[metropolis4]

I can't believe you actually think the US government is plotting to intentionally kill more of it's own troops; That its plans are designed to insure more casualties. That's insane.

Maybe the flu shots going around are infected with a virus that will kill off civilians too, or maybe they are plotting to kill us off through the water supply. Those are just as rational as the conspiracy that you are putting forth.

I'm a little shocked to hear something like this from you... I have to agree with Jerry Love that this is slanderous. And you jumped on me for the comments about Glenn Beck, sheesh...

[nolidad]

And be killed by vastly more numerous opponents. That's what makes your suggestion a poor tactic.

Well seeing as you saw just one phrase in my statement before you went off making all sorts of assumptions- yeah if that was the only thing there was- it is not a bad tactic, but a horrendous tactic.

By assuming that you are not so insane or incredibly dense as to believe that the millitary would implament a policy with the express purpose of killing more of its own men.

Well what would you call ROE's that expressly forbid our tropps from retutning fire in an active area if there are any civilians in the area they are receiving fire from?

This was a political decision made knowing that it would increase US casualties while trying to show how nice we are and seek to win over the afghani people to our side. Its the reverse of the Russian method of just simply killing whoever was in the way.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I will answer you with a question- do you think the JCS and Pres. Obama issued these ROE's knowing that they would increase US military casualties or not?

Actually, that question doesn't answer my question.

The answer to your question is potentially complex. I would assume that they knew it was possible that (in any arbitrarily chosen case) the US casualty count could be higher.

I dispute the claim that you have made that the net result actually is more US casualties. Since the purpose of the new ROE is to remove insurgent support and end the war, and since it may work as designed, a lowering of casualties would be the point.

So about your claim that it's intended to ensure more US deaths...

these rules are implemented to try to win the Afghani people over by not unduly harming non combatants. So much so that a fightrer- shooting at US troops from one building. Leavers that building unarmed to go to another prepositioned firing point in another cannot be shot at while croissing the street if he is unarmed.

So you say... I'd go look it up if I thought it was relevent.

You said that the ROE were "designed to ensure more US fatalities". Please proove your claim.

Proof?

You want me to prove that an insurgency of two men with no suppolies cannot conduct a war amongst a population that hates them?

That is such an obvious claim as to make me beleive either that you are insane, or that you are being obtuse.

Talk to Biden- He presented it.

I'm talking to you. You recommended it. Biden isn't here, and I have very little faith in your ability (or perhaps willingness) to honestly and accurately portray someone else's position, nor am I interested in the inevitable argument over what Biden did or did not propose when Biden is not the topic.

Yeah you could if you wanted to. But napalming them from the air would work a whole lot better. But once again it is politics preventing that.

You forgot nuking all of Afghanistan as an option. While we are at it, we should hit the other countries with terrorists? Pakistan, Somalia, Germany, Canada, the US. Just kill everyone.

I suppose I should add your eagerness to use (ilegal under rules of war) weapons to kill innocent women and children to your list of (what seem to me to be) very unChristian values.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How would [the millitary] know who the high-priority targets were?

Originally Posted by nolidad

I am sure that the intelligence staffs have a good idea where they could send small strike forces.

Well your highness I never claimed to be an intelligence official no knowing of magical information.

Sure you did. Above. You claimed they would know where to attack, but gave no explanation as to how when pressed.

These kinds of statement show you are unlearned in the mindset of middle eastern nations uniquiley so of Afghanistan above all others. We will lose this war just as Russia did. Afghanistan is not a cohesive nation. Though it has a central govt. it is a govt barely. Outside ofthe major cities it is the taliban, al-Queda, and the tribal chieftains as well as drug lords that rtule the varied regions. They are a generally intnese and fiercely independent people who do cohese well except to fight off invaders. Russia is one, we are now. Iran, and many otrher nations are now supplying the modern day muhajadeen with weapons. They have the advantage of knwoing the horrendous terrains well.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is I don't know (other than that "we will loose", that's news to me. How does one learn to tell the future thusly).

So then Afghanistan has never had a stable government? Afghanistan has never not housed international terrorists? There has never not been an ongoing insurgency against the Afghan government?

Of course the answer to every one of those questions is "no, that's not correct". Which comes back to "what is the goal of the US in Afghanistan?". The answer to that question informs everything else.

Armies are not designes nor trained to be police forces or counter insurgency forces. Things like Delta force, Seals, Green Beret are designed for the kind of warfare the generals want to fight.

So we should stop using the millitary and use the millitary instead? Have you read your own posts lately?

it is not hard to know where the concentration of taliban and Queda as well as tribal forces are at. Drones do a good job of doing that as well as KH=11 and KH-13 sat images.

That sits in very hard contrast to thousands of dead Afghanis from misidentification.

The recent deaths of 50 or so civillians resulting from an airstrike on a captured fuel truck comes to mind.

But I'm sure you've got plenty of proof, and some explanation for why we know exactly where the badguys are but keep both not killing them, and killing the good guys. I'll wait.

Well what would you call ROE's that expressly forbid our tropps from retutning fire in an active area if there are any civilians in the area they are receiving fire from?

I would call it "George".

This was a political decision made knowing that it would increase US casualties while trying to show how nice we are and seek to win over the afghani people to our side. Its the reverse of the Russian method of just simply killing whoever was in the way.

How did the Russian method pan out?

A decision to avoid civillian casualties sounds like a good political decision.
It also sounds like a good moral decision.
While I'm at it, it sounds like a good strategic decision.

Saul Olinski rides again !!!!

Well if you weren't always so quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion of my words maybe we could have a real debate instead of these games.

You love to put words in my moputh that aren't there. I smell another thread being closed by your vitriol.

Your insults notwithstanding-

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Yeah you could if you wanted to. But napalming them from the air would work a whole lot better. But once again it is politics preventing that.

Curse those politics and they're stopping us from murdering innocent people!

Well what would you call ROE's that expressly forbid our tropps from retutning fire in an active area if there are any civilians in the area they are receiving fire from?

This was a political decision made knowing that it would increase US casualties while trying to show how nice we are and seek to win over the afghani people to our side. Its the reverse of the Russian method of just simply killing whoever was in the way.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between something being a side effect of a plan, and something being a direct intention of a plan?

Do you really think that the US plan was intended to cause more casualties, or is it something that they recognize could potentially be a side effect? Every decision in war could mean the loss of more lives; it doesn't mean those decisions were made with the express purpose of causing casualties. Which, judging from your initial wording is what you believe is happening here.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Yeah you could if you wanted to. But napalming them from the air would work a whole lot better. But once again it is politics preventing that.

maybe it is me, but I don't think that not trying to kill innocent bystanders is politics. It's basic human decency.

[nolidad]

You said that the ROE were "designed to ensure more US fatalities". Please proove your claim.

Well before posting som eproofs fgor you to reject- when soldiers in a live fire zone are not allowed to return fire- they will garner maore casualties and fatalities. You even admitted as much yourself.

The administration knows as well as the JCS that when you do not allow troops to fight back in a combat zone if civilians are present- you will increase your fatalities- if someon does not believe that they have no clue as to what war entails. This was not there chief reason for establishing the ROE's, their stated purpose is to reduce civilian casualties. But by establishing the rules they fully accepted the cost fo increased American fatalities as a cost fo the rules.

prior to Aug 30 of 09 Us forces had an average of 66 fatalities a year in Afghanistan. Since the new ROE's went into effect - 51 US forces have died. IN other words in one months time we have lost almost as many troops as we used to in a years time.

Weasel Zippers: Afghanistan: Rules Of Engagement Hurting Morale...Soldiers Refer To Their International Security Assistance Force Badge As 'I Suck At Fighting' or 'I Support Afghan Farmers' . . .

George F. Will - Time for the U.S. to Get Out of Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

In Afghanistan, let U.S. troops be warriors | Washington Examiner

maybe it is me, but I don't think that not trying to kill innocent bystanders is politics. It's basic human decency.

You posted this on my answer to solving the poppy fields. I was not promoting napalming villages. Nor do I believe in the reckless or wanton killing of civilians. But when the enemy intentionally hides behind civilians then some are going to die. Either we fight a war to win or we should not fight. Every single war has caused many civilian casualties- it is an inevitable result of war. That is why war should not be entered into lightly. But when a nation does enter into war- it should be prosecuted to bring about the quickest end and victory.

Curse those politics and they're stopping us from murdering innocent people!

Let me repeat this again so I am not misqouted again- napalming from the air is in response to destroying the poppy fields not civilians. Anyone else is just intentionally just stirring trouble.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between something being a side effect of a plan, and something being a direct intention of a plan?

Do you really think that the US plan was intended to cause more casualties, or is it something that they recognize could potentially be a side effect? Every decision in war could mean the loss of more lives; it doesn't mean those decisions were made with the express purpose of causing casualties. Which, judging from your initial wording is what you believe is happening here.

Thank You for finally asking me a question instead of like many others just jumping off and making unfounded charges!

As I have already wrote- yes this is a side effect of the ROE's ordering soldiers to not fire or not bring artillery or air support if civilans MIGHT be in the vicinity.

But military men know it is not something that "potentially" could happen but will happen. You cannot put troops in to a combat situation when they are being fired upon and not allow them to return fire without knowing you will get more fatalities. That is a given in combat.

No I do not believe it isw the primary reason they established these new ROE's- only a maniacal ruler would do that. But that still doesn't negate the fact that these rules were established knowing that more American troops would die than otherwise. These rules do insure more American fatalities- they looked at the scenarios and traded more American deaths in the hopes of winning the Afghani people over. Which accoreding to the AP isn't goping that well yet either.


Unless one is willing to commit probably 500,000 troops in to Afghanistan

[nolidad]

I can't believe you actually think the US government is plotting to intentionally kill more of it's own troops; That its plans are designed to insure more casualties. That's insane.

I don't and it is. But that doesn't alter the fact that teh JCS and Obama both know and accept that the nrew ROE's will result in more American fatalities than before.

I'm talking to you. You recommended it. Biden isn't here, and I have very little faith in your ability (or perhaps willingness) to honestly and accurately portray someone else's position, nor am I interested in the inevitable argument over what Biden did or did not propose when Biden is not the topic.

Well Jerry when you are willing to have a real debate instead of parsing my words to attack me- I will gladly respond. I will not hold my breath for you to do so. however.

So you say... I'd go look it up if I thought it was relevent.

What you think is irrelevant to what is happening in Afghanistan.

You forgot nuking all of Afghanistan as an option. While we are at it, we should hit the other countries with terrorists? Pakistan, Somalia, Germany, Canada, the US. Just kill everyone.

I suppose I should add your eagerness to use (ilegal under rules of war) weapons to kill innocent women and children to your list of (what seem to me to be) very unChristian values.

And once again your twisitng my statements or condemning me without clarification is just proof if your vitriol and desire to character assassin instead of debating an issue.

Wel

l your highness I never claimed to be an intelligence official no knowing of magical information.

Sure you did. Above. You claimed they would know where to attack, but gave no explanation as to how when pressed.

Well what I actually said was this:

How would you know who the high-priority targets were? What shall these small brigades do when the Taliban-government starts attacking them?

Well I am not privy to the intelligence- so I can't begin to guess- but I am sure that the intelligence staffs have a good idea where they could send small strike forces.

I would like to know why you always slander me and twist my words? But until you wish to act civilly in a debate I am compelled to just ignore you until then. Your twisting my wordas has just gone too far.