Poll: sympathy for the devil

[scotth266]

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that then.

What I AM saying is that if civilian casualties are inevitable during a crucial military operation, one which has the potential to eliminate a target of significant value, do you automatically say "No, we cannot do this?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_Losses

That's how military commanders have to think: what is the point after which the trade-off in civilian lives is no longer worth it? It seems callous, hell, it IS callous, but it's just the way war works.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid. It is a bit like blaming the Palestinians for the Israelis bombing the shit out of their country, in fact it is exactly the same.

Your constant conflation of "Afghans" with "the Taliban" shows a severe ignorance of the history of that country.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that then.

What I AM saying is that if civilian casualties are inevitable during a crucial military operation, one which has the potential to eliminate a target of significant value, do you automatically say "No, we cannot do this?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_Losses

That's how military commanders have to think: what is the point after which the trade-off in civilian lives is no longer worth it? It seems callous, hell, it IS callous, but it's just the way war works.

Define "Significant value" for me please. Significant value implies something that is going to make a difference, not something that is just going to be election fodder for the Republican party when insane Fox news pundits say how great it is that some Arabs have kicked the bucket at the end of an American made cruise missle.

Incidentally, this leads to more terrorism, not less. So the fact that bombing those targets only makes everything even worse for everyone makes it doubly stupid.

 

[scotth266]

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that then.

What I AM saying is that if civilian casualties are inevitable during a crucial military operation, one which has the potential to eliminate a target of significant value, do you automatically say "No, we cannot do this?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_Losses

That's how military commanders have to think: what is the point after which the trade-off in civilian lives is no longer worth it? It seems callous, hell, it IS callous, but it's just the way war works.

Define "Significant value" for me please.

Significant [http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/significant] Value. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value] It should be sort of obvious what the words mean militarily: enemy leaders, assets, recruiting centers, etc.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that then.

What I AM saying is that if civilian casualties are inevitable during a crucial military operation, one which has the potential to eliminate a target of significant value, do you automatically say "No, we cannot do this?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_Losses

That's how military commanders have to think: what is the point after which the trade-off in civilian lives is no longer worth it? It seems callous, hell, it IS callous, but it's just the way war works.

Define "Significant value" for me please.

Significant [http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/significant] Value. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value] It should be sort of obvious what the words mean militarily: enemy leaders, assets, recruiting centers, etc.

You didn't actually read any of the words that came after that did you? I will copy paste.

Significant value implies something that is going to make a difference, not something that is just going to be election fodder for the Republican party when insane Fox news pundits say how great it is that some Arabs have kicked the bucket at the end of an American made cruise missle.

Incidentally, this leads to more terrorism, not less. So the fact that bombing those targets only makes everything even worse for everyone makes it doubly stupid.

The fact is there is nothing of significant value in Afghanistan to the USA.

 

[scotth266]

The fact is there is nothing of significant value in Afghanistan to the USA.

First off: I did read your post, thanks.

Secondly, I think you might want to bring something up with what's left of the Taliban in the area. They are enemies of the US, are they not? They've certainly given the indication that they are, what with their hijackings and bombings of giant civilian structures.

The obvious consequence of being at war with a foreign power is that said foreign power is going to try and stomp you out of existence. The Taliban were in control of Afganistan, the US went there and threw them out of power.

And since the Democrats are now in control, any military successes or failures are on them.

 

[mcp1992]

It wouldn't really matter what contries this was between the result will most likey be the same. I personally would not allow my people to be bombed and pushed around by anyone i can understand why they are rebelling but i don't think i could support their views.

 

[teisjm]

I would join, no doubt.

I still can't imagine how anyone, especially people with military training, can think it's a good idea to drop bombs in a village full of civilians.
I guess the generals are heartless fucks who's willing to treat the life of civilians as un caringly as those of ants, as long as they're from anotehr country. This goes for generals from ANY country that bomb villages btw, not just USA

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The fact is there is nothing of significant value in Afghanistan to the USA.

First off: I did read your post, thanks.

Secondly, I think you might want to bring something up with what's left of the Taliban in the area. They are enemies of the US, are they not? They've certainly given the indication that they are, what with their hijackings and bombings of giant civilian structures.

That was Al Qaeda who performed the hijackings and bombings. There is a very large swathe of the Islamic world who believes the West in general and the USA in particular has it in for them. Constant political interference, sanctions against various countries such as Iran and Syria, and especially the situation in Palestine, have given them the impression that America is their enemy.

And so in response the USA invades their nation and drops bombs seemingly indiscriminately on towns and villages in Afghanistan.

Can't you see the absolute irony in all of this?

The obvious consequence of being at war with a foreign power is that said foreign power is going to try and stomp you out of existence. The Taliban were in control of Afganistan, the US went there and threw them out of power.

And since the Democrats are now in control, any military successes or failures are on them.

If the obvious consequence of being at war with a foreign power is that foreign power trying to stamp you out of existence, then maybe the obvious response is to not be at war with them anymore?

 

[mcp1992]

Then you're a coward. Someone just killed people you care about....and you do nothing. Sorry Max, but that's nothing but cowardice.

No, it's called intelligence.

So they died - so who gives a fuck?
I'm supposed to gleefully follow them into the dark?
For what reason?

To make them feel better?
Newsflash: They're corpses.
They sure aren't going to be around to chastise me about not getting myself killed.

There's no logical reason to undertake a suicide mission against a massively superior force in this situation.
Nothing - nobody - is worth my life, and the hell with you if you disagree.

If you care so much for my so-called loved ones, you go die for them.
I have better shit to do.

I find it rather sad that your loved ones mean that little to you. People do go on suicide missions for a reason it is because they fight for what they believe in. It has nothing to do with how intelligent they are. I can't view you as a coward however because i do not know you so it would be pointless.

 

[Fbuh]

As a Christian American citizen, I cannot honestly say what I would do in such a situation. I have my own beliefs, and one of them is that no religion is either wrong or right. Therefore, I cannot say that I advocate the Taliban's actions, but I also realize they do what they do to uphold what they believe is right and good, just as we are doing. However, I cannot stand for invading another person's country to destroy part so it, as they did in the 9-11 events. When you go to that extant to send a blatant message of hate and war, you better be damn sure that either A) the country will not fight back, or B) that you can fight them if they do. I don't want to hear that they are angry for the US being there when they made the first move.

To answer the question, though, I do not think that I would join them, even as a native Afghani citizen. I am not strongly torn to a side in any situation, so if I were an Afghani citizen, I would most likely go somewhere else.

 

[Psepha]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Americans bombed a village with no terrorists as the OP suggests, then terrorists come to recruit and they join, then now there ARE terrorists. And in that very small-minded view, it's America's fault.

Real life is rarely as black and white as that though.

And of course, when people think of the word "terrorist" there's all kinds of negative connotations. Would you consider these civilians to join as terrorists, or perhaps in light of the attacks, as freedom fighters? One a negative phrase, one a positive, but is there any difference?

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

You have to realize the Afghanis probably don't view the Taliban as bad for their religious views, but rather for their heavy handed tactics in dealing with everyone else. So our hypothetical Afghan joining them is really no big surprise.

Regardless of somebody bombing my village I would do my utmost to murder any invader in as cruel of a manner I could manage to find. So were I Afghan I wouldn't think twice about killing an American. Get the fuck out of my country!

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would join, no doubt.

I still can't imagine how anyone, especially people with military training, can think it's a good idea to drop bombs in a village full of civilians.
I guess the generals are heartless fucks who's willing to treat the life of civilians as un caringly as those of ants, as long as they're from anotehr country. This goes for generals from ANY country that bomb villages btw, not just USA

The USA is, in the apt words of Rage Against the Machine, the Evil Empire.

 

[Zombie Badger]

The explanation- the United States of America, having no just right or reason for their continued occupation of your homeland

And you base this on what?

So why are they still there?