[QUOTE=OvB;37203992]The whole country has been a mess for decades. To say everything was all good and jolly until the big bad Americans came and bombed all the civilians is entirely wrong.[/QUOTE]
...But we aren't...
I'm just saying you aren't helping.
And that I find it strange how many Americans think the people actually like them.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37203816]but the presence of america and the sheer amount of civilian casualty on both parts as a result of the war has caused a massive surge in taliban recruitment. why do you think that is? i don't support either side, but i'm saying that the whole thing has been an un-necessary bloodbath and if it were handled less like a war and more like a humanitarian aid operation things would've gone alot more smoothly[/QUOTE]
We have humanitarian aid operations going on at the same time as our combat operations. The aid missions provided aid for the Afgani people, and the combat operations are to deny the Taliban freedom of movement and to disrupt their operations so they don't mess up the things that the aid missions have done. You can't tell me that things would have gone a lot more smoothly if we just showed up and started handing out things, only to have the Taliban start shooting us, or stealing everything given out to the people by force. It would have turned into a Somalia Mk. 2.
[QUOTE=OvB;37204015]I wish we would get out of Afghanistan right now. It's far beyond repair. What I'm saying is Al Qaeda are monsters and don't give two flying fucks about the Afghan people.[/QUOTE]
but that is a gross overgeneralization. that's like saying the syrian rebels are all perfectly moral and just, who want democracy and freedom; when they've been known to carry out public executions of civilians and various other war crimes. at least we can agree on one front, however.
anyone who isn't a member of NATO holding a gun is considered a member of the taliban, when there are alot of people who are simply frightened of the trillion dollar war machine.
well i suppose the whole "pack the war machine" thing will be over soon, right?
and they'll leave
right?
Trouble in terrorist town.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204050]but that is a gross overgeneralization. that's like saying the syrian rebels are all perfectly moral and just, who want democracy and freedom; when they've been known to carry out public executions of civilians and various other war crimes. at least we can agree on one front, however.
anyone who isn't a member of NATO holding a gun is considered a member of the taliban, when there are alot of people who are simply frightened of the trillion dollar war machine.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and NATO is following the Geneva Convention. Those godless scoundrels, not making IEDs and having their rhetoric not encouraging others to commit acts of terror across the globe.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37204113]Yeah, and NATO is following the Geneva Convention. Those godless scoundrels, not making IEDs and having their rhetoric not encouraging others to commit acts of terror across the globe.[/QUOTE]
what a masterfully crafted straw-man argument, which attacks literally no point i've made
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204050]but that is a gross overgeneralization. that's like saying the syrian rebels are all perfectly moral and just, who want democracy and freedom; when they've been known to carry out public executions of civilians and various other war crimes. at least we can agree on one front, however.
anyone who isn't a member of NATO holding a gun is considered a member of the taliban, when there are alot of people who are simply frightened of the trillion dollar war machine.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with your latter statement. That is not how we operate at all. We understand that not everyone is with the Taliban. The problem here is that you think we shoot everyone who has a weapon. We don't. We only shoot the people that display hostile intent or commit a hostile act towards ISAF forces or civilians. In Aviation, our ROE is more strict than most. We can't even shoot people who are shooting at the helicopters with rifles if they are on a building, because we won't shoot the building to avoid collateral damage, not to mention that civilians might be in there.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204132]what a masterfully crafted straw-man argument, which attacks literally no point i've made[/QUOTE]
Show me evidence of progressiveness in Al Qaeda. I fucking doubt that they are holding luncheon fundraisers in Kabul.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204048]We have humanitarian aid operations going on at the same time as our combat operations. The aid missions provided aid for the Afgani people, and the combat operations are to deny the Taliban freedom of movement and to disrupt their operations so they don't mess up the things that the aid missions have done. You can't tell me that things would have gone a lot more smoothly if we just showed up and started handing out things, only to have the Taliban start shooting us, or stealing everything given out to the people by force. It would have turned into a Somalia Mk. 2.[/QUOTE]
We rebuilt a lot. We've allocated [b]Hundreds of billions[/b] of dollars into just reconstruction. The problem is people just blow up the schools or take them over right after we build them. We don't actively stay in cities. We do patrols then go back into the FOBs. Insurgents/Taliban/Al-Qaeda whatever leaves while they patrol then just goes back into town when we leave. Nothing is getting done. We often find schools that we've built loaded up as a weapons cache and no school books or kids, because whatever rebel force that has control of that particular village that day has the populous by the balls.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204143]I disagree with your latter statement. That is not how we operate at all. We understand that not everyone is with the Taliban. [b]The problem here is that you think we shoot everyone who has a weapon.[/b] We don't. We only shoot the people that display hostile intent or commit a hostile act towards ISAF forces or civilians. In Aviation, our ROE is more strict than most. We can't even shoot people who are shooting at the helicopters with rifles if they are on a building, because we won't shoot the building to avoid collateral damage, not to mention that civilians might be in there.[/QUOTE]
If we did that we'd have to kill the whole god damn country because literally everyone has an AK or some sort of weapon.
My dad was suppose to be in Djibouti for 6 months, come back for 6 months, then go to Afghanistan for 1 year.
My dad decided to just get an extension for his stay in Djibouti, so he'll be there for 1 year instead.
Which I am soooooo glad they approved of, way safer for him. He's in the Air Force, going on 19 years in service.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37204152]Show me evidence of progressiveness in Al Qaeda. I fucking doubt that they are holding luncheon fundraisers in Kabul.[/QUOTE]
al-Qaeda and the Taliban aren't the same fucking organization.
Is it really that hard to grasp?
[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;37204199]My dad was suppose to be in Djibouti for 6 months, come back for 6 months, then go to Afghanistan for 1 year.
My dad decided to just get an extension for his stay in Djibouti, so he'll be there for 1 year instead.
Which I am soooooo glad they approved of, way safer for him. He's in the Air Force, going on 19 years in service.[/QUOTE]
Anywhere the Air Force goes is pretty safe. Bagram is really safe, and so is J-bad, and that is where the zoomies go.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204143]I disagree with your latter statement. That is not how we operate at all. We understand that not everyone is with the Taliban. The problem here is that you think we shoot everyone who has a weapon. We don't. We only shoot the people that display hostile intent or commit a hostile act towards ISAF forces or civilians. In Aviation, our ROE is more strict than most. We can't even shoot people who are shooting at the helicopters with rifles if they are on a building, because we won't shoot the building to avoid collateral damage, not to mention that civilians might be in there.[/QUOTE]
well i'm glad that's the attitude that your superiors had when you were in afghanistan, but i find it difficult to believe that's always the case, with the statistics that NATO currently has on civilian casualties (especially when considering all the leaked footage and files on collateral damage)
. if this were carried out to it's fullest all the time there wouldn't be thousands of nato-caused civilian casualties yearly
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37204152]Show me evidence of progressiveness in Al Qaeda. I fucking doubt that they are holding luncheon fundraisers in Kabul.[/QUOTE]
lmao wtf are you talking about
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204233]well i'm glad that's the attitude that your superiors had when you were in afghanistan, but i find it difficult to believe that's always the case, with the statistics that NATO currently has on civilian casualties (especially when considering all the leaked footage and files on collateral damage)
. if this were carried out to it's fullest all the time there wouldn't be thousands of nato-caused civilian casualties yearly
lmao wtf are you talking about[/QUOTE]
I am not sure how aware you are of how tightly they hold us to the ROE. We pretty much have to think like a JAG officer if we are going to engage anything. Also, I believe part of that leaked footage you are talking about would be that "Collateral Murder" video that is so hyped. The thing is, they followed the ROE, though they could have spoken MUCH more professionally on the radio. I have seen helicopter guncam footage that has not been seen by the public, and I can't talk to you guys about it due to its clearance level, but I can tell you that we do our best to minimize collateral damage. The pilots hover around quite a bit, making sure they have 100% positive ID on a hostile act or a display of hostile intent.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204398]I am not sure how aware you are of how tightly they hold us to the ROE. We pretty much have to think like a JAG officer if we are going to engage anything. Also, I believe part of that leaked footage you are talking about would be that "Collateral Murder" video that is so hyped. The thing is, they followed the ROE, though they could have spoken MUCH more professionally on the radio. I have seen helicopter guncam footage that has not been seen by the public, and I can't talk to you guys about it due to its clearance level, but I can tell you that we do our best to minimize collateral damage. The pilots hover around quite a bit, making sure they have 100% positive ID on a hostile act or a display of hostile intent.[/QUOTE]
is the attitude toward collateral damage the same as an infantryman or drone pilot?
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204427]is the attitude toward collateral damage the same as an infantryman or drone pilot?[/QUOTE]
Well, yes. Drone pilots have to get just as much clearance as any other pilot. Infantry have pretty strict ROE too. Many Soldiers have died or had their careers ruined by ROE. Infantry usually call in Aviation as well, so we work in support of the ground force. The thing about ROE is that is is collectively applied to all ISAF and US personnel.
Too many Americans on this forum, just telling you what the rest of the world think about you and your actions.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204499]Well, yes. Drone pilots have to get just as much clearance as any other pilot. Infantry have pretty strict ROE too. Many Soldiers have died or had their careers ruined by ROE. Infantry usually call in Aviation as well, so we work in support of the ground force. The thing about ROE is that is is collectively applied to all ISAF and US personnel.[/QUOTE]
well you can't blame soldiers for defending themselves with or without honour of the ROE, all i can hope for is that the military pulls out of the middle east soon.
[QUOTE=thebadboy91;37204598]Too many Americans on this forum, just telling you what the rest of the world think about you and your actions.[/QUOTE]
More like people giving their personal opinions of what they think about the actions of the United States.
It makes me sad to see Afghanistan in this condition. They're good people, they really are. There's just too many people in conflict with one another and were smack in the middle of it. We're not the cause per-say but we're there and our presence isn't necessarily making it easier for them. I take solace in that we've done what we can. Whether you think we've helped or not, I've seen pictures of little Afghan girls smiling in a US built school, reading books provided by US funding. I want to see those little girls grow up and have a wonderful future. A decade ago they wouldn't have had one. I can't say if they will have one a decade from now. But they'll have that opportunity, we can hope. We've given them the training and tools to secure their borders, my dad had a personal part in that. We've trained their military side by side with our troops so they have first hand experience with dealing what they will have to deal with once we leave. We've helped them build a government, despite how flimsy and corrupt the Karzai administration is, they have a government.
With our mission drawing to a close, I believe it's time to leave. Afghanistan will not see an end to the bloodshed unfortunately. But I hope that they can find a unified national pride and take back their country from oppression, and rebuild their own country like their friends have in the Arab Spring. Free of oppressive rule from the Taliban, Or whatever other terrorist group that want's reign of the country and it's people.
I hope one day to visit a free and democratic and proud Afghanistan. That's something they can only give themselves.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37204622]well you can't blame soldiers for defending themselves with or without honour of the ROE, all i can hope for is that the military pulls out of the middle east soon.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, we will soon.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37204665]Don't worry, we will soon.[/QUOTE]
2014 is the current leave year, I believe. Though I'm willing to bet there will still be American contractors in the country training various people, but they won't have an active fighting roll.
[QUOTE=OvB;37204706]2014 is the current leave year, I believe. Though I'm willing to bet there will still be American contractors in the country training various people, but they won't have an active fighting roll.[/QUOTE]
You are correct.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AQ4uS.png[/img]
Really?
Are you just rating dumb out of spite?
Read up, children, read up.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda[/url]
One is a global religious terrorist organization while the other is a political militant organization.
There should be a age restriction on the dumb button.
[QUOTE=Robbi;37206290][img]http://i.imgur.com/AQ4uS.png[/img]
Really?
Are you just rating dumb out of spite?
Read up, children, read up.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda[/url]
One is a global religious terrorist organization while the other is a political militant organization.
There should be a age restriction on the dumb button.[/QUOTE]
You're getting rated dumb for defending them, regardless of what their goals are, their methods are the same, murder, threats, and terror.
[QUOTE=Robbi;37206290][img]http://i.imgur.com/AQ4uS.png[/img]
Really?
Are you just rating dumb out of spite?
Read up, children, read up.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda[/url]
One is a global religious terrorist organization while the other is a political militant organization.
There should be a age restriction on the dumb button.[/QUOTE]
the dumb rating really just shows an incompetence for debate; it's essentially an ad hominem in a simple, clickable form.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;37203623]What GOOD has the Taliban done for Afghanistan, lets put it that way. Not focusing on the war, focusing on the collapse of the communist government in the 90's to the 2000's.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html"]Eradicate opium production from 90% of Afghanistan[/URL] (the area under their control) and bring stability, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/10/world/state-misery-special-report-afghans-ruled-taliban-poor-isolated-but-secure.html"]peace and social order[/URL] to the country?
The articles by the west on the Taliban pre-9/11 are so enlightening :)
[QUOTE=OvB;37203992]The whole country has been a mess for decades. To say everything was all good and jolly until the big bad Americans came and bombed all the civilians is entirely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Decades? Hahaha
Try centuries
[QUOTE=C47;37206563][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html"]Eradicate opium production from 90% of Afghanistan[/URL] (the area under their control) and bring stability, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/10/world/state-misery-special-report-afghans-ruled-taliban-poor-isolated-but-secure.html"]peace and social order[/URL] to the country?
The articles by the west on the Taliban pre-9/11 are so enlightening :)[/QUOTE]
Yeah by executions and using backwards practices. That's a great way to keep order
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
