Originally posted by sasquatch672sure there is mid ground. you weigh the risk/reward; their intelligence may have said top terrorists, ie, many top level terrorists, in that case certain amount of collateral damage would have to be accepted. but this was not in a well populated area and it does appear very high level terrorists were suppose to be there, and some were/killed. Look, Bush screwed the war up Royally! but you cant go around saying every thing we do is wrong and a mistake, middle ground works both ways. Most everyone on this site says every time america does someting its wrong and that is just not true.
Nimzo,
Come on man - come off the water tower, bud.
There's a middle ground, here don't you think? Don't you think that people - Americans - can know that hunting terrorists is a necessity, but also detest an attack that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians?
What I don't understand is this: we're the good guys. Used to be, anyway ...[text shortened]... exercised at all"
-- Thomas Jefferson in letter to Abigail Adams, Paris, 1787
Originally posted by CliffLandinThere are already Special Forces in Afghanistan. They are streched too thin to be everywhere at once. It's better to send in a drone to verify that the target is in the village than to send a team deep into enemy territory thus endangering the lives of some of your soldiers in the event that the intel is incorrect. The drone sent photos of the person they were searching for or at least looked like the person in question. I believe his wife is from that area and has family among the tribes living there. What probably happened was when intel received the photos they had to make a decision to assemble a team that could have took hours to arrive because they were on the other side of the country or didn't have air assets or even the weather could have been so bad where the team was located that the aircraft couldn't be launched. The intel officer had to make a snap decision which often times happens in war and use the drone with it's missiles in the hope of killing the target. Unfortunately that was not the case. Bad things happen in war and sometimes civilians die.
Okay, I'm president and I get intelligence that says top al Queda operatives are in a village in Pakistan. I send in one of many highly trained Special Forces teams to take out, or even better, capture the al Queda top men. Knowing that an air strike will kill non-combatant civilians I shelf that option, because I also know that killing non-combatant civ ...[text shortened]... man enough to admit when I do something wrong and I expect the same from my elected officials.
Originally posted by slimjimSo...my point on 9-11 still stands then?
There are already Special Forces in Afghanistan. They are streched too thin to be everywhere at once. It's better to send in a drone to verify that the target is in the village than to send a team deep into enemy territory thus endangering the lives of some of your soldiers in the event that the intel is incorrect. The drone sent photos of the person they we ...[text shortened]... . Unfortunately that was not the case. Bad things happen in war and sometimes civilians die.
Originally posted by slimjimWow! No insults, just a well thought out answer. Thank you. Now that said, I think everything that you said is correct, exept that this is not a war in the traditional sense. The president, your and, unfortunately my, president, has said that this war will never end. So is it okay to blow up a building in Berlin or Rome or Dallas if there are suspected terrorists there? Our troops are being spread thin because of this moronic war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be more and more situations like this. So the 18 civilians kill to (maybe) 4 terrorist killed ratio is acceptable in the war on terror. If that is the case, who is the real terrorist?
There are already Special Forces in Afghanistan. They are streched too thin to be everywhere at once. It's better to send in a drone to verify that the target is in the village than to send a team deep into enemy territory thus endangering the lives of some of your soldiers in the event that the intel is incorrect. The drone sent photos of the person they we ...[text shortened]... . Unfortunately that was not the case. Bad things happen in war and sometimes civilians die.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThe US has adopted your style of foreign policy for the last 50 years, the attitude that 'we can go in to other countrys, do what we like and suffer no retaliation'. 9/11 was the result. Wake up. Keep on with this imperialist crap and you'll have terrorist attacks. Clean up your own behaviour as a nation and the terrorist attacks will desist, or at least be reduced in frequency.
by the time your special forces get there they will be gone, it's not like you have special forecs covering ever square inch of the country. and you don't know anything about the others killed so quit making them out to be poor innocent do gooders. and again you must get out of theory....we dont worry about what people there will think after we ta ...[text shortened]... to fear of collateral damage; which by the way you and I are not really sure of the extent of.
Originally posted by CliffLandinYou know, the biggest mistake that Hitler (and Napolean) ever made was to fight a war on two fronts. The US seems to be making the same mistake with Afganistan and Iraq, only one of which has any relevance to 9/11.
Wow! No insults, just a well thought out answer. Thank you. Now that said, I think everything that you said is correct, exept that this is not a war in the traditional sense. The president, your and, unfortunately my, president, has said that this war will never end. So is it okay to blow up a building in Berlin or Rome or Dallas if there are suspected t ...[text shortened]... killed ratio is acceptable in the war on terror. If that is the case, who is the real terrorist?
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11 so the US must be doing something right.
The US has adopted your style of foreign policy for the last 50 years, the attitude that 'we can go in to other countrys, do what we like and suffer no retaliation'. 9/11 was the result. Wake up. Keep on with this imperialist crap and you'll have terrorist attacks. Clean up your own behaviour as a nation and the terrorist attacks will desist, or at least be reduced in frequency.
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhen it comes to military matters I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Also to the foot soldier on the ground any war is a war in the traditional sense in that he can be killed.
Wow! No insults, just a well thought out answer. Thank you. Now that said, I think everything that you said is correct, exept that this is not a war in the traditional sense. The president, your and, unfortunately my, president, has said that this war will never end. So is it okay to blow up a building in Berlin or Rome or Dallas if there are suspected t ...[text shortened]... killed ratio is acceptable in the war on terror. If that is the case, who is the real terrorist?
Originally posted by slimjimSo what do you attribute to the lack of attacks before 9/11? It was eight years after their first attempt and the 9/11 attack. Without the Homeland Security or the PATRIOT Act we went 8 years. So why do you think that they would attack again right after a successful attack? There is nothing to show that we have been doing anything that has really thwarted an attack.
There hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11 so the US must be doing something right.
Originally posted by slimjimI realize that any war in which you can be killed is a real war, but the situation for the generals has changed. There is no clear cut enemy. Pakistan is our ally and we killed 18 Pakistanis to try and get a couple of terrorists. So again I will ask you, would it be acceptable to blow up a diner in Waco if there were a couple of terror suspects having pancakes there?
When it comes to military matters I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Also to the foot soldier on the ground any war is a war in the traditional sense in that he can be killed.
Originally posted by CliffLandinJust wanted to point out that this airstrike was cleared and authorized by the pakistani government, so it's not as if we Americans just bombed Pakistan without any regard for Pakistani sovereignty. I still feel the bombing was wrong however. I understand that killing terrorists is important, but it seems hypocritical to bomb innocent civilian the same way that Al Qaeda attacked civilians on 9/11. I feel that if we can't find some kind of special ops force or something to at least try to spare innocent life we probably shouldn't do it. What's wrong with just surrounding the building they thought Zwahiri was in or something? Just some attempt to try and spare innocent life. I find bombing a civilian restaurant pretty wrong unless every single person in the building was a terrorist.
I realize that any war in which you can be killed is a real war, but the situation for the generals has changed. There is no clear cut enemy. Pakistan is our ally and we killed 18 Pakistanis to try and get a couple of terrorists. So again I will ask you, would it be acceptable to blow up a diner in Waco if there were a couple of terror suspects having pancakes there?
2 edits
Originally posted by GambitzoidExactly. Killing a terrorist might be important but seeing that non terrorists are not killed is equally important . If you know you can kill 10 al-queda members by bombing which would result in 10 civilian deaths those 10 civilian lives also has value. It is better to let the terrorists escape than kill innocent people. Would the bombing had been done if 10 americans might propably be killed . Not at all .It would raised hell at US and such a step would not have been taken. One of the reasons why the world is pissed of with the current US administration is the dis-regard for non-american lives.
Just wanted to point out that this airstrike was cleared and authorized by the pakistani government, so it's not as if we Americans just bombed Pakistan without any regard for Pakistani sovereignty. I still feel the bombing was wrong however. I understand that killing terrorists is important, but it seems hypocritical to bomb innocent civilian the same wa civilian restaurant pretty wrong unless every single person in the building was a terrorist.
I still remember the US bombing of an Iraqi restaurent killing 100 plus people because there was a possibility that Saddam would be there. On a mere possiblity that that you will kill Saddam would you kill 100 plus civilians. Even if Saddam would have been there it would be wrong and should be counted as a crime against humanity and war crime.
There are those in this thread that suggest that the villagers might be harboring terrorists . Harboring terrorists is a crime admitted , but is death sentence the penalty for it. There are courts to decide whether they have commited any crime or punish them for it. Who are you to give them a death penalty to civilians on mere suspicion.
The official word for it is collateral damage and they are mere expandables .If the US Government was more sincere in its efforts it would not have seen such a huge Iraqi resistance and Iraq would not have been become a hotbead of terrorism it has become. Don't ever underestimate peoples power to see through hypocracy . The main reason why the US efforts in Iraq are failing are because it lacks crediblity. No one in Iraq seriously beleives the US is fighting for Iraqi freedom.