Results 1 to 30 of 74

Thread: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post

    Yes - seriously. Soldiers' lives are a resource, just like bullets or tanks. Now, to be sure, they are a valuable resource but if we're going to get into the morality of the "numbers game" viz how much an individual's life is worth then we might as well give up on war altogether.

    As far as I have seen the American armed forces, and the American public are generally considered to over-value the lives of their servicemen in relation to the wider context of a given operation. This has been a prevailing British opinion for at least a few decades, if not since Vietnam.
    I guess that explains the Somme then.

    If you, and as you seem to claim a large section of the British public, really think that a soldiers life is the same as a bullet or tank then I really do not understand your sense of morals at all.

    Now, this is not to say there should be no artillery support, far from it, but American doctrine in "Urban Combat" often includes flattening potential enemy position or choke points. Remember the missiles they fired down roads in Fallujah to remove *potential* land mines? Not only did they make all the roads impassable they knocked out all the water and electricity mains going into the city, triggering a humanitarian crisis.
    Potential? Read any first hand account of the Second Battle of Fallujah, where the use of the mine-clearing line charge (which is what you are referring to as "missiles") was prevalent, and you would know that the roads in Fallujah were covered in IEDs. Now then, considering the destructive power of IEDs, I think tearing up a road is much more preferable to losing human lives. And considering that most of the civilian population evacuated (if government estimates can be trusted, anywhere between 70-90% of the civilians cleared out before the fighting), it sucks that the remaining civilians had to deal with no water or electricity but sometimes its unavoidable. Its the harsh reality of war that innocents suffer. We can do what we can to alleviate their suffering but the end goal must be to destroy the enemy. Deploying the line charges might have messed up the roads (which were fixed after the battle anyways) but you cannot deny that it also saved lives.

    In an urban environment, particularly an allied city, we should be aiming for judicious use of minimal destructive power, not shock and awe.
    You keep neglecting to say that at the moment it is not an allied city. Yes, coalition forces arent trying to wipe out the town but to say that just because coalition forces are trying to take it back that we shouldnt launch airstrikes against reported Taliban positions is tactical stupidity.

    Imagine retaking an American city and half the city is rubble before you're done. How would that swing with the American media and public?
    If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  2. #2
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I guess that explains the Somme then.

    If you, and as you seem to claim a large section of the British public, really think that a soldiers life is the same as a bullet or tank then I really do not understand your sense of morals at all.
    As Is aid, this has nothing to do with morals.

    Morally, one does not make war. If we are making war then we need to do so with the greatest intelligence and proportionality, and that means that we need to consider soldiers' lives as a resource, we need to consider how many lives to spend to achieve an objective and what level of civilian casualties we should accept in the protection of our own forces. In the last part of the calculation we should consider friendly and enemy civilians as having different values, in strategic terms.

    The idea is to win the war as quickly as possible, which means much more than just defeating the enemy in battle.

    Potential? Read any first hand account of the Second Battle of Fallujah, where the use of the mine-clearing line charge (which is what you are referring to as "missiles") was prevalent, and you would know that the roads in Fallujah were covered in IEDs. Now then, considering the destructive power of IEDs, I think tearing up a road is much more preferable to losing human lives. And considering that most of the civilian population evacuated (if government estimates can be trusted, anywhere between 70-90% of the civilians cleared out before the fighting), it sucks that the remaining civilians had to deal with no water or electricity but sometimes its unavoidable. Its the harsh reality of war that innocents suffer. We can do what we can to alleviate their suffering but the end goal must be to destroy the enemy. Deploying the line charges might have messed up the roads (which were fixed after the battle anyways) but you cannot deny that it also saved lives.
    *Shrug*

    I attended a lecture by General Sir Rupert Smith, as I understand it the "line charge" is essentially a missile fired down the road - that's how he described it. His opinion was that using the line charge caused long-term resentment in the city in addition to the immediate crisis - the point being that the tactic that saved American lives on the day, by not having to re-mine the road, cost more in the long run because it turned the residents on the city against the Americans, even those who came back after the battle would have seen a city with no electricity and no sanitation.

    You keep neglecting to say that at the moment it is not an allied city. Yes, coalition forces arent trying to wipe out the town but to say that just because coalition forces are trying to take it back that we shouldnt launch airstrikes against reported Taliban positions is tactical stupidity.
    So the people all support the Taliban now? I hear they don't, and they all came out of their houses to cheer when the Afghan army retook parts of the city (and promptly ducked back inside when it all kicked off again).

    Intellectual exercise - imagine an American city occupied by the Russians/Chinese/baddy of the week. Has it ceased to be a "friendly" city or is it just "occupied"?

    If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."
    I rather doubt it - I expect your Congress would be demanding to know why your military destroyed one of your own cities to retake it.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  3. #3
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post

    Morally, one does not make war. If we are making war then we need to do so with the greatest intelligence and proportionality, and that means that we need to consider soldiers' lives as a resource, we need to consider how many lives to spend to achieve an objective and what level of civilian casualties we should accept in the protection of our own forces. In the last part of the calculation we should consider friendly and enemy civilians as having different values, in strategic terms.

    The idea is to win the war as quickly as possible, which means much more than just defeating the enemy in battle.
    Yes, in a perfectly moral world there would be no war. But you obviously understand that it doesnt work that way.


    I attended a lecture by General Sir Rupert Smith, as I understand it the "line charge" is essentially a missile fired down the road - that's how he described it. His opinion was that using the line charge caused long-term resentment in the city in addition to the immediate crisis - the point being that the tactic that saved American lives on the day, by not having to re-mine the road, cost more in the long run because it turned the residents on the city against the Americans, even those who came back after the battle would have seen a city with no electricity and no sanitation.
    When David Petraeus came to speak to my army officer cadet class back in 2013 this is one of the things he talked about when it came to counterinsurgency strategy. The needs of the locals must be balanced with the tactical necessity to defeat the enemy. Go too far in one direction and you get trouble with the other. Yes, we could have not used the line charges but that would have been cost-prohibitive in terms of coalition lives since the city was turned into a fortress of barricades, tunnels, trenches, and booby-trapped houses. We could have also not told the populace that we were coming in, resulting in much greater casualties but also we would have killed many more insurgents as a lot of them were able to flee, including the person we were after, al-Zarqawi. A careful balance must be struck and where that balance is to be made is very hard to figure out.


    So the people all support the Taliban now? I hear they don't, and they all came out of their houses to cheer when the Afghan army retook parts of the city (and promptly ducked back inside when it all kicked off again).

    Intellectual exercise - imagine an American city occupied by the Russians/Chinese/baddy of the week. Has it ceased to be a "friendly" city or is it just "occupied"?
    No, I didnt say that. What I said was that the Taliban controlled the city and as such the city was deemed to be in enemy hands. As such, its not deemed to be an allied city. Occupied yes, but the term allied implies that the city is in friendly hands. Thats my understanding anyways.

    I rather doubt it - I expect your Congress would be demanding to know why your military destroyed one of your own cities to retake it.
    Only one way to find out really. And if it ever really got that bad, by looking at our reaction to 9/11 (like the Patriot Act), I kinda doubt that the government would be all up in arms about damage to a city done in the process of retaking it.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  4. #4

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    If it resulted in the capture of the city, then I would guess that the main response would be "well that really sucks that the town is now half rubble, but Im sure glad that we took the city and now we can rebuild."
    This is stupidity.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  5. #5
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    This is stupidity.
    If it is, then explain.

    Military objectives > property.

    EDIT: let me reiterate-

    If an American city was lightly held and still half leveled then yeah, there will be outrage Im sure but if turned into a verifiable fortress by enemy forces like Fallujah was then yeah, expect to sustain heavy damage.

    Look at Baghdad in the initial invasion. Light resistance, light damage. Fallujah had heavy resistance, so heavy damage.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 10-05-2015 at 05:07.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  6. #6

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    I did. You replied to it. But I supposed you just skimmed it over.

    Urban infrastructure should always be preserved unless the larger aim is to destroy the industrial capacity of a developed power and its organized military.

    The situation in Afghanistan is rather different, no? The infrastructure is precisely what you are fighting over. Destroying infrastructure in the hope of killing 3 or 5 enemy combatants is outright hamfisted idiocy.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #7
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    The American military only mitigates casualties only so far as lipstick makes a pig kissable.

    Also why the hell are we talking about the Somme? We are fighting in an urban environment, against a non conventional enemy, in 2015. I can not wrap my head around the fact some people think destroying cities does not help these militas we are fighting.

    Cities are worth more intact in the kind of war we are fighting. Giving the people on the ground some kind of semblance of a normal life should be our goal. Taking cities sounds like your jerking off over your fantasy game.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    The fact, basic fact, whatever the strategic or tactical point of view is: You don't bomb a hospital, you don't shoot at ambulances, as you don't shoot to parachutist except within a dropping parachutists operation, nor your can shoot at sailors in a rescue embarkation.

    There is no indication that the Talibans were in the hospital, and in fact there are indications they were not...

    If you made a mistake, or if as Hamas does, the militants put weapons near the hospital, and nothing indicates the Talibans did it, it is exactly why you have Air Controllers on the ground.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  9. #9
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    Yes, in a perfectly moral world there would be no war. But you obviously understand that it doesnt work that way.
    I do, I also understand that saving American lives today may cost more lives tomorrow. Blowing up cities in Afghanistan breeds terrorists and prolongs the conflict.

    When David Petraeus came to speak to my army officer cadet class back in 2013 this is one of the things he talked about when it came to counterinsurgency strategy. The needs of the locals must be balanced with the tactical necessity to defeat the enemy. Go too far in one direction and you get trouble with the other. Yes, we could have not used the line charges but that would have been cost-prohibitive in terms of coalition lives since the city was turned into a fortress of barricades, tunnels, trenches, and booby-trapped houses. We could have also not told the populace that we were coming in, resulting in much greater casualties but also we would have killed many more insurgents as a lot of them were able to flee, including the person we were after, al-Zarqawi. A careful balance must be struck and where that balance is to be made is very hard to figure out.
    Petraeus has been shown to have poor judgement - looking back he was valourised in the US primarily for being slightly above competent. Few of your senior officers have shown a lot of strategic ability over the last few decades. I suggest you read "Into the Storm" by Tom Clancy and Gen. F. M. Franks, it's about the US Army after Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_t...Ground_in_Iraq

    In it General Franks discusses, somewhat obliquely, the political vs strategic concerns and how the ground offensive was motivated by the former and not the latter, Franks wanted to come down from the North, take Baghdad and cut the head off the snake but instead they rolled the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then moved into Iraq only punitively.

    He and Clancy also completely misunderstand several things about the British, when Gen. Smith selected "Sunray" as his callsign on the American net the Americans found this amusing but even in 1997 they don't know that "Sunray" is the the traditional callsign for the formation commander.

    Old British joke, "If you hear 'Sunray down' you better be worried because that means you're Sunray'"

    No, I didnt say that. What I said was that the Taliban controlled the city and as such the city was deemed to be in enemy hands. As such, its not deemed to be an allied city. Occupied yes, but the term allied implies that the city is in friendly hands. Thats my understanding anyways.
    In warefare ownership is not 9/10ths of strategic concern. An Allied city or a "friendly" city would be one with an Allied/friendly population. The the question of whether it is "in friendly hands" is seperate.

    For example - during WWII the British and Americans pounded German cities into the ground but generally tried to avoid bombing French cities, which is why Paris survived the war mostly in tact and Berlin was a ruin like London.

    Only one way to find out really. And if it ever really got that bad, by looking at our reaction to 9/11 (like the Patriot Act), I kinda doubt that the government would be all up in arms about damage to a city done in the process of retaking it.
    Your reaction to 9/11? A bunch of nutters rammed a few plains into a few buildings, killed a few thousand people and your response was to invade two countries and virtually grind them into dust. You were so horribly offended that you completely dismantled the political and military system in both countries and ostracised almost everyone who had anything to do with the former regimes.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  10. #10
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    I do, I also understand that saving American lives today may cost more lives tomorrow. Blowing up cities in Afghanistan breeds terrorists and prolongs the conflict.
    We are in agreement here. But short of not doing any sort of fighting whatsoever, there are going to be civilian casualties. There is no way to completely prevent it. If there was, then I would wager that the Israelis would have developed it already because god knows the world rides them hard when civilians die by their hands (and rightly so).


    Petraeus has been shown to have poor judgement - looking back he was valourised in the US primarily for being slightly above competent.
    Well that sounds a bit like an an ad hominem to me. Say he had poor judgement all you want when it comes to his personal life and whatnot, the fact is that he had more success in the counter-insurgency than any other US (or British- remember Basra?) commander had.

    Few of your senior officers have shown a lot of strategic ability over the last few decades.
    I suggest you read "Into the Storm" by Tom Clancy and Gen. F. M. Franks, it's about the US Army after Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_t...Ground_in_Iraq

    In it General Franks discusses, somewhat obliquely, the political vs strategic concerns and how the ground offensive was motivated by the former and not the latter, Franks wanted to come down from the North, take Baghdad and cut the head off the snake but instead they rolled the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then moved into Iraq only punitively.
    When it comes to counterinsurgency I say yes, most western commanders have trouble dealing with it. Hardly an American phenomenon. But when it comes to conventional warfare, western commanders have been more often than not apt at their craft.

    He and Clancy also completely misunderstand several things about the British, when Gen. Smith selected "Sunray" as his callsign on the American net the Americans found this amusing but even in 1997 they don't know that "Sunray" is the the traditional callsign for the formation commander.
    And why should they know this? Does the British Army know every traditional aspect of its allied armies? Its such an insignificant thing Im not sure why you brought it up.

    In warefare ownership is not 9/10ths of strategic concern. An Allied city or a "friendly" city would be one with an Allied/friendly population. The the question of whether it is "in friendly hands" is seperate.
    Thats why we dont carpet bomb cities anymore. Yes, simply "owning" a city doesnt mean anything anymore but rebuilding effectively takes an element of safety and security, which you cant do when insurgents are launching daily attacks on rebuilding efforts. Destroying a few buildings in the process of securing a city is hardly the same as carpet bombing it.

    For example - during WWII the British and Americans pounded German cities into the ground but generally tried to avoid bombing French cities, which is why Paris survived the war mostly in tact and Berlin was a ruin like London.
    Well thats very debatable. Look at Caen or Falaise. The Allies bombed a large number of French cities and towns in WW2. If Wikipedia is correct, over 1,500 French towns were bombed during the occupation. And a mostly intact Paris is most likely because the Germans withdrew from the city (ignoring Hitlers orders to burn it down as they left) before any serious fighting began.

    Your reaction to 9/11? A bunch of nutters rammed a few plains into a few buildings, killed a few thousand people and your response was to invade two countries and virtually grind them into dust. You were so horribly offended that you completely dismantled the political and military system in both countries and ostracised almost everyone who had anything to do with the former regimes.
    Here we are in almost complete agreement. Though I dont think Iraq and Afghanistan are totally comparable in the sense that there was never any hope for a stable (relatively) westernized nation in Afghanistan like there was in Iraq.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  11. #11
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Not comfirmed, but Afghan-forces apparantly called for the airstrike, I have nothing on why. I hope you feel better if it wasn't your fault.
    Last edited by Fragony; 10-05-2015 at 15:42.

  12. #12
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    We are in agreement here. But short of not doing any sort of fighting whatsoever, there are going to be civilian casualties. There is no way to completely prevent it. If there was, then I would wager that the Israelis would have developed it already because god knows the world rides them hard when civilians die by their hands (and rightly so).
    Ah, but where to draw the line. Americans are notorious for blowing stuff up first and worrying about whether it was appropriate after.

    Well that sounds a bit like an an ad hominem to me. Say he had poor judgement all you want when it comes to his personal life and whatnot, the fact is that he had more success in the counter-insurgency than any other US (or British- remember Basra?) commander had.
    Petraeus didn't just have an affair, he had an affair that compromised him professionally.

    When it comes to counterinsurgency I say yes, most western commanders have trouble dealing with it. Hardly an American phenomenon. But when it comes to conventional warfare, western commanders have been more often than not apt at their craft.
    Initially the British did well in Basra, then they drew down the number of troops to support the campaign in Afghanistan and it all went to shit - the British actually do have a doctrine for counter insurgency that worked in Ireland and the Balkans but it requires more troops then we used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    British commanders were overconfident, they believed they could do more with less.

    And why should they know this? Does the British Army know every traditional aspect of its allied armies? Its such an insignificant thing Im not sure why you brought it up.
    An American General should probably know this, hell, I know that "Six" is the corresponding callsign for the commander of an American formation. It's called inter-operational knowledge or something.

    Thats why we dont carpet bomb cities anymore. Yes, simply "owning" a city doesnt mean anything anymore but rebuilding effectively takes an element of safety and security, which you cant do when insurgents are launching daily attacks on rebuilding efforts. Destroying a few buildings in the process of securing a city is hardly the same as carpet bombing it.
    It's more the number of buildings Americans tend to blwo up - they wouldn't do this in an American city with such carelessness.

    Well thats very debatable. Look at Caen or Falaise. The Allies bombed a large number of French cities and towns in WW2. If Wikipedia is correct, over 1,500 French towns were bombed during the occupation. And a mostly intact Paris is most likely because the Germans withdrew from the city (ignoring Hitlers orders to burn it down as they left) before any serious fighting began.
    Compare Dresden or Berlin.

    Here we are in almost complete agreement. Though I dont think Iraq and Afghanistan are totally comparable in the sense that there was never any hope for a stable (relatively) westernized nation in Afghanistan like there was in Iraq.
    As far as I'm aware Iraq has no history of democratic government or strong secular or civil institutions, Afghanistan does. How unstable is Afghanistan, really? They formed a "National Unity" government after the election rather than descending into Civil War or perennial deadlock which is better than Libya or Iraq have managed.

    You need to read a bit more history on the Afghans, they're more like the Iranians than the Iraqis - for one thing Afghanistan is not a country manufactured after WWI.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  13. #13
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,852

    Default Re: US Pilot achieve a whole new level of fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    Petraeus didn't just have an affair, he had an affair that compromised him professionally.
    As did plenty of people in all kinds of fields, still doesnt detract from their successes. Look at Kobe Bryant. Great Basketball player, but also charged with sexual assault. While that makes him of bad character, the skill of Bryant cant be denied.


    Initially the British did well in Basra, then they drew down the number of troops to support the campaign in Afghanistan and it all went to shit - the British actually do have a doctrine for counter insurgency that worked in Ireland and the Balkans but it requires more troops then we used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    British commanders were overconfident, they believed they could do more with less.
    That may be, though Im reading that the situation there was not quite as calm as you make it out to be, as there was a lot of unrest and insurgent attacks upon infrastructure though that wasnt exactly unique to Basra.



    An American General should probably know this, hell, I know that "Six" is the corresponding callsign for the commander of an American formation. It's called inter-operational knowledge or something.
    Fair enough.

    It's more the number of buildings Americans tend to blwo up - they wouldn't do this in an American city with such carelessness.
    Debatable. It would more likely depend on the level of resistance faced.

    Compare Dresden or Berlin.
    Have you seen pictures? Its not an insignificant amount of damage. Three quarters of the city being destroyed, while not as much as Berlin or Dresden, is still a huge amount.

    As far as I'm aware Iraq has no history of democratic government or strong secular or civil institutions, Afghanistan does. How unstable is Afghanistan, really? They formed a "National Unity" government after the election rather than descending into Civil War or perennial deadlock which is better than Libya or Iraq have managed.

    You need to read a bit more history on the Afghans, they're more like the Iranians than the Iraqis - for one thing Afghanistan is not a country manufactured after WWI.
    True. The Afghan people are hardly manufactured like the Iraqis were. But there is not a national unity like you have in Great Britain, France, or the US. Large swaths of Afghanistan are very much tribal and they cause a lot of problems for the government. Not that the central government is any better, as the government has a hard time providing services or being effective in any real way. Last I checked they were something like the 3rd or 4th most corrupt country in the world. Karzai, when he was in power, was called the Mayor of Kabul because he had so little influence over the country. They can form all the unity governments they want but if the government has no power then what good is it? Iraq isnt much better but at least from what Im reading it very much had the infrastructure laid by the Saddam years to support a working government that could actually provide services. Granted, we dropped the ball when it came to building the new government but thats not the point of all of this.

    You do realize that we agree on most points? I completely agree with you that bombing does more harm than good, especially when done in urban areas. Killing civilians, even when its an accident, only helps the insurgents. Which is why I am so against Israel bombing Gaza, especially when not in support of their own troops, as it only ends up helping the radicals. Where we disagree is that I believe that in some occasions its necessary. Granted I believe that the guidelines of when to use it should be reexamined as to prevent civilian casualties and I certainly do not advocate indiscriminate bombing, but as Ive said, sometimes taking out a building via laser guided bomb or other means is necessary.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO