[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You ask questions and verify first before shooting and if those conditions represent an unacceptable risk to our soldiers (and it is) then we don't send troops there.

'cmon derby. I think we're in a futile war in Astan and should leave. But, what you're suggesting would mean we never send our troops to war at all. "I say, excuse me, sir, do you have evil intentions toward us?" "Allahu Akbar" Boom.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these incidents involve troops over reacting and justifying their actions after the fact. But many of them also seem to involve civilians who are just oblivious. I have no idea how to sort that out, and I don't blame troops for having itchy trigger fingers with suiciders around.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying we don't send troops to "free people" who never asked us to intercede on their behalf. Works for both A-stan and Iraq. In France even though civilians were killed and villages destroyed the people themselves accepted a degree of destruction as necessary for their freedom, so much so that they formed resistance cells.

That is not the case in either Iraq or Afghanistan where it is made up of various factions and tribes who value only their own freedom and do not accept criticism of their actions and do not accept incidents against their people.

It would be very different if we sent troops to help country X because they were invaded by country Y and we needed to send troops to country Y to put an end to that threat.

I don't blame troops for having itchy trigger fingers either. They are justifiably concerned with their own lives. I don't blame any of the people "running roadblocks" or approaching troops armed either. That is why we should leave. Will the violence stop? Not a chance but ti won't be us doing it and we won't be to blame for whatever violence their society sees upon itself.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yes. What also happens next is that the government becomes further alienated from both the people and their allies and that more people move into the enemies camp.

Which is why we're not going to win this war using military might. You just can't fight a war without breaking some eggs. My guess would be that Canadians killed some Dutch civilians while liberating the country. It wasn't held against them because the people really did see us as liberators.

Most Astanis don't see us as liberators but as occupiers. Look how fast they turned on the US after the US funded their war with Russia. We're fighting for a govt that we don't trust to hand over their own citizens to. What a pile of steaming bullshit.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Great point Derb, but ummmm how do you verify first when the vehicle in question won't stop to let you verify?

We haven't even verified it was acting in a threatening manner yet. It's damn difficult to verify first but then again when the people do this:

$1:

At the same time, Wesa condemned the bus shooting along a highway in the volatile Zhari district. "Kandaharis are very upset and the entire country is very upset with such incidents."

In the wake of the shooting, hundreds of protesters blocked the country's main highway, chanting "Death to America" and calling for the ouster of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Civilian casualties caused by NATO troops frequently serve as flashpoints of anger for Afghans, who routinely complain western soldiers are too trigger-happy.

it pretty much says it all about our allies over there doesn't it?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Great point Derb, but ummmm how do you verify first when the vehicle in question won't stop to let you verify?

We haven't even verified it was acting in a threatening manner yet. It's damn difficult to verify first but then again when the people do this:

$1:

At the same time, Wesa condemned the bus shooting along a highway in the volatile Zhari district. "Kandaharis are very upset and the entire country is very upset with such incidents."

In the wake of the shooting, hundreds of protesters blocked the country's main highway, chanting "Death to America" and calling for the ouster of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Civilian casualties caused by NATO troops frequently serve as flashpoints of anger for Afghans, who routinely complain western soldiers are too trigger-happy.

it pretty much says it all about our allies over there doesn't it?

Well, I think "allies" might be to strong a word for it since they didn't ask for help before we invaded them. Although to be fair, it's not like there wasn't some justification for the invasion.
The soldiers over there are in a real shitty 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' situation.
But at least we have a viable option of pulling our troops out. The US is boned really. They are stuck in 2 countries without a real good way to get out.
If they leave A-stan, that'll give give heart and encouragement to the towlieban cuz they beat the great invading infidels. Which may further encourage them to attempt more attacks on the US.
Iraq is just a big ol' clusterfuck. If they pull out too soon, they run the very serious risk of losing major credibilty globally by leaving Iraq in worse shape than it was when they "freed" it. As well as the same potential consequences as A-stan as far as an increase in the morale of the extremist groups fighting them.
If it wasn't for Bush's idiotic adventure in Iraq, A-stan might actually have been salvageable.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well, I think "allies" might be to strong a word for it since they didn't ask for help before we invaded them. Although to be fair, it's not like there wasn't some justification for the invasion.
The soldiers over there are in a real shitty 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' situation.
But at least we have a viable option of pulling our troops out. The US is boned really. They are stuck in 2 countries without a real good way to get out.
If they leave A-stan, that'll give give heart and encouragement to the towlieban cuz they beat the great invading infidels. Which may further encourage them to attempt more attacks on the US.
Iraq is just a big ol' clusterfuck. If they pull out too soon, they run the very serious risk of losing major credibilty globally by leaving Iraq in worse shape than it was when they "freed" it. As well as the same potential consequences as A-stan as far as an increase in the morale of the extremist groups fighting them.
If it wasn't for Bush's idiotic adventure in Iraq, A-stan might actually have been salvageable.

I'm not the least bit concerned if the Taliban or Iraqis or whoever think they beat us. We leave and we leave on our own accord is what is important. We tell them both we are leaving at X date and from this moment on we are packing up and from the leave date on their society is their responsibility.

Then we leave and leave for good. No more military advisors, no f*cking CIA BS, no nothing. Any international aid groups that want to stay and help then that is fine but we aren't responsible for them.

I think we are doing far more to swell the ranks of insurgents there with our presence then anything else we could do. Recall the interview a few weeks back with the would be suicide bomber. He claims he was duped into believing that the Afghan people and their leaders weren't muslim but he knows they now are. He still wants to kill western invaders though.

In the end the US pulled out of Vietnam in the same way they should do here. Now they have trade agreements and tourists flock there.

Lets waste no more lives, resources, and money on their society when it is their responsibility.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

$1:

Yes. What also happens next is that the government becomes further alienated from both the people and their allies and that more people move into the enemies camp.

So what? Our troops will smoke their asses too. If they're idiotic enough to keep going when they repeatedly get waved off, it's their own fault. I'm sick and tired of our troops getting blamed for Afghan stupidity.

And who cares about said alienation? They have disliked us from the start anyways. I don't see why we should keep helping this backwards little country. Drop a really big bomb and be done with it.

-J.

[PluggyRug]

In a war zone you shoot first and ask questions later.

[DerbyX]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

$1:

Yes. What also happens next is that the government becomes further alienated from both the people and their allies and that more people move into the enemies camp.

So what? Our troops will smoke their asses too. If they're idiotic enough to keep going when they repeatedly get waved off, it's their own fault. I'm sick and tired of our troops getting blamed for Afghan stupidity.

And who cares about said alienation? They have disliked us from the start anyways. I don't see why we should keep helping this backwards little country. Drop a really big bomb and be done with it.

-J.

That is brilliant. Aside from the fact of a great deal of evidence that these people are killed because of trigger happy troops your disdain for alienating them plays right into the hands of the enemy.

You say "they" have disliked us from the start. On that I will agree and disagree. "they" didn't give a fuck what we did and did not hate us at all. "they" only fought us because "we" invaded their land.

"they" as you say are the very people "we" claim asked for our help and allowed "us" to come to their country. "they" would be happy if "we" simply fucked off out of "their" country and allowed "them" to run "their" own affairs.

Idiotic statements like we should just bomb/nuke them simply proves their point that "we" are a bunch of trigger happy morons who only want to kill them rather then our officially stated goal of "saving" them.

The next time somebody on this forum even attempts to show that "them" muslims want to hurt us I'll remind them that so many of "us" think we should kill them all (like Hitler wanted to with the Jews) by dropping a "big bomb".

Think for a moment will ya.

[DerbyX]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

In a war zone you shoot first and ask questions later.

Not when we are there to free people and were asked to be there (our interpretation).

If we aren't able to accept we must first verify the threat before firing then we should leave.

That sounds pretty good. We should leave.

[PluggyRug]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

In a war zone you shoot first and ask questions later.

Not when we are there to free people and were asked to be there (our interpretation).

If we aren't able to accept we must first verify the threat before firing then we should leave.

That sounds pretty good. We should leave.

It's still a war zone, so my premise stands.

"Please verify your presence, is that a bomb, oh dear it is"........

Leaving offers no solution.

[DerbyX]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It's still a war zone, so my premise stands.

"Please verify your presence, is that a bomb, oh dear it is"........

Leaving offers no solution.

It is a war zone because we made it. We not only made it but claimed (falsely) that we are there because we were asked.

A far cry from liberating France.

The end result is this. Every incident like this swells the ranks of the enemy. It undermines our mission and undermines ability of the government *cough* to *ahem* govern.

It's not about finding fault anymore but explaining why karzai is now threatening to (re)join the Taliban and the fact that where the wire ends the Taliban begins.

The parallels to Vietnam are stark. A corrupt government not supported by the people. An enemy fighting a guerilla campaign willing to absorb horrible loss of life and out wait us, and a public unwilling to support this any longer.

Add to that the fact that so many war supporters actually consider the enemy not to be the Taliban but Islam then you have a recipe for disaster and failure.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

[
A far cry from liberating France.

A little off topic here but, During WW2, there was a village in France that was giving the US ground forces a tough time(wish I could remember its name).
After getting a bombing mission worked up, the US 8th Air Force pounded the village with a 2 wave attack.
When the bombers finished up, the ground troops picked up and headed towards the village, a village that had been around for 1300 years, and saw it had been pretty much blown off the map. One soldier was overheard remarking sardonically, "Boy, we sure liberated the hell out of that town."

[Guy_Fawkes]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

In a war zone you shoot first and ask questions later.

No you dont, there are times when you need to react on the information given at the time, but there is still a thought process involved. Shooting first and then asking questions is not the trait of a professional soldier.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

$1:

You say "they" have disliked us from the start. On that I will agree and disagree. "they" didn't give a fuck what we did and did not hate us at all. "they" only fought us because "we" invaded their land.

"We" as Canadians, did not invade their land on purpose. "They" started crashing planes into buildings and killing innocent people, provoking our response and that of our allies. If "they" didn't want us there, they should of thought of that before the carnage started.

$1:

"they" as you say are the very people "we" claim asked for our help and allowed "us" to come to their country. "they" would be happy if "we" simply fucked off out of "their" country and allowed "them" to run "their" own affairs.

"They" are incapable and unwilling to properly run their own affairs. That backwards little country would be total anarchy if NATO wasn't there.

$1:

The next time somebody on this forum even attempts to show that "them" muslims want to hurt us I'll remind them that so many of "us" think we should kill them all (like Hitler wanted to with the Jews) by dropping a "big bomb".

Those Muslims DO want to hurt us. Did you sleep through all of 9/11, or the Toronto 18, or the British airline bombing plots, or the continuing deaths of Canadian and NATO soldiers in Afghanland b IEDs and various other means?????

They don't deserve diplomacy! They understand only violence, and that is all we should respond with until they are vanquished, and good triumphs over evil in the name of freedom and democracy.

-J.

[EyeBrock]

Churchill wrote some great articles in the late 1890's. If you forget about the lack of PC in this article, it could have been written in 2010.

This soundbite on his views of Afghans sums it up;

'Every mans hand is against the other, and all against the stranger."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... chill.html