US Military raids within Afghanistan

[Lemon law]

I ran across the following link in the NYT regarding another version of how Afghan civilians are viewing the US military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01.../asia/26afghan.html?hp

Which may sadly explain why the Taliban is gaining strength yearly because the US and Nato are losing the hearts and minds of the Afghan people in their zeal to kill any Taliban operatives with zero concern towards collateral damage.

 

[blackangst1]

Obama is off to a running start! Bush II.

"the Obama administration is preparing to send as many as 30,000 more troops this year." SurgeII.

Change we can believe in!

 

[alchemize]

Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obama is off to a running start! Bush II.

"the Obama administration is preparing to send as many as 30,000 more troops this year." SurgeII.

Change we can believe in!

Well seeing as Afghanistan/Pakistan is the home base of Bin Laden and his gang of thugs I think very few people have a problem with this idea. You do realize Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither was it the center/home of terrorism right?

 

[kylebisme]

The problem is that going after terrorists with callous disregard to civilians only leads to more terrorism. I hope Obama understands as much, and will work to change the operational procedures of our military to respect that reality. Doing so will take months if not years of planing and training to accomplish though, and the fight against terrorist can't rightly be just put on hold while doing so.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

I'm in general agreement with that move, but I am very much opposed to using our soldiers as policemen on the streets of a foreign country.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The problem is that going after terrorists with callous disregard to civilians only leads to more terrorism.

Not everyone who is angry becomes a terrorist.

It is our responsibility for our own safety to provide a strong deterrence such as hunting them down. It is unfortunate that our precision is crap, and we should work to fix that precision instead of working to abandon our deterrence as you suggest.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obama is off to a running start! Bush II.

"the Obama administration is preparing to send as many as 30,000 more troops this year." SurgeII.

Change we can believe in!

Um, this is what he said he would do, and is a change - focusing more on Afghanistan than the previous admin did.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I thought terrorists were just a boogie man invested by Bush?

 

[Lemon law]

I think what is missed here is the fact that if Obama continues Bush's failed policies, he will have similar results. 30,000 troops will have little impact.

The snowman is correct in saying, "The problem is that going after terrorists with callous disregard to civilians only leads to more terrorism. I hope Obama understands as much, and will work to change the operational procedures of our military to respect that reality. Doing so will take months if not years of planing and training to accomplish though, and the fight against terrorist can't rightly be just put on hold while doing so."

It will take time, but if the Afghan people can feel safer and not worry they will be killed by Nato, US acceptance can start to grow, until then, it will continue to shrink.

 

[OCGuy]

"Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 279 B-29s raided on the night of 9?10 March, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.[1][2] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes."

I would say that anything we do now is the most surgical in history in regards to civilians.

Civilians die in war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..._Tokyo_in_World_War_II

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think what is missed here is the fact that if Obama continues Bush's failed policies, he will have similar results. 30,000 troops will have little impact.

The snowman is correct in saying, "The problem is that going after terrorists with callous disregard to civilians only leads to more terrorism. I hope Obama understands as much, and will work to change the operational procedures of our military to respect that reality. Doing so will take months if not years of planing and training to accomplish though, and the fight against terrorist can't rightly be just put on hold while doing so."

It will take time, but if the Afghan people can feel safer and not worry they will be killed by Nato, US acceptance can start to grow, until then, it will continue to shrink.

The snowman, and you apparently, neglect to mention the well known fact that the terrorists in Afghanistan - much like those in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere - like to hide among the population and use them as shields when they find it convenient.

There is no "callous disregard to civilians." That's pure rhetorical kool-aid that has no real foundation in fact. If anyone has callous disregard for life it's the terrorists themselves. If they had care for anything besides their own personal lust for power and to subject everyone to their deranged ideals they wouldn't hide among populations in the first place. Instead they hide amongst them on purpose, then shed crocodile tears when innocents get killed. Fuck those assholes, and it's really getting tiresome seeing people in this forum making lame, pathetic excuses for their actions.

 

[Lemon law]

Would TLC think the same if cops or the US army just shot at everyone when they were chasing a terrorists or a criminal within the US? Since its foreign to his experience, I somehow doubt TLC could even imagine what it feels like.

You hear some noise, open your door to see what its about, and bang, you get shot. Rinse and repeat 10,000X and you too would hate and fear any organization that did that.

Or your innocent sister or mother gets shot, you rush out to help her, maybe start carrying her in a stretcher with other family members to get medical help, and they fire a missile at the whole rescue party.

Are you going to blame the possible criminal who happened to run into your neighborhood or the cops and army that shot and wounded you?

 

[chucky2]

If the cops are chasing criminals through my neighborhood, and the criminals are shooting at the cops, then I d@mn well expect the cops to be shooting back at them.

If the cops shoot me or someone I know, I don't blame the cops, I blame the F'ing criminals that caused the situation in the first place.

Why would you ever blame the police for a stray round hitting you? That defies any rational logic.

I can see the point on "surgical" airstrikes, and to an extent I agree that "surgical" airstrikes should only be done when no civilian casualities will occur, and/or the target is confirmed to be a high value target...else it's not worth the bad rap we get.

To win this war on terror, which really means to win the war on radical Islam, the West - as a whole - is going to have to realize, and accept, that Western blood will have to be spilled. If we can't do that, then we should just pack it up and go home now...

Chuck

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

^ This FTW

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Would TLC think the same if cops or the US army just shot at everyone when they were chasing a terrorists or a criminal within the US? Since its foreign to his experience, I somehow doubt TLC could even imagine what it feels like.

You hear some noise, open your door to see what its about, and bang, you get shot. Rinse and repeat 10,000X and you too would hate and fear any organization that did that.

Or your innocent sister or mother gets shot, you rush out to help her, maybe start carrying her in a stretcher with other family members to get medical help, and they fire a missile at the whole rescue party.

Are you going to blame the possible criminal who happened to run into your neighborhood or the cops and army that shot and wounded you?

Did you even bother to read the full article or did the tears cloud your vision before you could complete it? If I'm knowingly harboring criminals or terrorists, and I am armed, the cops or military have every right to shoot at me too. This entire village knew they were harboring a Taliban. They even nicknamed him. Maybe this event should be highly publicized in Afghanistan to demonstrate that when you accomodate the enemy you make yourself a target too and no longer qualify as "innocent"?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Would TLC think the same if cops or the US army just shot at everyone when they were chasing a terrorists or a criminal within the US? Since its foreign to his experience, I somehow doubt TLC could even imagine what it feels like.

You hear some noise, open your door to see what its about, and bang, you get shot. Rinse and repeat 10,000X and you too would hate and fear any organization that did that.

Or your innocent sister or mother gets shot, you rush out to help her, maybe start carrying her in a stretcher with other family members to get medical help, and they fire a missile at the whole rescue party.

Are you going to blame the possible criminal who happened to run into your neighborhood or the cops and army that shot and wounded you?

You just described the Taliban to a T.

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, if Chuckie2 read the article, "Why would you ever blame the police for a stray round hitting you? That defies any rational logic. " Great cop out, but that was no stray round, it was the US army deliberately shooting at everything that moved. Shoot first, ask questions later, and we have to consider the following piece of information coming from polls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if the quality of life or their safety had improved after the USA and Nato started their occupations, the poll answer is overwhelmingly NO NO NO.

I guess they just did not ask these questions of TLC, Chuckie2, and Johnny Gage, because they don't live there and are not entitled to a vote.

And we still wonder why we lost in Vietnam. And the answer is we had the same kind of TLC, Chuckie2, and JohnneyGage stinking thinking in our leadership.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
First of all, if Chuckie2 read the article, "Why would you ever blame the police for a stray round hitting you? That defies any rational logic. " Great cop out, but that was no stray round, it was the US army deliberately shooting at everything that moved. Shoot first, ask questions later, and we have to consider the following piece of information coming from polls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if the quality of life or their safety had improved after the USA and Nato started their occupations, the poll answer is overwhelmingly NO NO NO.

I guess they just did not ask these questions of TLC, Chuckie2, and Johnny Gage, because they don't live there and are not entitled to a vote.

And we still wonder why we lost in Vietnam. And the answer is we had the same kind of TLC, Chuckie2, and JohnneyGage stinking thinking in our leadership.

Please go read the last sentence in your previous post, that's what I responded to. Thank you.

Chuck

P.S. I just lost a self bet on when you'd roll out your 'stinking thinking' phrase...do you pat yourself on the back for coining that each time you use it? I gave you two more posts...the jar gets a quarter...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I ran across the following link in the NYT regarding another version of how Afghan civilians are viewing the US military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01.../asia/26afghan.html?hp

Which may sadly explain why the Taliban is gaining strength yearly because the US and Nato are losing the hearts and minds of the Afghan people in their zeal to kill any Taliban operatives with zero concern towards collateral damage.

Actually, most likely because they are reading and watching news reports like that one on the internet and their high def TVs... You think the rest of the world lives in tents and rides camels to work? the us fell under the 30th place for world internet speed/price. Those "villagers" know the same about the issue as you do, which is to say, they know whatever is on the news and the TV.

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: alchemize
Change I can agree on. Obama was the only Dem candidate that had the right views on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Get out of Iraq and focus on the real problem area.

/shudder
agreed
/shudder

(In a rare agreeing with you moment)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
First of all, if Chuckie2 read the article, "Why would you ever blame the police for a stray round hitting you? That defies any rational logic. " Great cop out, but that was no stray round, it was the US army deliberately shooting at everything that moved. Shoot first, ask questions later, and we have to consider the following piece of information coming from polls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if the quality of life or their safety had improved after the USA and Nato started their occupations, the poll answer is overwhelmingly NO NO NO.

I guess they just did not ask these questions of TLC, Chuckie2, and Johnny Gage, because they don't live there and are not entitled to a vote.

And we still wonder why we lost in Vietnam. And the answer is we had the same kind of TLC, Chuckie2, and JohnneyGage stinking thinking in our leadership.

Yeah, no doubt those special forces going after that Taliban guy were trigger happy, just spraying bullets like rookies.

:roll:

That's some serious lemon kool-aid you're drinking. Our special forces are well-trained. They don't go in with guns blazing and are aware there may be civilians in such situations so they are taught to practice restraint. If they were firing away I'd bet it was because they were being fired upon or were threatened in some way. Of course, there's no confirmation of that because that article only bothers to tell one side of the story. The fact that it is so slanted makes me suspicious and if you've got a shred of honesty in you it should make you suspicious too.

 

[Lemon law]

As TLC says sarcastically, "Yeah, no doubt those special forces going after that Taliban guy were trigger happy, just spraying bullets like rookies."

But TLC sarcasm hit the nail right on the head, because that is what it is and that is now the public opinion of those living in the Afghan shooting gallery. And as hard as TLC tries to deny it, that is the Afghan perception.

But maybe this is just some distortion by that commie liberal NYT and as such, we can conclude the Afghan people love Nato and the Taliban is not really gaining strength.

And TLC can tell the Afghan people how they should think, as if they are paying any attention to either Lemon law or TLC.