Usan military demanding the right to kill more Afghan civilians

[E.J.Armstrong]

'...Petraeus suggested he would refine — or at least review — the implementation of rules under which NATO soldiers fight, including curbs on the use of airpower and heavy weapons if civilians are at risk, "to determine where refinements might be needed."

Some troops have complained that such restraint puts their own lives in danger and hands the battlefield advantage to the Taliban and their allies. ...'

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100704/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

General Petraeus should stand firm against the clamour from within the Usan military for usan soldiers to be allowed to be allowed to kill more civilians because - make no mistake- that is exactly what is being demanded.

In Northern Ireland and elsewhere history shows very clearly that murdering innocent people generates more militancy and strife and prolongs the 'war' - witness the fact that the Bloody Sunday incident that involved the killing of just 13 innocent people is still with us some forty years after the event.

The Usan military before Stanley had a very unsavoury reputation for killing civilians with impunity - to such an extent that in at least one case UK commanders ordered Usan special forces out of their area to try and stop unnecessary civilian deaths.

The Taliban think they are winning - for very good reason. The military campaign in Afghanistan, with its complete lack of a definition of what 'winning' means, has been like a headless chicken - running around with no clear objective in sight. That lack of any coherent strategy has bolstered the Taliban by showing that they can withstand the worlds most sophisticated and most powerful military forces with apparent impunity, in a war that has already outlasted the last world war and looks like outlasting the last two world wars in total duration and still with no successful outcome in sight.

Stanley McCrystal at least had the courage to recognise that killing civilians with impunity was wrong in principle and did something about it. Alas it looks as though there is a chance that the blood hungry in the Usan military look set to force Petraeus to overturn McCrystal's good work in this area.

If the Usan military goes back to killing huge numbers of civilians then you can forget about peace any time within the next two or three generations.

 

[DC]

EJan threads are funny, catchy titles that get debunked by the link he provides, sometimes, like here, even the quoted part debunks his thread title.

 

[Giggywig]

So E.J. wants the Taliban to win. Gotcha.

 

[Ysidro]

How does an American military commander have control over this nation of "Usa"? Is there a treaty or some sort of "supreme commander" thing going on?

 

[drkitten]

So E.J. wants the Taliban to win. Gotcha.

No, he doesn't care who wins as long as the Usans lose.

 

[Giggywig]

No, he doesn't care who wins as long as the Usans lose.

Well maybe the Usans should just do what EJ fantasizes about. I'm sure if the Usan military set its mind to it, the population of Afghanistan would decrease quite rapidly.

 

[Michael Redman]

The real question here is why EJ keeps posting these poorly reasoned attack threads that receive universal ridicule on the JREF forums. Is he a troll trying to make US haters look like idiots?

 

[Tricky]

"Usan" derail split to AAH. While we cannot prevent members from deliberately and stubbornly using incorrect terms, I must ask you to ignore that and reply on topic as if the member was using standard terminology.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How blinded by hatred must one be to believe that in a fight between America and a bunch of savages so evil they would literally bludgeon their own grandmothers to death with rocks (NOT an exaggeration! Actual Taliban "penal" code!) for leaving the house without a hat, that America is the bad guy?

 

[WildCat]

The only thing the Taliban have shown is that very publicly executing/torturing those you suspect of opposing you is still a very effective way of controlling the populace.

Particularly when the party they're fighting has promised to leave in a year.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Will this be an opportunity to count the dead again?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

So E.J. wants the Taliban to win. Gotcha.

Is there any chance you would like to support that falsehood with you know a fact or two.

Given that I support General McChrystal's policy it seems you think that one of the USA's highest generals wants the Taliban to win.

Truly bizarre.

Is this what you call rational thought?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

EJan threads are funny, catchy titles that get debunked by the link he provides, sometimes, like here, even the quoted part debunks his thread title.

Evidence? Oh, you didn't post any.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

No, he doesn't care who wins as long as the Usans lose.

I see that you are unable to construct an argument and need to rely on personal abuse.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

How blinded by hatred must one be to believe that in a fight between America and a bunch of savages so evil they would literally bludgeon their own grandmothers to death with rocks (NOT an exaggeration! Actual Taliban "penal" code!) for leaving the house without a hat, that America is the bad guy?

Why do you hate general McChrystal so much? All he was doing was trying to stop civilians being killed in their droves by the Usan military?

Let us all hear your argument in support of killing more Afghan civilians - if you have one.

 

[lionking]

I see that you are unable to construct an argument and need to rely on personal abuse.

You really should learn the difference between abuse and expressing an opinion.

To the OP, US soldiers have the right to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves. Sometimes collatoral damage happens. That's war for you.

 

[DC]

Evidence? Oh, you didn't post any.

no, you did in your OP.

while i do think they should refine the guidelines to become more accurate and hit less civillians. The way you word your Thread titles and posts makes it just impossible to agree with you.

 

[Aepervius]

How blinded by hatred must one be to believe that in a fight between America and a bunch of savages so evil they would literally bludgeon their own grandmothers to death with rocks (NOT an exaggeration! Actual Taliban "penal" code!) for leaving the house without a hat, that America is the bad guy?

Because the "evilness" of the locals custom are not the reason they went there (otherwise there are other country where this stuff happen which would have long been invaded by the US). They went there to kick the hell out of Laden, al quaeda, and certain taliban which gave him shelter, and stayed there. Now they want more levy on using heavier weapon where it might kill more civilian.

So yes, whereas a good case could be made to have been kicking the Taliban in the 'nad back years ago, NO good case can be made to stay there and even potentially increase the number of civilian. I would not go as far as evil, but certainly it does not the US looks like the good guy. Increase the "collateral" damage (read kill the civilian) has never been a good guy action in my book.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh , and whereas he is a bit biased, many thread of EJ bring certain "gray zone" points, and while I disagree with many of his arguments, it is quite clear that it seems to disturb some "world is black and white2 people here, and I see a very disturbing "trend of what the US and Israel says is *ALWAYS* correct" and another disturbing trend of "critizing Israel means you are anti Semite, and criticize the US action means you hate American". Many JREFer seem to be unable to distinguish criticizing of a politic with hating the folks.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

You really should learn the difference between abuse and expressing an opinion.

To the OP, US soldiers have the right to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves. Sometimes collatoral damage happens. That's war for you.

Er you really need to learn the difference between personal abuse and an argument. If you keep on hurling personal abuse you will eventually get banned from the site.

Usan soldiers do not have the right to kill civilians indiscriminately or with negligence. That would be a crime against humanity as General McCrystal knew.

If the boot was on the other foot would you be so vocal in your support for the Afghan army killing as many civilians as they wanted in Florida while they claimed they were only trying to help the people of Florida? How would all the Usan familes react as you justified all their dead children by flippantly saying that they were collateral damage and 'that's war for you'.

I seem to remember that the US prosecutors have tried people for crimes against humanity during wars. The Usan military is not exempt from those laws.