- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can see, any high ranking officers sent out previous were instructed to poo poo all reports of damage. But even if they were honest before, it misses the point, regardless if the USA and Nato think air strikes are effective, its the Afghan people who are the arbiters, and when they are totally alienated by these air strikes. It really hurts the credibility of the USA and Nato and vastly aids the Taliban.
And like the draconian choices made in the Swat valley, when two armed groups
are shooting at each other for prolonged periods, the lives of civilians will be lost in collateral damage while anarchy rules their lives. In the case of the Swat residents, they sided with the Taliban and not the Pakistani army.
And if the only way to make the anarchy and violence cease is to side with one group or the other, thus expelling the other group, its all too likely that the civilian population will say Nato has to go. And these Nato air strikes will be listed as a major factor in that decision.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,303
- 36,453
- 136
It was a little more complicated than that.
Collateral damage in the case you're referring to was royalty from the UAE, not civilians. They call that keeping an eye out for blowback, prudent behavior when dealing with strategic allies, no? I think the 9-11 families would have liked for the Cheney admin to have done something, anything, in it's first 8 months wrt the warnings and briefs they had inherited from Clinton's admin. Don't you?But whatever, that's not what this thread is about. All the same, you should really do something about that lack of topical detail and read something pertinent on the matter.
Your point was a valid one.
My problem is with the bombing. One of the reasons Obama put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan is because the bombing is not winning friends for America.
Regardless, this war in Afghanistan is a fool's mission. Even worse than the Iraq Follies. We simply should have gone in and hit them hard for about 90 days and left. Sort of like a good spanking for a naughty child.
We can't afford ANY WAR. We are broke. Why doesn't our government get it?
-Robert
Originally posted by: kage69
It was a little more complicated than that.
But whatever, that's not what this thread is about. All the same, you should really do something about that lack of topical detail and read something pertinent on the matter.
Really, were they not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? By your logic, we should let anyone get away with strikes against our country as someone that we want to get along with will get hurt no matter what. If the UAE is more important then those American lives then you are correct, but I side with our countrymen. You can stand by Bill, but I still call it like I see it! I am not going to read BS rhetoric, I am looking at MY country FIRST!
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
OK OK ccbadd now makes the my country right or wrong argument with " Really, were they not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? By your logic, we should let anyone get away with strikes against our country as someone that we want to get along with will get hurt no matter what. If the UAE is more important then those American lives then you are correct, but I side with our countrymen. You can stand by Bill, but I still call it like I see it! I am not going to read BS rhetoric, I am looking at MY country FIRST!
The logical flaw in that argument is to assume an entire country shares the collective guilt of its leadership, when that country's leadership made an all or none gamble, either they would win the war or lose badly. But even then, the ccbadd argument better applies to the WW2 nations of Germany and Japan, than it would of either Afghanistan or Iraq.
But in the case of our post WW2 policies regarding a defeated Germany and Japan, the victorious allies had two basic choices, either they could have executing all surviving Japanese and German civilians, there by eliminating any future Japanese or Germain threats, or we could let them up gently, and seek to convert former enemies into our friends. And history shows those same allies choose that latter course, and now both Germany and Japan are US allies.
Sadly GWB&co lost sight of those ideals, and their military occupations went over like a like a lead balloon, which sadly resulted in the very loss of hearts and minds required to follow up the one sided US military victory. Thereby snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The logical flaw in that argument is to assume an entire country shares the collective guilt of its leadership, when that country's leadership made an all or none gamble, either they would win the war or lose badly. But even then, the ccbadd argument better applies to the WW2 nations of Germany and Japan, than it would of either Afghanistan or Iraq.
But in the case of our post WW2 policies regarding a defeated Germany and Japan, the victorious allies had two basic choices, either they could have executing all surviving Japanese and German civilians, there by eliminating any future Japanese or Germain threats, or we could let them up gently, and seek to convert former enemies into our friends. And history shows those same allies choose that latter course, and now both Germany and Japan are US allies.
Sadly GWB&co lost sight of those ideals, and their military occupations went over like a like a lead balloon, which sadly resulted in the very loss of hearts and minds required to follow up the one sided US military victory. Thereby snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,303
- 36,453
- 136
Yes, really! This opportunity didn't occur within the UAE, so your claim of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" does not apply. Something you'd know if you had even a cursory knowledge on the subject - hence my link!
So please, spare me the patriotic bullsh!t. It's pretty clear you have no concept of recent events concerning 9/11 and are trying to pin some Clinton adoration on me a strawman. The straight word from the CT czar under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton is not, I repeat NOT "BS rhetoric." Again your ignorance astounds. :Q
And btw you little parrot, you still haven't given a single relevant remark concerning the OP. Next time try to do it without mentioning Clinton - makes you guys look extra retarded what with the current Bush sensitivity you've all recently succumbed to.
You cheerleaders never fail to fascinate when confronted with uncomfortable news.
Holy shit this is a warped OP!
"Change - we are much more caring and apologetic when we kill civilians in a sovereign country."
I noticed there was "war protest" going on at our town square over the weekend. But because Bush was gone all the "Bush/Cheney murderer" signs were gone and were generically replaced with "war is bad" type signs. What a riot :laugh:
"Change - we are much more caring and apologetic when we kill civilians in a sovereign country."
I noticed there was "war protest" going on at our town square over the weekend. But because Bush was gone all the "Bush/Cheney murderer" signs were gone and were generically replaced with "war is bad" type signs. What a riot :laugh:
Typical Red Dawn bullshit. Can't acknowledge the hypocrisy and failings of his beloved lefties, throws out some non sequitur.
Your the one who mentioned the UAE a**whole, I just elaborated on it! It's funny you found a book by Clarke and that is your bible, read a little more if you want to set yourself up as an authority. My point was we need to evaluate risk but can not make absolute decisions not to act when there is any chance of collateral damages. As far as the OP, that is the only thing your lib parrot ass got right.
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Various posters on this thread can bash me for my ideals to their hearts content, I have a thick skin, but what you should not do is embrace our failed Nato strategies that has resulted in seven of continuous dis improvement for seven straight years running in Afghanistan.
Of course, it never occurs to some that these failures are directly traceable to giant mistakes made, pre and post Afghan occupation.
We made many of those same mistakes in Vietnam, and were able to commit far more military resources then than we can now, and even with those extra military resources, out initial mistakes in Vietnam overwhelmed the effects of extra resources.
Of course, it never occurs to some that these failures are directly traceable to giant mistakes made, pre and post Afghan occupation.
We made many of those same mistakes in Vietnam, and were able to commit far more military resources then than we can now, and even with those extra military resources, out initial mistakes in Vietnam overwhelmed the effects of extra resources.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
It may also be argued that our "defeat" in Vietnam was largely the result of the nonsensical restrictions and limitations placed upon the military by the corrupt ideological politicians back in Washington; which ultimately prevented us from closing with and destroying our enemies.
If you squint your eyes just so, the "border" between Afghanistan and Pakistan begins to look an awful lot like the borders between South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
See also: Michael Scheuer's concept of "half-fought wars" since 1945...
However most military and historical analysis of Vietnam show that our attempt to prop up a massively hated, incredibly corrupt government against a popular insurgency backed by powerful international actors in a country that had been continuously fighting foreign occupation for well over a century nonstop probably was a bad idea no matter if we had allowed our pilots to bomb bridges or not. At least that's what Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara thought.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,303
- 36,453
- 136
I did, but it seems in addition to your complete ignorance of relevant history you are unable to tell the difference between a country and an individual. Not surprising given your prior posts I suppose... And btw, you might want to get a a better handle on spelling and punctuation before adopting the self-righteous indignation schtick... makes you look extra retarded.
Ain't my bible son, but it is one of the best glimpses into that affair that you're gonna find. I don't claim to be an authority, but then you don't have to be to know posters like you don't know the first thing about what they're trying pitifully to argue. No, what's funny is some numbnuts trying to invalidate Clarke's take on terrorism. How many administrations did you serve under?
And that's why you immediately pulled the Clinton shit, focusing on his hampered efforts while giving Bush's first 8 months in office a wide berth. Riiiiiight....
Not a lib, certainly don't adhere to the partisan tactics you're demonstrating here and elsewhere, but thanks I suppose?
Seriously, do yourself a favor and study up on this. There are a multitude of good books written by informed people who were privy to the internal workings of the gov post and pre 9/11. Don't be the conservative other conservatives are embarrassed of. If you can't handle distasteful revelations which offend your political sensitivities, then get the fvck off the board. The Right has sunk low enough thanks to your kind.
Richard C. Clarke is a life long Republican, if it makes you feel any better, and is renowned for straight talk and not trying to make political points.
And with that, I won't add to the derailment any more...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter