|
On July 26 2010 23:04 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 14:54 Jibba wrote:
Afghanistan wasn't a pre-emptive strike. In fact, the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan is precisely how international conflict should be done. No pre-emptive strikes, no preventative strikes, just retaliation. You absorb the first punch, and then you retaliate. I realize that sounds impersonal and it's not something politicians can lead with, but it's exactly what military powers should be doing and prevents crap like ticking time bomb arguments. There's always a question whether the response is (or should be) proportional but that's a different issue, and in this case it probably began that way. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think we should be in it anymore, but I do believe the grounds for being in it are valid.
We were bombing Afghanistan days after 9/11. On top of that, there was never any hard evidence presented to the UN or to the Afghan government that Bin Laden financed or played a role in planning 9/11. It was something we all just sort of assumed, and the international community didn't feel it was worth challenging in the wake of 9/11. Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:
I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it. Yes and no. You first assume that your enemy cannot be negotiated with and must be annihilated. Once you've dehumanized the opposition, any atrocity is permitted. It's true that no meaningful peace is ever achieved out of war without one side being completely overwhelmed, abused, and humiliated. But you need to measure who your enemy is. Personally, I don't give a damn about American strategic interests if it means slaughtering an innocent people who deserve far better given their troubled history.
Let me guess you believe US did 9/11? Oh there's plenty of evidence out there, perhaps you should put things into perspective?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM
al Qaeda's goal is the annihilation of Western, Eastern, Etc ideology that clashes with theirs. Nothing short of giving into their demands will make them stop. I beg to differ, we didn't put be-headings online to play a propaganda war (Al Qaeda really doesn't care what people think of them, as long as they have control), Al Qaeda dehumanized themselves and should be given no quarter.
Perhaps, you mistake the goals in Afghanistan. We are NOT their to kill civilians, this ridiculous notion needs to be stopped.
|
The problem begins at home; democracy will not work if the population is largely uneducated making choices based off information given to them by the governments who just want to do what they want and the media that just wants to sell more newspapers/have more viewers.
Especially when that country has a national obsession with guns and it's army is formed largely of people who would otherwise end up in jail because of a terrible social structure.
Make schools, not war :p
edit: to the guy above me, you do know the US has the death penalty and televised an execution? If you treat an enemy as being less human than you, you're no better than they are.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 23:03 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it. Because sending attack helicopters and commandos to gun down farmers and their children is a sure fire way to make sure that no group of individuals ever dares to attack american citizens again. Wait Somehow I dont think that's how it actually works. Your argument works great for dissuading attacks from rational politicians but the problem is that the US has never (unless you want to count the USSR) and will never (within a forseeable future) been threatend by rational politicians. Don't hurt us and we won't hurt you simply doesn't work very well when you have already murdered the wife and children of the person you are talking to not to mention spat in the face of everything they ideologically hold dear.
You're wrong if you think the Taliban or AQ are irrational. However, just because they're rational doesn't mean you can negotiate on reasonable terms, and generally, when is the case when you're attacked, you don't negotiate on otherwise reasonable terms, unless you have to. We're not discussing Iraq in which the US was militarily active for a decade. We're talking about Afghanistan where the Taliban had been left alone to happily dominate a country, and at the same time became an excellent area to conduct paramilitary activity in.
This is the problem with what you're saying:
Because sending attack helicopters and commandos to gun down farmers and their children You know that's not true. It's terrible, but that's not why they're sent and you know it.
This is the realist argument for why you retaliate and, while realism is a bit antiquated, it doesn't change the fact that beating the crap out of someone dissuades others from messing with you. Like zatic said, it's less and less practical today given the overspread range of the US military, but at the time I still think it was a reasonable move to make.
Now, if you go beyond the realist argument, there's a huge human security argument to removing the Taliban, but that's what's really bogged us down at the moment. Nationbuilding is nearly impossible as long as Pakistan is unstable and the borders aren't secure, and it's quite likely impossible to ever secure those borders. But I'm not talking about nation building.
I'm totally in favor of the human security model, especially on things concerned soft power, and I'm not saying there weren't other policies that could have prevented it from happening, or that should be carried out today that would help prevent it in the future and improve the lives of the disenfranchised around the world. I'm saying that retaliation, which this was, is fine and it was directed at a known attacker.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Afghanistan is in a perpetual state of civil war. What US does there will have no bearing on the people fighting over there against each other. The governing forces are notoriously corrupt and will never have a mandate. It's better to break the country apart into smaller politics. Building a nation is hard when factions want nothing to do with each other.
Trying to take out AQ enjoyed popular support. Trying to establish a central government in Kabul is a strategic mistake.
|
I dont believe the US will win anything in afghanistan, specially with such insane goals.
At least the taliban are achieving something, to them its a glorious battle against the invincible giant, any small victory is reason to celebrate, but for the US, anything that is not a complete victory at this point, is just delaying a losing battle.
|
On July 27 2010 00:41 Azarthis wrote:
The problem begins at home; democracy will not work if the population is largely uneducated making choices based off information given to them by the governments who just want to do what they want and the media that just wants to sell more newspapers/have more viewers.
Especially when that country has a national obsession with guns and it's army is formed largely of people who would otherwise end up in jail because of a terrible social structure.
Make schools, not war :p
edit: to the guy above me, you do know the US has the death penalty and televised an execution? If you treat an enemy as being less human than you, you're no better than they are.
How about you just say which country your going after?
That national obsession is apart of our constitution, which because of the way you worded leads me to believe you have absolutely no clue why we have a constitution.
Terrible social structure? Are you kidding me? Anyone and everyone is welcome to join the army, and as such even those who might end up in jail deserve a chance to improve and have a better life wouldn't you agree?
Umm, I really would think someone who lives in the US would understand our laws, which you do not. I do not even get how you're linking the death penalty to treating humans (ones who behead others... not for crimes mind you) less then you. Because frankly we treat enemy soilders quite well better then they treat us.
|
On July 27 2010 00:41 Azarthis wrote:
The problem begins at home; democracy will not work if the population is largely uneducated making choices based off information given to them by the governments who just want to do what they want and the media that just wants to sell more newspapers/have more viewers.
Especially when that country has a national obsession with guns and it's army is formed largely of people who would otherwise end up in jail because of a terrible social structure.
Make schools, not war :p
edit: to the guy above me, you do know the US has the death penalty and televised an execution? If you treat an enemy as being less human than you, you're no better than they are.
Umm, I am in the army. I had no plans to go to jail. I received a 3.9 GPA in high school, got a 32 on my ACT, and am currently finishing my BA with a double major on Marketing/Graphic Design online, while serving. That was one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen written, along the lines of John Kerry telling a high school 'stay in school or you will end up in iraq'.
Seriously dude, I don't really care if you sit on your fat ass in your computer chair eating cheetos and spouting hyperbole, just stay away from attacking the troops, because I guarantee that there are a lot of us whom are smarter and more accomplished than you, and who knew exactly what they were doing when they joined.
|
On July 27 2010 01:53 NearlyDead wrote:
I guarantee that there are a lot of us whom are smarter and more accomplished than you
This would carry more weight if you knew when to use "whom". If in doubt: never - otherwise you run the risk of hypercorrection, and that just looks bad. Unfortunate really, because I agree with your post.
|
On July 27 2010 01:53 NearlyDead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 00:41 Azarthis wrote:
The problem begins at home; democracy will not work if the population is largely uneducated making choices based off information given to them by the governments who just want to do what they want and the media that just wants to sell more newspapers/have more viewers.
Especially when that country has a national obsession with guns and it's army is formed largely of people who would otherwise end up in jail because of a terrible social structure.
Make schools, not war :p
edit: to the guy above me, you do know the US has the death penalty and televised an execution? If you treat an enemy as being less human than you, you're no better than they are. Umm, I am in the army. I had no plans to go to jail. I received a 3.9 GPA in high school, got a 32 on my ACT, and am currently finishing my BA with a double major on Marketing/Graphic Design online, while serving. That was one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen written, along the lines of John Kerry telling a high school 'stay in school or you will end up in iraq'. Seriously dude, I don't really care if you sit on your fat ass in your computer chair eating cheetos and spouting hyperbole, just stay away from attacking the troops, because I guarantee that there are a lot of us whom are smarter and more accomplished than you, and who knew exactly what they were doing when they joined.
Some of my high school classmates just graduated from West Point and yes, they are very intelligent people. I also know a guy who is in the airforce flying hueys who is also quite intelligent. I ALSO know that a lot of the stupidest motherfuckers I have had the pleasure to meet are in the military because they would be unable to find employment outside of fast food otherwise. Now, I have not personally served but based on my anecdotal experiences it seems the majority of the grunts on the ground are not exactly the most intelligent people out there.
|
Yes there are many stupid people in the military. How do I know this? I'm serving in the Air Force.
The military changes people, puts responsibility into their hands. If they can grow up, think just a little people can change and do well in or if they decide to get out prosper in the real world. If the military can not change them, then they will rightfully boot them out as I've seen 17 people already this year booted out from the base I am at.
But yes don't mock, speak down too or insult people who are serving willingly for the US. We very rarely make our own decisions, people with the stars on their shoulders or the people in congress that have not served their country make decisions for us. Thanks 
|
Interesting...For those who posted about the Iraq and Afganistan War, do you think it was a good idea to abandon the policy of Isolationism after WWII? (Serious Question)
Back to topic, what wikileaks has done is potentially a good thing in terms of having given the public raw data (as long as it doesn't pose danger to troops). Some of the stuff might seem like public knowledge but the information is clearly important (such as more civilians and soldiers getting killed and wounded rather then the enemy) and would help with pulling out of the war. It would only be good in my opinion if they did this only to inform the public.
|
On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. Why? It's war. It's funny that we'll have explaining to do because of some civilians dying when nothing is said about the jews killing Muslims every freaking day on purpose. Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down.
Each sentence is factually incorrect, and also offensive. "Jews" isn't an acceptable term for Israeli armed forces, "Muslims" isn't appropriate for those who the Israeli military has killed (a fair portion of whom aren't Muslim), the Israeli army doesn't intentionally kill others every single day, and Wikileaks is on the internet; it isn't some American newspaper. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Saying Jews kill Muslims every day on purpose is no different than saying Christians kill Muslims every day on purpose, except that the latter phrase would be more accurate. The problem is that it's misleading and it refers to a religion/ethnicity rather than the body of individuals responsible for the relevant actions. Also, the IDF isn’t composed exclusively of Jews. There have been about a million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many people has the IDF killed, and how is it even relevant? How can this possibly be your immediate reaction to this news?
The leak might be in some manner damaging (I’m obviously not qualified to say), but the American soldiers, recruits, and potential recruits (most Americans) deserve to know why they are doing what they are doing, and who they are combating (directly and indirectly). If you’re going to tell someone to kill others, you should give a highly in-depth explanation of why. We shouldn’t have “explaining to do because of some civilians dying” because of another country’s foreign policy? What about the families of those who died during the war; do they not deserve an account of the conditions of their relatives’/friends’/loved ones’ deaths – the reasons they died (even and especially if there were none)? Do you really believe it isn’t possible to conduct a war with fewer civilian casualties? You can’t simply dismiss the 1 million casualties as nothing more than an inevitable cost of war. It is abundantly clear that the military practices that the US has been using in Afghanistan are careless and abusive. This can be changed, and it should be changed. If you want to change it, you need to inform people of what is going on, and then, ideally, you need to hold those accountable who have been careless and those in charge of creating and executing the policies that allow for such rampant and avoidable killings. It’s a big deal. Maybe there will be some negative ramifications to the release of these documents, but now that they have been released, why brush the information they have revealed under the rug? It’s scary this sort of “full-steam-ahead, trust those in power, keep the citizenry ignorant and uninformed, let us remain blind, don’t hold anyone accountable” mindset. Sure, foreign relations are a tenuous matter, and clearly, both Pakistan and the US haven’t exactly been “open” with each other, presumably with good reason. But how is it possible that your first reaction to this leak is to get angry at the website that leaked the information when most of what was has been released is basic accounts of hundreds of thousands of avoidable civilian deaths?
|
On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:
Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down.
So much for being an "American" website, Wikileaks was founded primarily by Chinese and is based in Sweden.
I'm honestly worried that people would have an issue with events like these becoming public information, they should be public information. We should know exactly how many deaths have been incurred, how many civilians died as a result of our "helping" them. Putting a human face on Afghanis (or Iraqis, or Palestinians for that matter) would severely hurt the war PR in the US and hopefully cause us to reconsider our actions.
|
On July 27 2010 04:38 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:
Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down. So much for being an "American" website, Wikileaks was founded primarily by Chinese and is based in Sweden. I'm honestly worried that people would have an issue with events like these becoming public information, they should be public information. We should know exactly how many deaths have been incurred, how many civilians died as a result of our "helping" them. Putting a human face on Afghanis (or Iraqis, or Palestinians for that matter) would severely hurt the war PR in the US and hopefully cause us to reconsider our actions.
That is to go behind the backs of the military right to censor parts of the war due to the problems it caused during the Vietnam war. Which i understand and support, the right of the military to control some aspects of the media dealing with wars. Ofc the one thing Vietnam did have is the attention of the public unlike wars that followed that had a peaking interest then just a side thing people forget about.
Ofc there were many problems with the Vietnam war the press was just one of the factors. The situation in Afghanistan is very different and ionno too much about iraq.
|
There's several of these reports that wouldn't be out of place in your evening news section. This isn't 92,000 of the militaries most important secrets.
But some of these are just purely bad PR if reported on, and nothing else. Stories about two children dying due to friendly fire, soliders killing 1/2 people with "warning shots", etc would be terrible news if it was published in a major news station. You need to wonder where the decision is made to not make that info public.
|
We can't defeat terrorism more than we can defeat crime. It's not something you fight with a military, it's something our government agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) and local police should be handling to keep our borders safe. Not invading countries thinking it will stop it. Going to afganistan and iraq or wherever we decide to go next to stop terrorism would be equivalent to us going to Columbia to stop Cocaine from entering our country then annexing the country just to be sure there are any drug dealers left. It just doesn't work.
Instead of spending billions of dollars a year to fuel a war that isn't doing anything, if we took even HALF of that money and put it into our police forces, FBI, Domestic Anti Terror Units, etc. to arm them, prepare them, and so forth we would be set against terrorism for the most part. I would guarantee that.
|
On July 27 2010 04:58 Fruscainte wrote:
We can't defeat terrorism more than we can defeat crime. It's not something you fight with a military, it's something our government agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) and local police should be handling to keep our borders safe. Not invading countries thinking it will stop it. Going to afganistan and iraq or wherever we decide to go next to stop terrorism would be equivalent to us going to Columbia to stop Cocaine from entering our country then annexing the country just to be sure there are any drug dealers left. It just doesn't work.
Instead of spending billions of dollars a year to fuel a war that isn't doing anything, if we took even HALF of that money and put it into our police forces, FBI, Domestic Anti Terror Units, etc. to arm them, prepare them, and so forth we would be set against terrorism for the most part. I would guarantee that.
Ya of course you don't go to war after the World Trade centers were hit... The war should have been run correctly and we would not have any problems. We should be fighting terrorism, but not the way we are.
PS - I agree that we should have a better border control.
|
On July 27 2010 04:54 Offhand wrote:
There's several of these reports that wouldn't be out of place in your evening news section. This isn't 92,000 of the militaries most important secrets.
But some of these are just purely bad PR if reported on, and nothing else. Stories about two children dying due to friendly fire, soliders killing 1/2 people with "warning shots", etc would be terrible news if it was published in a major news station. You need to wonder where the decision is made to not make that info public.
What are you trying to say, exactly? I couldn't figure out your stance on the releasing/reporting of this information based on your post.
My opinion is that war should have bad PR as it's FUCKING TERRIBLE.
|
On July 27 2010 04:38 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:
Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down. So much for being an "American" website, Wikileaks was founded primarily by Chinese and is based in Sweden. I'm honestly worried that people would have an issue with events like these becoming public information, they should be public information. We should know exactly how many deaths have been incurred, how many civilians died as a result of our "helping" them. Putting a human face on Afghanis (or Iraqis, or Palestinians for that matter) would severely hurt the war PR in the US and hopefully cause us to reconsider our actions.
I agree, this sort of stuff should be known, but then again there are reasons why it is not widely published, there are reasons why the US and other governments would ( conveniently ) love it if these sites were shut down.
People see numbers (X number of Afghans and Y US troops) and say X or Y is too high. The problem with leaking this type of data is that people that get their hands on it will
1. be very badly informed about the importance of the numbers (they will not be able to put them into context and make compromises as Generals and heads of state must do all the time with internal affairs).
2. Not know the whole story and likely make uninformed and misplaced judgement about what is going on and
3. Only have the power to change one single thing. Not policy, not the measures taken or the death tool: who is charge.
Who are we to judge that the Obama administration (or another one) is not doing well enough, so we vote for the other guy to have them ousted. In democratic societies the only real power the people have over policy issues like this one is which person they vote for.
TL'DR
It's always about choosing the lesser of two evils. Administrations and military leaders do this for a job, and although they don't do it perfectly imo they do a pretty good job. The problem with releasing statistics like these is that we as voters don't see the whole picture (and likely don't see precedents so we can't learn from them). We try to change what we can (who is in charge), but is that really what is best for everybody? I say leave policy matters like war and combat tactics to the experts. Things like human rights and ethical issues no, but instances where people are trained to and must make compromises yes.
|
On July 27 2010 05:37 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 04:54 Offhand wrote:
There's several of these reports that wouldn't be out of place in your evening news section. This isn't 92,000 of the militaries most important secrets.
But some of these are just purely bad PR if reported on, and nothing else. Stories about two children dying due to friendly fire, soliders killing 1/2 people with "warning shots", etc would be terrible news if it was published in a major news station. You need to wonder where the decision is made to not make that info public. What are you trying to say, exactly? I couldn't figure out your stance on the releasing/reporting of this information based on your post. My opinion is that war should have bad PR as it's FUCKING TERRIBLE.
My stance is that the information should be public. I've read a few of the leaked reports, they don't immediately danger soldier's lives, they're just bad events no one wants to talk about. I understand the need for information security when it comes to things like planned attacks, but this is clearly not the case. Unclassified information is still often protected, because large quantities of unclassified data can often be used to infer other actions.*
I think everyone should be aware of what's going on in the country we decided to invade. Then, you can make a judgment call over # of dead kids vs # of Bin Laden officials captured/killed and see if the endeavor was worth it.
*This i how most counterintelligence works, by the way. The Kremlin used to/still might have rooms of people reading American newspapers and press releases attempting to piece together a bigger picture. They managed to build an exact replica of the space shuttle using only data gleaned from scientific journals about breakthroughs, or new developments, or pictures. The only difference between the two shuttles is that one is full of instruments with English labels while the other was written in Russian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
