unfortunately in any wartime campaign there will be unnecessary civilian casualties (IE. those not loyal to your enemy and who just happen to live within your enemy's sphere of influence). It's impossible to be 100% positive no unnecessary deaths will occur. However, the modern day militaries of the UN do everything in their power to limit those casualties.

But again I too am just a civilian and the above is just my opinion. it's entirely up to you whether to agree, or disagree.

But also I believe this topic was "Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not)..." not "Iraq: Why we...."

 

[hippz]

Wow, are you suggesting killing innocent civilians is a good thing?

You need your head checked..

 

[hippz]

And yes, I admit I went off topic to prove the US's BS, but only because I believe we're only there (Afghanistan) because they are.

 

[PMedMoe]

Wow, are you suggesting killing innocent civilians is a good thing?

Did you see the words "unfortunately" and "unnecessary" there?  I don't believe he was condoning the killing of civilians.

You need your head checked..

So do you.  Why don't you go do that now?

 

[Searyn]

Take a second, closer look at my post. Never did I say killing innocent civilians is a good thing. Infact I said it was terrible, but unfortunately inevitable.

What I did say however was "You don't win a war by simply destroying the enemies military stength. You break their support structure, which includes the civilian population loyal to the enemy. "

That's a very VERY important distinction between the two groups.

Unfortunately you skipped over the important part of my post; "But, did you notice that the report also did not mention how many of Iraq's military personnel (or civilians) loyal to, or just obedient to, Sadam were killed."

Anytime you quote a study you need to look at what it says, as well as what it does not say, in order to get the full picture. Do you think the authors of that study are for or against the war in Iraq? Answer that question honestly and you'll notice whether or not it at least tries to stay impartial.

 

[hippz]

A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.

 

[PMedMoe]

A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.

Again, he did NOT CONDONE KILLING CIVILIANS!

 

[Edward Campbell]

And yes, I admit I went off topic to prove the US's BS, but only because I believe we're only there (Afghanistan) because they are.

No, not really. We went to Afghanistan twice:

+ The first deployment, to Kandahar, ordered in 2001 by Prime Minister Chrétien, was to placate Canadian public opinion that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 demanded that we (Canada) “do something.”

+ The second deployment, to ISAF in Kabul, was also ordered by Jean Chrétien, but it was arranged so that, should the Americans decide to ask, we (Canada) could truthfully say that we were already fully committed to operations in Afghanistan – supporting the ill-conceived “Global War on Terror.”

The US rationale for supporting the Afghan Norther Alliance campaign to topple the Taliban 'government' – done, by the way, with UNSC support – was that the Taliban had, effectively, handed Afghanistan over to al Qaeda to be used as a base from which it could and did launch illegal (according to the UN Charter – see Chapters I and VII) terrorist attacks on other countries. I would hardly call that BS.


Edit: And this ends my contributions in response to hippz; I am far too old for pointless argue with children. I echo JM:  :brickwall:

 

[GAP]

Ah, just punt the twit...he's not interested in logic, just in hearing himself....

 

[Searyn]

Ah, just punt the twit...he's not interested in logic, just in hearing himself....

No, don't. He hasn't gotten too rude yet. And it's always good to have the "other side" of a debate present. Even if the majority of the people in the discussion feel his opinion is the wrong one.

 

[PMedMoe]

No, don't. He hasn't gotten too rude yet. And it's always good to have the "other side" of a debate present. Even if the majority of the people in the discussion feel his opinion is the wrong one.

Not necessarily wrong, just uninformed.

 

[Searyn]

Heh ok maybe wrong was the incorrect word to use. I don't 100% agree with uninformed either, it does seem like he's done a little reading on the topic. How about just "different" lol

 

[PMedMoe]

Heh ok maybe wrong was the incorrect word to use. I don't 100% agree with uninformed either, it does seem like he's done a little reading on the topic. How about just "different" lol

Misguided?

 

[aesop081]

And no, I have as much intel as any other civilian.

Please......grown ups are talking. Run along.......

 

[vonGarvin]

 

[GR66]

A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.

I'm a civilian working at a military base along with MANY other civilians.  Some of us work directly for DND as civilian employees, however many others here are retail clerks at stores, cleaners, plumbers or simply family members of military personnel.  Is this (and every other military base) off limits as a military target in the case of war because attacking it might kill and injure "innocent" civilians?  After all, "a civilian is a civilian".

War is a dangerous and brutal thing.  Sadly people (including innocent people) die.  But don't kid yourself.  Modern warfare is much less indiscriminate than war at any other time in human history. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan: Some reactions to, and consequences of, Canada’s bugging out
http://unambig.com/afstan-some-reactions-to-and-consequences-of-canadas-bugging-out/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

Do you think our young friend can make any sense out of that?