We have done something horrible, we have made war tolerable.

[al_nonymous]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics/

U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops



I've got this gut-wrenching feeling that we have set a precedence in the history of man-kind. War was never meant to be compassionate. War was meant to make everyone involved so miserable that neither side ever wanted to fight another war. If we had fought this as a war from the beginning it would long since be over. Now we have created this horrible monster where casualties are acceptable on both sides. What have we done?

 

[Noobtastic]

i doubt our military is going to make the war tolerable.

we're still killing 300+ civilians a month...

 

[Kadarin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics/

U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops



I've got this gut-wrenching feeling that we have set a precedence in the history of man-kind. War was never meant to be compassionate. War was meant to make everyone involved so miserable that neither side ever wanted to fight another war. If we had fought this as a war from the beginning it would long since be over. Now we have created this horrible monster where casualties are acceptable on both sides. What have we done?

You believe the goal of war is to be so intolerable that nobody would want to ever fight one? You = naive

 

[StageLeft]

War has always been tolerable and even enjoyed by many nations who have had no apparently qualms about initiating them all throughout history. After all, it's just great fun to win in a war and if people die who cares. As long as it's not your own kids. Then if it is your own kids it's the most horrible thing in the world.

 

[ShawnD1]

We should use chlorine gas against all insurgents. That's how we did it back in my day and it worked. .

 

[Lemon law]

The OP's statement that if we only fought the war in a brutal manner initially, we would won by now if totally false. And in fact is exactly why we are losing so badly now, we simply killed too many innocent civilians and as a result the Afghan people turn to the Taliban and do not trust Nato.

Besides, we won the war eight years ago, what we are dong now is trying to win the peace, which is a different thing in a Guerrilla war.

 

[JTsyo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics/

U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops



I've got this gut-wrenching feeling that we have set a precedence in the history of man-kind. War was never meant to be compassionate. War was meant to make everyone involved so miserable that neither side ever wanted to fight another war. If we had fought this as a war from the beginning it would long since be over. Now we have created this horrible monster where casualties are acceptable on both sides. What have we done?

That's what they said about WWI.

We should use chlorine gas against all insurgents. That's how we did it back in my day and it worked. .

Kind of like fumigating a house? Move all the civilians out of the country and then set off the mother of all chemical bombs and clear the landscape?

 

[Lemon law]

JTsyo clearly does not understand the difference between a conventional war and a military occupation like we are fighting in Afghanistan or he would not say, "Move all the civilians out of the country and then set off the mother of all chemical bombs and clear the landscape?"

The problem is that the Taliban and the Afghan people look exactly alike, because they are in fact one and the same. Its a war of ideas, a matter of mind and not substance, and if we adopted the JTsyo plan, the Taliban and Afghan people would leave in the same lifeboat, and return in the same lifeboat. And nothing would change after that big Chemical bomb went off.

Its not like the Taliban wear big T's on their Turbans, or when asked, will admit they are Taliban.

And Nato is losing that war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people mostly because Nato can never never in a million years sell the corrupt turd the Karazai government quickly became. And Nato did not do a damn thing to stop the corruption, because it suited their purposes, a fact the Taliban is quick to exploit even if they have corruption and violence sales problems of their own.

Meanwhile the war weary Afghan people get to live in a war is hell anarchyland for the foreseeable future. And can always wonder, will Nato kill me, or will the Taliban kill me, or will a corrupt Afghan drug runner kill me? And there are damn few Afghan families who have not lost family members to all three causes.

I think its fair to say that most Afghans would prefer that Nato won rather than the Taliban, at least there would be an end to the fighting, but after eight years of Nato inaction in terms of adequate troop levels, funding, and total inaction regarding corruption, most Afghans have lost all faith in Nato.

 

[ShawnD1]

That's what they said about WWI.



Kind of like fumigating a house? Move all the civilians out of the country and then set off the mother of all chemical bombs and clear the landscape?

If they were able to get the civilians out, they wouldn't need the chemical weapon in the first place

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics/

U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops



I've got this gut-wrenching feeling that we have set a precedence in the history of man-kind. War was never meant to be compassionate. War was meant to make everyone involved so miserable that neither side ever wanted to fight another war. If we had fought this as a war from the beginning it would long since be over. Now we have created this horrible monster where casualties are acceptable on both sides. What have we done?

I don't think you understood the article, and it's point. The point is that when you have a conflict like this (insurgents/guerrillas/terrorists, instead of a standing opposing military force), the point is you need to win over the local population.

So they are saying if you are "protecting" your own troops, while pissing off the local population, you are only causing more problems (attacks) to deal with. But if you get the local population to like you, they won't be attacking you in the first place (or in reality, less often).

It does no good to kill one terrorist/insurgent, if in doing so, you end up killing innocent people whose families then get pissed and join up, creating more terrorists/insurgents. Killing one while creating 3-4 more is a losing proposition.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137526/ns/politics/

U.S. war aim: Protect civilians first, then troops



I've got this gut-wrenching feeling that we have set a precedence in the history of man-kind. War was never meant to be compassionate. War was meant to make everyone involved so miserable that neither side ever wanted to fight another war. If we had fought this as a war from the beginning it would long since be over. Now we have created this horrible monster where casualties are acceptable on both sides. What have we done?

What you probably don't realize you are saying is that you are a coward who is so fearful that war will come to you that you want everbody else in the world dead. Cowards die many times before their deaths, the valliant never taste of death but once because they conduct themselves with moral dignity and integrity. It is better for the soul to know you did all you can to fight with justice and not have on your conscious that you killed a bunch of women and children needlessly because you almost pissed your pants. And you, your moral fiber is such, that you want that other man to do such killing because you're a jelly fish.

You have too much gut and not enough spine.