Oh my God. It's not parody. I pity my children. And everyone's children.
US war on terror has killed 500,000 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq
- Thread starter MJJ
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Oh my God. It's not parody. I pity my children. And everyone's children.
1.
This whole exchange:
And this one:
And this one...
2. Pearl Harbor = we were surprise attacked by an enemy on our own soil.
9/11 = we were surprise attacked by an enemy on our own soil.
That gets you to Afghanistan, sure, but I have never understood the link between 9/11 and Iraq. The Iraq war just seemed like an unnecessary distraction from a conflict that the US actually had some measure of international support in prosecuting.
I know you did not personally support the war in Iraq, but it's hard to see how anyone did. From its inception, just a terrible, terrible idea. As someone said earlier in the thread, it will surely go down as one of the biggest missteps of the 21st century.
Neither have I, and I would agree that it will go down as a massive blunder.
I’m not going to sit here and watch the US get shit on for going after AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan though.
Snowjoe one he posted in the thread, did not ask me.
The rest are just debating the actual numbers of civilian casualties not "how many deaths the enemy caused". So again you are a)wrong and b)going off on a tangent to prove some kind of a point. Anyways, have fun using your "stats" to represent USA killing half a mil people after sponsoring terrorism in a better light, I am done with this debate.
Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Was this disproven?
https://www.bbc.com/news/10302946
(First I’ve seen it, so not a leading question)
Oh my god
No, No
This is asking how many deaths the enemy caused. Like I said your reading comprehension is better than this and I would rather not partake in your agenda posting, like manipulating the numbers.
Have fun defending the mass murder of innocents cos 'Murica.
That quote, and your response to it, was included in my post.
That’s one that I don’t know if there’s a black or white answer to.
In a war, some civilian casualties are expected. If the war is justified, those casualties are seen as an awful side effect of a just action (French civilians killed in the liberation campaign of 1944). If the war is seen as unjust, then civilian casualties are obviously seen as unjustified (Iraq ‘03).
There's an order-of-magnitude difference in the wounded vs killed figures, which needs to be highlighted in a thread about civilian deaths.
Perhaps worth noting that it was a coalition of 40 countries there, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Australia, France.
I think the post-9/11 international goodwill was squandered with Iraq, though.
Apparently those Coalition partners were “bullied” into helping.
And yes, the Coalition was right in not backing the invasion of Iraq.
Pretty much. In modern warfare, you are going to get civilian casualties .. it is inevitable. Of course, this should mean that more than ever we should be avoiding war as much as is possible but once the conflicts have started it's almost impossible to avoid civilian casualties whilst still being an effective fighting force. The enemy the U.S/coalition forces are fighting are woven in to the civilian population very closely, it can be extremely difficult to differentiate between friend and foe in these kind of conflicts.
The taliban etc are perfectly aware of this, and use it to their advantage. Launching surgical strikes which only kill definite terrorists is basically an impossibility in a majority of cases. You can never account fully for human error, or the odd sick soldier who goes rogue (plenty on the allied side who did this in WW2) either.
Well said, and I agree on all fronts.
Carolina Red admitted that he posted those biased numbers on purpose as propaganda, you can't argue with 'Muricans.
There was no need. The us shouldn’t have. Not in the way they did.
If you don’t care about the civilian deaths think about all the Americans that’s have died in Afghanistan. So many young men tricked into “fighting for their country” only to die or lose and arm or legs.
For what purpose? To stop the mighty taliban from invading America? What purpose did it served I don’t know
For what purpose? To stop the mighty taliban from invading America? What purpose did it served I don’t know
It would be justified if that war had been started by a nation state , in which case you can argue it's citizens care some of the burden. Although it's not as clear cut even then.
However , this was not a war started by the state of Afghanistan. In fact it was not a war but a terrorist attack . The USA were the ones to start a full blown war because the ruling faction in Afghanistan did not hand OBL. The regular people of Afghanistan did not have anything to do with this. Not only they were already brutally oppressed , but now they had to deal with bombs falling over their heads. Good luck expecting the surviving children from all this not to hate the USA with every cell of their bodies.
In fact, this outcome is exactly what the terrorist groups wanted. Force the US into mass conflicts with enormous collateral damages and provide breeding ground for even more terrorists.
Who 'doesn't care about the civilian deaths' ? That's a pretty big accusation to throw about.
Civilian deaths are just a very sad inevitability of modern warfare. I don't think portraying the U.S as some evil empire which deliberately targets or gives zero fecks about civilians is helpful, because the situation simply isn't that simple.
What should we have done about Al Qaeda, then?
It's not a binary switch you know. One option do nothing, the other - bomb every house the country ? Certainly there is middle ground. Special ops targeted attacks - by all means . But not the drone bonanza that followed .
The U.S has never done this though ..
'Special OPs targeted attacks' are incredibly hard to pull off and can only work under specific tactical circumstances. You're talking about deploying small teams deep in to enemy territory, with a potentially hostile local populace, complete their objective and then you need to extract them. It's very situational, and you cannot win any wars purely with special ops.
There is little middle ground, half measures in war do not work. You have to remove your enemies capacity to wage war, otherwise you're just pissing them off and you'll get retaliations.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden proves that this can be achieved.
Umm...
The first attempt to do it failed, and OBL escaped.
That still left us with the rest of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who supported them to deal with while we searched for him.
The rest of the Taliban are still there. You didn't do jack shit to them.
Uh, no it doesn't.
It proves that special ops can be very effective under the right circumstances. That doesn't negate the need for other more conventional forms of warfare, nor does it mean that they are applicable to every single situation.
Well, obviously the ones not killed are still there.
Yeah and isn't it obvious you will not kill them , after so much ordnance utilized for 17 years ?
The people responsible for civilian deaths are the same people responsible for starting the war to begin with, the terrorists.
In any war, all self respecting countries involved want to limit civilian casualties. All except the absolutely disgusting, scum of the earth radicals we are fighting in this war. Their tactics are despicable, but also what makes it so difficult to ever claim a victory. These vile subhuman pieces of shit put their neighbors at such risk by mixing in with them because they are two cowardly to stand toe to tow with the enemy they’ve sworn to wipe off the earth.
Honestly, I could give two shits what you think about America or Americans, but if someone attacks us on our soil we will react. Funny thing is, the same people that complain about casualties in a war would be the first ones to complain that no country will help out when a terrorist group or Dictator is murdering civilians at a much greater rate than this “war on terror.”
We’ve never killed every enemy soldier in any war, ever.
What would you suggest then? Just using 'special ops teams' ?
The taliban have a leadership structure which makes simply killing individuals (like with Osama Bin Laden) completely ineffective. There is no simple way to deal with them.
Their grip on Afghanistan and their ability to launch attacks has been severely hampered, to say that 'jack shit' hasn't been done to them is plainly false. Due to their very nature, completely destroying them is almost an impossibility.
What did the more conventional forms of warfare did to the so called "war fighting ability " of the enemy. Nothing . Because they didnt have any. No airforce, no AA defence, no armour , nothing. Just a bunch of guys with AKs in a highly mountainous country. You start bombing , they get into the caves.
You have not killed enough . They are still fighting.
Osama bin Laden was not a Taliban. Amazing people still conflate these.
Amazing that you weren't able to read what I said .. I'm perfectly aware Osama Bin Laden was not part of the taliban.
You used the death of Bin Laden as evidence that special ops teams can win entire conflicts on their own, and I said that it's simply not applicable to every threat.
So the US? Since they are the ones who gave financial aid to the Taliban and armed them?
You are completely right, in fact let me point you to Yemen where American ally Saudia are killing people by the thousands using American weapons.