Civilian Deaths Rise As Afghan Fight Intensifies [Archive] - Debate Policy

Psychoblues

07-12-2010, 03:49 AM

What if collateral damage was YOU?!?!?!?!???!?!??!?!?

KABUL, July 10 (Reuters)

Hundreds of Afghans took to the streets of Mazar-i-Sharif on Saturday to protest against mounting civilian deaths, while five U.S. and NATO troops died in separate insurgent attacks on a bloody day of fighting across the country.

Protesters chanted slogans against foreign forces and Afghan President Hamid Karzai after U.S. troops killed two civilians in a pre-dawn raid on Wednesday in the northern city’s outskirts.

NATO also admitted killing six people with stray artillery on Thursday, a day after an airstrike accidently killed five Afghan soldiers.

Insurgent gunmen also killed 11 Pakistani tribesmen near the eastern Afghan border, opening fire on their bus, while a bomb placed on a motorbike killed one civilian at a bazaar in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

Civilian casualties and friendly fire deaths among Afghan security forces have been a frequent irritant between Karzai and Western military forces during the nine-year war since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001.

General David Petraeus, the U.S. general tapped by Washington to take over the Afghan war after his predecessor criticised senior administration officials, last week wrote to international troops to warn civilian deaths must be kept at a minimum....................

Much More: http://www.canada.com/news/Civilian+deaths+rise+Afghan+fight+intensifies/3261412/story.html

Is killing of civilians now a sport?

Sad.

Psychoblues

PostmodernProphet

07-12-2010, 06:02 AM

Is killing of civilians now a sport?

no, but strapping bombs on motorcycles and driving them into crowds of civilians is the latest Afghan hobby......

crin63

07-12-2010, 08:56 AM

Yeah its a shame that the Taliban isn't back in control, huh? Since they were so kind and gentle with the Afghan people.

It only cost what about 50,000 civilian deaths when the Taliban razed Kabul to the ground taking control if I remember correctly.

Psychoblues

07-12-2010, 12:34 PM

Uh,,,,,,,,we are talking about Afghanistan, aren't we? I repeat, What if the collateral damage was YOU? How would you, cross that, your family feel about that?

Jeesh, some idiots just can't help themselves.

Whatever.

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

darin

07-12-2010, 12:38 PM

I'd be sad if my family were killed. I'd direct my anger at Terrorists; not forces trying their best to free us.

PB gets horny every time any military service makes an honest mistake.

Psychoblues

07-12-2010, 12:55 PM

I'd be sad if my family were killed. I'd direct my anger at Terrorists; not forces trying their best to free us.

PB gets horny every time any military service makes an honest mistake.

You're a fuckin' liar, dimples, and have nothing other than your position as administrator on this board to back your dumb ass up. Just how many Afghani's were on those airplanes that went into the twin towers? And just how many Afghani's are interfering with our "freedoms"? Have you looked at the Patriot Act lately? The Afghani's didn't write that bullshit piece of legislation, don't you know!!!!!!!!!!

I love the military, dimples. I spent more than half of my life in and around our military. What have you done lately for the defense of our nation and American values?

:beer::salute::laugh2::salute:

Psychoblues

actsnoblemartin

07-12-2010, 01:02 PM

Psychoblues

07-12-2010, 01:14 PM

im completely confused :poke:, which is nothing new for me :coffee:

I thought civilian casualties were a part of war?

as to how I would feel, I dont know until I am in that situation but isnt america putting our troops in more harms way just to avoid civilian deaths?

Marteen, let me refresh your memory. gwb, our ex-prez, sent our troops into Afghanistan to kill or capture as many Al Queda as possible and to take down the fundamentalist religion zealots, also known as the Taliban, in order to remove any physical base of operations for a re-emergence of the Al Queda. That was all accomplished in late 2001 and early 2002. Why in hell are we still there, killing thousands of civilians, getting many of our own troops killed or injured and spending billions of precious American dollars?

Please, marteen, address these issues. Or, we can just bullshit and otherwise have an excellent time!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::salute::laugh2::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

actsnoblemartin

07-12-2010, 01:17 PM

we can do both.

As to why we are still there

I can think of three reasons.

#1 We havent killed or captured bin laden yet

#2 we are trying to eradicate the taliban

#3 we are trying to rebuild afghanistan

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

Do I really want to spend 100 years rebuilding a country?

But, look what happened the last time we said see ya to this place

Marteen, let me refresh your memory. gwb, our ex-prez, sent our troops into Afghanistan to kill or capture as many Al Queda as possible and to take down the fundamentalist religion zealots, also known as the Taliban, in order to remove any physical base of operations for a re-emergence of the Al Queda. That was all accomplished in late 2001 and early 2002. Why in hell are we still there, killing thousands of civilians, getting many of our own troops killed or injured and spending billions of precious American dollars?

Please, marteen, address these issues. Or, we can just bullshit and otherwise have an excellent time!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::salute::laugh2::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

darin

07-12-2010, 01:21 PM

You're a fuckin' liar, dimples, and have nothing other than your position as administrator on this board to back your dumb ass up. Just how many Afghani's were on those airplanes that went into the twin towers? And just how many Afghani's are interfering with our "freedoms"? Have you looked at the Patriot Act lately? The Afghani's didn't write that bullshit piece of legislation, don't you know!!!!!!!!!!

I love the military, dimples. I spent more than half of my life in and around our military. What have you done lately for the defense of our nation and American values?

:beer::salute::laugh2::salute:

Psychoblues

Hey Kiddo - The topic is "how would I feel if my family were killed in friendly-fire, etc".

I replied saying "I'd be upset, but I would know the cause of my loss would rest squarely on the backs of terrorists - NOT forces working, even if they goof, to FREE my nation. :)

I think you're full of shit - I think you've never served a DAY in the Military.

Got it? there's a good boy.

actsnoblemartin

07-12-2010, 01:24 PM

thats it, youre on my shit list asshole

Fuck you, I think youre anti american, and anti veteran

how you like that cock sucker?

Go Fuck Yourself, you piece of shit

Hey Kiddo - The topic is "how would I feel if my family were killed in friendly-fire, etc".

I replied saying "I'd be upset, but I would know the cause of my loss would rest squarely on the backs of terrorists - NOT forces working, even if they goof, to FREE my nation. :)

I think you're full of shit - I think you've never served a DAY in the Military.

Got it? there's a good boy.

Missileman

07-12-2010, 02:15 PM

Marteen, let me refresh your memory. gwb, our ex-prez, sent our troops into Afghanistan to kill or capture as many Al Queda as possible and to take down the fundamentalist religion zealots, also known as the Taliban, in order to remove any physical base of operations for a re-emergence of the Al Queda. That was all accomplished in late 2001 and early 2002. Why in hell are we still there, killing thousands of civilians, getting many of our own troops killed or injured and spending billions of precious American dollars?

Please, marteen, address these issues. Or, we can just bullshit and otherwise have an excellent time!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::salute::laugh2::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

Are you suggesting that our troops are being killed by Afghan civilians and not members of Al Queda or the Taliban? Do you really think it a good idea to leave before the job is complete?

Abbey Marie

07-12-2010, 04:23 PM

Martin, that was completely uncalled for.

revelarts

07-12-2010, 04:45 PM

Are you suggesting that our troops are being killed by Afghan civilians and not members of Al Queda or the Taliban? Do you really think it a good idea to leave before the job is complete?

What exactly do you mean by "the job is complete."?

Missileman

07-12-2010, 06:13 PM

What exactly do you mean by "the job is complete."?

What do you mean by "what exactly do you mean"? You've never finished a job before? How about "mission accomplished"...or maybe "objective achieved"...either of those easier to understand?

revelarts

07-12-2010, 06:44 PM

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.
WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.
When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.
Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

Gaffer

07-12-2010, 07:07 PM

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.

You mean we should pull out until the taliban have reestablished themselves and al queda resets their camps and go back in again? And do that over and over again? It's a real bad analogy.

WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

But you still have to wash it, over and over again.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.

Then we occupied Japan and rebuilt it and formed a constitutional government and outlawed the Bushido practice. And we still have troops there today. Same with Germany.

When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

That was Panama.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

They have to be eradicated. Wiped out. They are religious fanatics.

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.

We did finish the job in Vietnam. Then we left. The country was secure and the South Vietnamese had relative peace. Our democrat congress here decided to help the north by cutting off all aid to South Vietnam and two years after we left they invaded. The south had no means to defend itself.

Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

I'm guessing you meant sen murtha and not gen. His true title is traitor murtha. Only ted kennedy was lower than that man.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

I'll let Missileman answer that last question.

revelarts

07-12-2010, 08:32 PM

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

They have to be eradicated. Wiped out. They are religious fanatics.

Are you serious?

Gaffer

07-12-2010, 08:46 PM

Are you serious?

yes

Missileman

07-12-2010, 09:12 PM

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.
WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

So you think it's better to fight the same war over and over again, half-assed, rather than fight it once to a successful conclusion. I guess we can be glad you aren't in charge of our military.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.
When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.
Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

It means either the total eradication of the Taliban and Al Queda, or their surrender. Anything less than that is an incomplete job.

revelarts

07-12-2010, 10:14 PM

If you think that AlQuida Or the Taliban are serious threat to the U.S.. AND to the degree that hey must be Exterminated. I'm Glad that neither of you is in charge of our military. Or a part of any administration Rebpub or Dem.

Frankly the best thing I say about your positions is I think you both have allowed yourselves to be consumed by a war propaganda.

the our former allies the Taliban, AlQuaida and Bin Laden had were and are a minor threat to the U.S.. Every civilian killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fires more hearts and minds against us. We'ved already killed MILLIONS over there. No telling how many of those where real enemies and how many we're friends who believed we where there to help.

and we have over 400,000 wounded men and women from the wars already. There are "free elections" in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But you've change the purpose from liberation to extermination in 1 post. I get the impression extermination is you real goal.

How would you even know if you've got them all fellas? Huh?
It's crazy talk.

The warlords are in control of most of Afghanistan now anyway. What freedom have we brought them?

As far as our former good friends AlQuida having a base.
From the reports I've heard they are in many other countries (Pakistan Sudan etc..) and are supported financially by our good friends the Saudis. And the Coalitions forces protected/neglected drug trade.

And you totally skipped the issed that McCrystal brought up. At least 500,000 troops and 5 more years to "secure" Afghanistan ...maybe. Is it worth it?

As Nice as it would be to have a wonderful democratic republic with nice rich Muslims that all loved us, if we beat them enough, i don't believe we are going to get that.

The IRA is a religious terrorist group, extermination all Catholic sympathizers and bystanders is no way to make the U.K safe.

Guess what there is no way to be completely safe.
We can't even afford to try now. we can't afford the man power or the monetary cost of 500000 men in afghanstan and XXXXXX in Iraq And XXXX in germany and japan and the other 150 plus bases around the world. it's Stupid and wasteful in blood and treasure. And and as Eisenhower warned "a threat to our (OWN) democratic processes.".

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 06:19 AM

We'ved already killed MILLIONS over there.

don't know much about you, but I'm curious....are you stupid enough to actually believe that or did you just make it up to make a point?.....

just a bit of simple math would show you that your claim is absurd......if even a million civilians had died since the Iraq war had started we would have seen civilian casualties of 391 per day......and that would still overlook the fact that 90% of civilian casualties were the victims of Al Queda rather than Coalition troops.......

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 06:37 AM

And you totally skipped the issed that McCrystal brought up. At least 500,000 troops and 5 more years to "secure" Afghanistan ...maybe. Is it worth it?

McCrystal didn't ask for 500,000 more US troops.....what he really said was

Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_3.html?sid=ST2009092003140

that's 400,000 Afghans, not 500,000 Americans.......

revelarts

07-13-2010, 07:57 AM

Report in 2006,

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNWOj_dFSR4&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNWOj_dFSR4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Death rate increase since We've been there. Just in Iraq, I'm talking about in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (who we're not even at war with).

and those babies that have died from birth defects cause by Depleted uranium and then you add in the walking dead dying from cancers and other radiation cause illnesses (including our troops who I'm not counting) and you get over a million and probably Millions. I'll stand by OVER a Million. but it will be Millions by the time the Depleted uranium is done with them.

--FYI a few of the pics in the videos are not for children---
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7eX7pSXtXU&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7eX7pSXtXU&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iA2LS7xICk8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iA2LS7xICk8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OtYO-WwXOo&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OtYO-WwXOo&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

revelarts

07-13-2010, 08:12 AM

McCrystal didn't ask for 500,000 more US troops.....what he really said was

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_3.html?sid=ST2009092003140

that's 400,000 Afghans, not 500,000 Americans.......

It was a different report that stated he said 500,000 troops -not necessarily all ours but still 500,000. 92,000 is a LONG way from 500,000 who knows how many police the Afghans have. But even the 240,000 HOPED FOR Afghans won't be enough. So are we going to make up the difference, supply 250,000 troops to finish the job there. It's not our country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/63b4122FDgo&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/63b4122FDgo&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

seems to me
If we want to fight AlQuida the Military strategy is not the the best tool. It's like using a sledge hammer to kill roaches. Where tearing up the house and missing most of the roaches.

Gaffer

07-13-2010, 09:47 AM

The simple fact relevart is that we are at war with islam. Not individual countries. The countries we are fighting in have a huge population of radical islamists who get support from those countries. You can't look at it from a humanitarian view, it has to be from a strategic view.

Providing this country survives it's current internal war, 50 years from now we will still be fighting islamics. In a war you take out the enemies supply and ability to make war. But to really win you have to take out the ideology that drives him.

Islam, fascism, Bushido. They are all the same. Combining religion and politics as a means of ruling. And none of those religions cares a hoot about innocent people.

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 11:26 AM

I'll stand by OVER a Million.

/shrugs....the fact your willing to stand by it makes it no less absurd or any more truthful......it remains a factual impossibility.....it merely means you are willing to state something that obviously is not true.....

revelarts

07-13-2010, 11:26 AM

Radical Islam is a problem. But they've been around for over 30 yrs (maybe 100's of years in an older form) and they were our allies against the soviets not long ago. Thing change Graffer. They could change again if we are open to it. But it seems to me we MUST included Humanitarianism in our Strategy if you want to "win". And Still be the country we claim to be. I thought winning meant defeating enough people to enjoy a peace or at least peaceful coexistence. The "slaughter ev'r last injun" mind set is not what we need as a country to win IMO.
there are still German Fascist why not exterminate them as well. What about our homegrown terrorist. There are a couple of over the edge militia groups, though most are sane and civil. There are a few that TALK like many Islamic Radicals and were in support of Tim McVey in Oklahoma. Lets DU and smart bomb a couple of there bases in Montana or Idaho. If we can't be humanitarian about it.

There are estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.
most of them are not Radical. And and unless most convert to Christianity we are going to be living with them, for generations. Humanitarianism has got to a part of the package.

You really might want to rethink the Idea that a religious war MUST go on for generations.
the Catholics and protestants in France where at war for about 30+ years millions (yes millions) died as a result of war and it's consequences but eventually peace was had not to my knowledge because one side changed there religion. We've had peace with Islam for 100's of years we can have it again. But Humanitarianism will play a part. Yes there will be times to take a few radicals out. But Going in an laying waste to countries to kill a few bad apples --- that we trained and armed-- is not a strategy for peace or safety in the long run IMO.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Francois_Dubois_001.jpg
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
"Painting by François Dubois, a Huguenot painter born circa 1529 in Amiens, who settled in Switzerland. Although Dubois did not witness the massacre, he depicts Coligny's body hanging out of a window at the rear to the right. To the left rear, Catherine de' Medici is shown emerging from the Louvre to inspect a heap of bodies"

We'll be at war with radical Catholicism for Generations they need to be exterminated. We have to think strategically.

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 11:27 AM

It was a different report that stated he said 500,000 troops -not necessarily all ours but still 500,000.

you clearly implied that he asked for 500,000 American troops......a dishonest implication.......I reject your comments out of hand.....

revelarts

07-13-2010, 11:56 AM

/shrugs....the fact your willing to stand by it makes it no less absurd or any more truthful......it remains a factual impossibility.....it merely means you are willing to state something that obviously is not true.....

Just because the numbers are large does not OUT of HAND make them impossible. What kind of logic is that? the facts make the case here not your incredulity.

Even if you prefer the low ball ball numbers it's in the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS dead. More civilians than combatants to be sure.

To get the full numbers you need to compare the death rate during Sadams and the Taliban's rule and since they've come under US/coalition military occupation. The numbers are higher. Then you count the difference.

"Iraqi troops (insurgents) killed: Based on an estimate of 30,000 deaths, offered by US Gen. Tommy Franks, cited by the Washington Post on Oct. 23, 2003. No estimate has been made publicly since that time."

" Iraqi civilians killed: Based on this study [pdf], (http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf) published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study's mid-point estimate was 654,965 deaths, and its high estimate was 942,636 deaths, but we have used the study lowest credible estimate, that at least 392,979 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate, through July 2006.
U.S. authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on "flawed methodology" and "pretty well discredited," but that's simply untrue. The study was conducted by Johns Hopkins University, and used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology — the same methodology used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the U.S. and U.K. when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, and various catastrophes anywhere in the world.
Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and when family members were asked to show a death certificate, about 80% of the deaths they described could be so documented. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, in the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. As stated above, we have used the study's lowest estimate of 392,979 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation. We have then extended this rate of civilian deaths (9,824 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published."

Afghan apx 16000 dead enemies and civilians, Pakistan ???

I'd say we've killed more than enough, It's past time to become more surgical about this IMO.

revelarts

07-13-2010, 11:59 AM

you clearly implied that he asked for 500,000 American troops......a dishonest implication.......I reject your comments out of hand.....

That's very convenient, throw out the baby with the bath water if that helps you comfirm your stance on continuing the war PMP.

your better than that I think.

-Cp

07-13-2010, 12:18 PM

Martin, that was completely uncalled for.

Same dude that was recently selected as "member of the month"?

Gaffer

07-13-2010, 12:18 PM

revelarts

07-13-2010, 01:17 PM

rev the difference between us is that you are willing to tolerate evil people for the sake of a short peaceful existence while I want to wipe out all present and future threats for a long term peaceful existence. Mine is the logical method but it is illogical to assume it can ever be achieved. What I want and what I get are two different things.

I think that's very true. except I think long term peace works my way as well if not better.
Defining evil gets a little tricky some times to.
And maybe I'm not quite willing to run rough shod over the innocents to weed out all evil. And I'd like to make a distinction , as we do in our laws, between evil talk/people and evil acts. There are a lot Benign but evil people as well as Plenty of threats that fly out of peoples mouths that they never intend or have the capacity to follow through on it.

It's a dangerous world. with plenty of evil, beating the crap out of everyone that doesn't like us is a big job.

I think Ghandi, MLK (and St Patrick in Ireland, great story) won a certain amount of peace using more than a force. without distroying there every enemy. There's a price to pay for freedom and peace but the gun isn't the only force that's effective it seems.

Until Jesus comes back we're stuck living with a certain amount of darkness. Putting out the big fires and the ones closest to home seems to be good policy at this point.

The Bible says-
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Romans 12:18

OCA

07-13-2010, 02:32 PM

Same dude that was recently selected as "member of the month"?

Yeah, ain't it grand?

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 04:43 PM

Just because the numbers are large does not OUT of HAND make them impossible.
of course it does......divide the large number by the number of days we were there and you quickly see it is impossible......at the height of the Iraq war the Arab press complained of civilian casualties of 1500 a month....for there to have been 1million civilian casualties by 2006 the death toll would have had to been closer to 1500 per DAY!......do you think no one would have noticed if the actual death toll had been 30 times higher than believed?........

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 04:45 PM

That's very convenient, throw out the baby with the bath water if that helps you comfirm your stance on continuing the war PMP.

your better than that I think.

dude, we aren't talking about throwing babies and bathwater....we're talking about posters lying out of their ass to score points.....I have discovered that you're worse than I thought.....

Missileman

07-13-2010, 05:34 PM

If you think that AlQuida Or the Taliban are serious threat to the U.S.. AND to the degree that hey must be Exterminated. I'm Glad that neither of you is in charge of our military. Or a part of any administration Rebpub or Dem.

They didn't teach you the word "or" at your school? If they won't surrender, then yes, you blow them off the face of the planet. This notion of yours that we should fight a war for no reason or for anything less than a win is pathetic.

revelarts

07-13-2010, 08:25 PM

Gaffer

07-13-2010, 09:09 PM

MissileMan: "It means either the total eradication of the Taliban and Al Queda, or their surrender. Anything less than that is an incomplete job."

How does a basically leaderless organization surrender?

We've been fighting the Tailban for 9 years and we are losing. the Soviets fought them for 10 years and left. While they were fighting the soviets we found a way to be there friends. Which I thought was a bad idea personally.
In the Movie Rambo 3 the Taliban and the Mujahideen where portrayed as heroic freedom fighters dying to save their women and children and homeland. That was a overblown romanticized of version of them to say the least. But on the other hand to portray them as super villains a paramount danger to God and country and is just as bad a characterization.

Yes they are bad people but we don't need to be there to secure our borders.
We don't need to be in Iraq to protect the "homeland".

AlQuida will be an on going problem, but staying in Afghanistan and Iraq we create more enemies. not the other way around.

the leaders we support there are corrupt and not worth fighting for. Al Quida left years ago. the tailban/warlords are not going away and the Afghansn don't have the will to remove them.

I'm sorry to say but as I see it all we are doing is throwing our men and women to the fire for nothing or worse to create a new generation of enemies.

They are not leaderless. They just don't have a country to use as a base of operation. They are stuck in the hills and mountains of afghan and pakistan for now. We tool away their base of operations when we invaded. Why pull out and give it back to them? We took down a major supporter of all the terrorist organizations in the middle east when we went into iraq. Why give it iran or other terror organizations?

The best defense is a good offense. Eradicate your enemy and you never have to worry about him again. Fight on his land so your own remains secure. Pulling back and letting him regroup just means you will be attacked again.

The driving force behind iran, al queda, the taliban and the rest of the middle east is islam. A theocracy. Until it is eradicated there will always be war between the west and islam. The west needs to wake up to that fact if they ever truly want peace.

Missileman

07-13-2010, 09:24 PM

revelarts

07-13-2010, 11:04 PM

I'm almost speechless gentlemen.

Communist are the most deadly enemy ever they must be crushed on every continent.
...no wait...
Radical Islam is the most deadly enemy ever they must be crushed on every continent. we've always been at war with Islam.

wait no... Blacks I mean Jews and Blacks are are the most deadly enemy ever they must be crushed on every continent. we've always been at war with jews .. and Blacks.
we better wake up....

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns - after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces - at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage ! The agents of Goldstein had been at work ! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

from Chapter 17
George Orwell 1984

PostmodernProphet

07-13-2010, 11:29 PM

you can't seem to make up your mind who you want to surrender to first......

Psychoblues

07-18-2010, 10:27 PM

Bullshit all you want. I still want to know how you or your family might feel if the "collateral damage" might include you or your death?

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

revelarts

07-24-2010, 12:35 PM

Bullshit all you want. I still want to know how you or your family might feel if the "collateral damage" might include you or your death?

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

I'd be pissed at everybody, kinda like i am now.
the coalition and the taliban/insurgent/alquida

-------------
But it's interesting.
Leon Panetta has given a striat and clear answer to my question.
What is winning or finished in Afghanistan?

in june on meet the press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSDR65zWiA
starting Around 4:30

..."Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safe haven for AlQuida or for a Militant Taliban that welcomes AlQuida. That's really the measure of success for the united states. Our Purpose our whole mission there is to make sure that Alquida never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country.
That's the fundamental goal of why the United States is there. And the measure of success for us is do you have an Afghanistan to make sure that never happens."...

that's a clear answer not as fuzzy as what you guys gave me.
Win we finish the job or they all surrender. or we kill them all.

Honestly that's one of the clearest answers I've heard in years from a public official.

having said that, based on my understanding of Afghanistan, that goal is fantasy. Or one that will take 80 to 150yrs to complete. or 5yrs and a crazy number of men to flood the country and cleanse it of anything smells like tailban and anyone that looks crosseyed at America. Either way I'm not willing to pay that price to remove just 1 safe haven. ESPECIALLY since most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

Others may have another opinion, it's a free country, sorta , but i don't see the cost benefit ratio making sense here. Frankly it seems to me that only if you throw pride and fear into the mix do you come out with a different answer. IMO.