[Master_B]

hail ThorHammer,

*drops his anchor and orders his sails lowered*

*checks his hearin' and grinds his knuckles into his eyeballs*

hold on, me friend...could ye repeat that? i can't quite believe what ye just said...

are ye sayin' that we're spillin' blood and spendin' trillions fer the well bein' 'o the citizens 'o Afghanistan? this be the mission???

- MeadHallPirate

That is part of it, indeed. Better their lot and we'll better ours. That said, I am not sure the people over there are worth it.

[drycleden]

ahoy me friends, hail to ye all!

a few years ago...actually, more like a decade ago (its kinda strange sayin' that, hath it been that long?), i was a fervent supporter 'o our military action in Afghanistan.

i believed our cause was righteous no matter who the skipper was on our bridge, be it President Bush, or the our current captain, President Obama.

recently though, i've lost me faith, and am unclear what we're doin' thar and why we're stayin'. i know thar hath been a yearnin' amongst many here on USPO that our country just lay down a rain 'o fire and stop pussyfootin' around thar, and Mr. Obama hath certainly been more forceful (i was goin' to say "ruthless", but thats kinda a pejorative term, aye?) in pursuein' our national intrests, fer sure.

but when i reads news like this, it just seems like madness be takin' place in that faraway land;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/wo...R_AP_LO_MST_FB

whilst some 'o our more hardened swabby's who sail with us here on USPO might shrug and say, "what do you expect? war is hell!", i hafta wonder how many terrorists our mighty NATO forces created the moment we blew them nine children into piles 'o meat, bone and viscera.

aye...

- MeadHallPirate

Ahoy me mead-soaked pirate friend,

Me be a thinkin' that maybe the US military ran out of any significant Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan some time ago and the situation been turnin' into a classic example of mission creep. Especially since NATO got involved.

Aye

- Capt'n Hairball

[ErnestTU]

I have a tough tiime getting bent about the inadvertant killing of a handful of Afghan kids.

It wasn't intentional and those boys were only going to get raped by village elders for the next couple years of their life anyway - before they settled down to become Afghanistan's next generation of child molestors, wife beaters, and heroine manufacturers.

At least one or two of them probably would have made an effort over the next couple years to wound or kill Americans or to serve those who would, if they hadn't already been involved in some degree of insurgency.

*sighs*

Soot...Soot...Soot...argh,

ye often post with such clarity and tack a brilliant course as ye sail through various threads.

why do ye say things like this, mate? ye seem like a good and reasonable fellow, and them words ye scribed strike me as kinda monsterous.

i be a godfather to me nephew, a young lad just 8 months old. if such a thing like this happened to that laddy, i hafta think that meself, me brother, and a host 'o me own family members would make it our personal mission to strike back at this country in the most merciless manner that we could muster.

- MeadHallPirate

[NewYorkDoctorD]

Andrew,

This sucks and I wish we were out of Afghanistan but we aren't out of Afghanistan so the soldiers, marines, airman, and swabbies have to do their job. These accidents are tragic and we wish they wouldn't happen. The problem is that those we are forced to fight (by the command of our elected civilian officials, yes, that includes Obama and his surge) don't wear uniforms or stay on military bases. They hide amoungst civilians, dressed as civilians, and act like civilians. When the target isn't clear these kinds of mistakes are inevitable. Those who are truly at fault are the native Afghani insurgents.

Those TRULY at fault are the war makers.

at least that used to be the American position

“Any resort to war—to any kind of war—is a resort to means which are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, the destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is—of course—legal, and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defence the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crime.”

Justice Jackson's Opening Statement at Nuremburg

[Anfester]

And I can see how easy it is for someone who has never been to war to think like that.

And i understand that people who have been there need to invent myths in order to pretend there is some deeper meaning that the "uninitiated" cannot understand. I'm sure it helps people cope with the ultimate stupidity of it all.

The reality is as i stated, people killing people senselessly - no great mystery. It is a rather ancient reality. I do not need to be part of it to understand what it is.

Go a head and criticise, I have no problem with that at all. Just don't get all pissy when those of use who have been at the sharp end of the spear laugh you off. Right. I'm just saying that people who have been should not expect those of us who have not to support or shrug off such senseless acts of cruelty. You should expect us to be angry about it.

You want to lecture me, someone who has been in that reality, as to what is really going down and what it is like? Not at all. I just don't really give a shit what "it is like" from that perspective. I want to know what is achieved, what the results are, and why i have to pay for what only appears to me as stupid and cruel. No matter what your experience is or those of your comrades it does not matter or change the reality of the situation - which is not good, not victorious, not glamorous, and not meaningful. It is pathetic.

Andrew

[Cigarsstoreonline]

And i understand that people who have been there need to invent myths in order to pretend there is some deeper meaning that the "uninitiated" cannot understand. I'm sure it helps people cope with the ultimate stupidity of it all.

The reality is as i stated, people killing people senselessly - no great mystery. It is a rather ancient reality. I do not need to be part of it to understand what it is.

Myths? Bah, nevermind. I can see it just isn't going to be worth it.

Right. I'm just saying that people who have been should not expect those of us who have not to support or shrug off such senseless acts of cruelty. You should expect us to be angry about it.

Who said anything about supporting or shrugging off this incident? I sure as hell didn't. What I am saying is that it is, sadly, part of the reality of what is going on over there. No matter how hard we try to avoid incidents like this they are still bound to happen.

Not at all. I just don't really give a shit what "it is like" from that perspective. I want to know what is achieved, what the results are, and why i have to pay for what only appears to me as stupid and cruel. No matter what your experience is or those of your comrades it does not matter or change the reality of the situation - which is not good, not victorious, not glamorous, and not meaningful. It is pathetic.

So how does my experience, and that of my comrades, not reflect the reality of it? Sounds to me, Andrew, that you don't want to know anything, you don't want to hear anything. You want to go on believing what you do and will not let any amount of first hand experience or knowledge sway you.

[2swasseneons]

Ahoy me mead-soaked pirate friend,

Me be a thinkin' that maybe the US military ran out of any significant Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan some time ago and the situation been turnin' into a classic example of mission creep. Especially since NATO got involved.

Aye

- Capt'n Hairball

*nods to Hairballxavier*

hail oh captain Hairballxavier!

mission creep...aye, that does sound like the right way 'o describin' it.

'twas written earlier in this thread that this be not a critique 'o our forces thar, or the various NATO factions, and its not.

the men and women who serve thar be doin' so at the behest 'o our President and the civilian leadership that hath decreed that we fight our brave fight in the land 'o Afghanistan.

i just be unclear at what the tactical and strategic endgame be.

i really gotta go buy me that Woodward book and get me a clearer insight into the thinkin' 'o our president. to me untrained eye, it just seems like President Obama trapped himself inside a rhetorical box and committed himself to this fight when he was but a candidate fer POTUS.

yet...surely that cannot be the reason that we've spent almost $400,000,000,000 dollars thar and done all this killin' aye? i mean, god forbid that Fishjoel gets hurt or loses his life thar...what the hell would he be dyin' fer, exactly?

i looked back at Jviehe's "Good News From Afghanistan" post, which glorifies our good works there...the fact that we helped the Afghani citizens make a bar 'o soap and compare it to our errant strike that blew nine boys to bits, and feel a sense 'o nausea overwhelmin' me.

- MeadHallPirate

[illignocearia]

Who said anything about supporting or shrugging off this incident? I sure as hell didn't. What I am saying is that it is, sadly, part of the reality of what is going on over there. No matter how hard we try to avoid incidents like this they are still bound to happen.

You did not get my point then. NATO could stay another 10 years and still maker the same excuses you are making. But they cannot point to any meaningful results of their current strategy of shooting blindly in the dark with their fingers crossed.


So how does my experience, and that of my comrades, not reflect the reality of it? Sounds to me, Andrew, that you don't want to know anything, you don't want to hear anything. You want to go on believing what you do and will not let any amount of first hand experience or knowledge sway you. Because it is personal, and as such irrelevant to the big picture i am concerned about. You have offered slogans like "do what needs to be done" but nobody knows what that means - mass murder, scorched earth, carpet bombing? If that is what you mean can you describe in detail how that would translate into success? How would it be different from anywhere else that has been tried in the last 50 years? Again, after 10 years where are we? Thousands of people dead for what? Can you point to any real success that will last beyond the moment NATO eventually leaves? Your personal experience might be interesting over a few beers, but that is it.

I want to hear something meaningful. Not "war is bad and there are mistakes"... we all know that already. We want to know exactly what it is these civilians are dying for because it sure the fuck is not clear to most people.

Andrew

[exchpaypalgold]

Thor,

Another way to put this, why should i listen to you and not these soldiers?

Why we are against the Wars - IVAW.org

In the end it has to be about the big picture, and not about the soldiers.

Andrew

[Kragh]

It was the concensus during the campaign that Afghanistan was a legitimate war, perhaps it was. The reality is the years it would take to educate the people, grow a ruling class that has the best interest of the populace in mind, seal off the border with Pakistan and make the Taliban irrelevant. I think Obama was playing for time, time to reinvent relations with Pakistan and the region so an uneasy peace could result. How could anyone believe anything close to a victory can be achieved there? In my opinion, we should have just gone in there in the beginning, destroyed their armed forces, raised their infrastructure, assasinated any enimies we could have found, and left. Maybe a cruise missle or two every now and then to let them know we are watching. It would have been far less lethal, less expensive and at least as effective. Obama is living with his decision right now, one he surely regrets.

[Derrida]

You did not get my point then. NATO could stay another 10 years and still maker the same excuses you are making. But they cannot point to any meaningful results of their current strategy of shooting blindly in the dark with their fingers crossed.

That is not the overall strategy, Andrew, and you know it.

Because it is personal, and as such irrelevant to the big picture i am concerned about. You have offered slogans like "do what needs to be done" but nobody knows what that means - mass murder, scorched earth, carpet bombing? If that is what you mean can you describe in detail how that would translate into success? How would it be different from anywhere else that has been tried in the last 50 years? Again, after 10 years where are we? Thousands of people dead for what? Can you point to any real success that will last beyond the moment NATO eventually leaves? Your personal experience might be interesting over a few beers, but that is it.

I want to hear something meaningful. Not "war is bad and there are mistakes"... we all know that already. We want to know exactly what it is these civilians are dying for because it sure the fuck is not clear to most people.

Reasons have been given, Andrew. The problem here is that you don't think those reasons are good though, and that is fine. But don't pretend like you haven't been told. Man up and just say you think they are bullshit reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

We went into Afghanistan to 1) find and capture/kill the leadership of the organization that planned and carried out the attacks of September 11th and 2) to deny such groups a safehaven from which they can plan/carry out additional attacks. Part of the second part is giving the Afghani people a chance to stand on their own feet, to live with some measure of freedom, and to fight those who would see us fail. Those missions are ongoing. We are fighting a war of ideas and ideals.

Again, you may feel those reasons are bullshit (even lies) and not worth the effort we are putting forward, and that is fine. But, again, don't pretend that you weren't told. Hell, as I have said, I don't think the Afghani people are worth the blood being shed to provide the second point.

Thor,

Another way to put this, why should i listen to you and not these soldiers?

Why we are against the Wars - IVAW.org

In the end it has to be about the big picture, and not about the soldiers.

Andrew

You should listen to both of us, digest what you hear, and then make your decision. In the end, Andrew, I don't think you are really capable of getting the big picture without the picture of what is going on on the ground.

[MichaelfromSpace]

That is not the overall strategy, Andrew, and you know it.

That was obvious hyperbole. The overall strategy is not working is the point. Civilian casualties remain a huge problem while at the same time no real gains are being made.

Reasons have been given, Andrew. The problem here is that you don't think those reasons are good though, and that is fine. But don't pretend like you haven't been told. Man up and just say you think they are bullshit reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

We went into Afghanistan to 1) find and capture/kill the leadership of the organization that planned and carried out the attacks of September 11th Failed.

and 2) to deny such groups a safehaven from which they can plan/carry out additional attacks. ...but created a haven for them in Iraq at the same time.

More importantly, their actual haven is in Pakistan. The strategy of sending robots to bomb villages there has not achieved any meaningful results, yet it has slaughtered many civilians.

Part of the second part is giving the Afghani people a chance to stand on their own feet, to live with some measure of freedom, and to fight those who would see us fail. Those missions are ongoing. We are fighting a war of ideas and ideals. To me this is just propaganda, and i think most people recognize it as such.

Again, you may feel those reasons are bullshit (even lies) and not worth the effort we are putting forward, and that is fine. But, again, don't pretend that you weren't told. Hell, as I have said, I don't think the Afghani people are worth the blood being shed to provide the second point. Right. That is why statements about how war is bad and mistakes happen are really just hollow platitudes. it assumes there is a strategy that is realistic (preventing islamic terrorism by occupying islamic countries with western militaries, essentially the major source of the problem to begin with) and 2) offering cheap propaganda about spreading freedom.

You should listen to both of us, digest what you hear, and then make your decision. In the end, Andrew, I don't think you are really capable of getting the big picture without the picture of what is going on on the ground. Thing is i have listened to many sides (soldiers who support the war, soldiers who don't, embedded journalists on the ground, unembedded journalists on the ground, afghan civilians, afghan government, western politicians, historians specializing in the area, etc..) - and I do have a very clear picture as to what is happening on the ground. The fact is the picture is terrible and the strategy is a failure, and the propaganda rings hollow.

Hence I don't accept any defense of the slaughter of civilians that assumes there is a legitimate strategy in place to begin with and these events cannot be prevented. I reject that fully and completely.

Andrew

[Pataacculako]

why do ye say things like this, mate? ye seem like a good and reasonable fellow, and them words ye scribed strike me as kinda monsterous.

i be a godfather to me nephew, a young lad just 8 months old. if such a thing like this happened to that laddy, i hafta think that meself, me brother, and a host 'o me own family members would make it our personal mission to strike back at this country in the most merciless manner that we could muster.

- MeadHallPirate

You'd probably want to.

You'd probably want to really, really baddly.

But you probably couldn't.

You'd probably be just as impotent in the face of America as you are in the face of whatever militant group happened to be ordering you and your family around on any given day.

9/11 wasn't pulled off by a bunch of pissed off cave dwellers.

The folks who actually make successful terrorists, in so far as attacking the United States is concerned, are worldly, educated, smart, and have the backing of some of the most sophisticated criminal conspirators the world has ever seen.

It's not like we bomb some mud farmer's kid on Monday, he joins the Jihad on Tuesday, and is in Times Square blowing himself up by the following Thursday, noonish.

Those people over there don't present a threat. There's no reason to blow their capabilities all out of proportion and imagine a threat that doesn't exist.

About the best "you" could do is attack some Marines over in Helmand.

And I guess maybe you'd "get" one or two before they got you. But they would get you, and then your corpse would get thrown in the pile like cordwood and that would be the end of the story.

That's why I don't really care.

A pissed off Afghan is about as dangerous to me as a pissed off Afghan snake.

Neither of them will ever be in a position to bite me.

[Mearticbaibre]

That was obvious hyperbole. The overall strategy is not working is the point. Civilian casualties remain a huge problem while at the same time no real gains are being made.

No gains that you are willing to acknowledge anyway.

Failed.

Ongoing.

...but created a haven for them in Iraq at the same time.

More importantly, their actual haven is in Pakistan. The strategy of sending robots to bomb villages there has not achieved any meaningful results, yet it has slaughtered many civilians.

War is not static, Andrew, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. It fluid, moving, changing. These are not reasons to avoid a fight.

To me this is just propaganda, and i think most people recognize it as such.

I didn't expect you to see it any other way and it is starting to becoming the norm for you I'm afraid. Honestly, I find it sad.

Right. That is why statements about how war is bad and mistakes happen are really just hollow platitudes. it assumes there is a strategy that is realistic (preventing islamic terrorism by occupying islamic countries with western militaries, essentially the major source of the problem to begin with) and 2) offering cheap propaganda about spreading freedom.

Hollow platitudes? No, Andrew, that is the truth and you just don't like it.

Thing is i have listened to many sides (soldiers who support the war, soldiers who don't, embedded journalists on the ground, unembedded journalists on the ground, afghan civilians, afghan government, western politicians, historians specializing in the area, etc..) - and I do have a very clear picture as to what is happening on the ground. The fact is the picture is terrible and the strategy is a failure, and the propaganda rings hollow.

Given your statements here, I would say you don't have a very clear picture at all. A clear misunderstanding about what war is at the very least.

Hence I don't accept any defense of the slaughter of civilians that assumes there is a legitimate strategy in place to begin with and these events cannot be prevented. I reject that fully and completely.

No one is defending it, Andrew. I, among others, are simply explaining that these things will happen regardless of whether there is a strategy in place that you find legitimate or not.

[Dodoerabe]

You'd probably want to.

You'd probably want to really, really baddly.

But you probably couldn't.

You'd probably be just as impotent in the face of America as you are in the face of whatever militant group happened to be ordering you and your family around on any given day.

9/11 wasn't pulled off by a bunch of pissed off cave dwellers.

The folks who actually make successful terrorists, in so far as attacking the United States is concerned, are worldly, educated, smart, and have the backing of some of the most sophisticated criminal conspirators the world has ever seen.

It's not like we bomb some mud farmer's kid on Monday, he joins the Jihad on Tuesday, and is in Times Square blowing himself up by the following Thursday, noonish.

Those people over there don't present a threat. There's no reason to blow their capabilities all out of proportion and imagine a threat that doesn't exist.

About the best "you" could do is attack some Marines over in Helmand.

And I guess maybe you'd "get" one or two before they got you. But they would get you, and then your corpse would get thrown in the pile like cordwood and that would be the end of the story.

That's why I don't really care.

A pissed off Afghan is about as dangerous to me as a pissed off Afghan snake.

Neither of them will ever be in a position to bite me.

ahoy Soot!

the folks who smashed them planes into our country on 9/11 were indeed a rare breed...i could only aspire to execute such a masterful strike against our country if i were just a simple villager.

in this yer absolutely right.

i could, perhaps, fashion an IED, though...'tis hard to say.

i would say that a pissed off Afghani citizen who directs thar last breath to seekin' revenge on our country might result in Fishjoel comin' back to our nation in a coffin.

i'd say that would be plenty. i like Fishjoel, though we disagree quite often...and his passin' would grieve me.

- MeadHallPirate

[DrJonson]

I have a tough tiime getting bent about the inadvertant killing of a handful of Afghan kids.

It wasn't intentional and those boys were only going to get raped by village elders for the next couple years of their life anyway - before they settled down to become Afghanistan's next generation of child molestors, wife beaters, and heroine manufacturers.

At least one or two of them probably would have made an effort over the next couple years to wound or kill Americans or to serve those who would, if they hadn't already been involved in some degree of insurgency.

So the death of these children doesn't really register on your moral compass because of things they might have done in the future?

Most "collateral damage" is lamented by people but tolerated, and I think your words illustrate a particularly ugly aspect of that. The death of noncombatants happens -- when they're the "other guys" it's nothing to worry about because they probably would have become delinquents or enemies anyways.

If we can tolerate noncombatant deaths so nonchalantly, then what the fuck differentiates us from those bombing funerals and markets and towers?

[KellyMP]

This is part of the sad, dirty face of war, my friend. Mistakes happen and there are consequences. That said, we shouldn't let mistakes or the threat of them weaken our resolve or keep us from doing what must be done.

These kinds of 'mistakes' are part of real war. Which is why we should only fight wars when they are truly a matter of our survival. Most of the wars we fight, however, are not.

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

If there was any mention of this incident the the Sun-Times of Jacksonville, FL, which I get delivered every day, I couldn't find it. Jacksonville is home to US Naval Air Station Jacksonville. I'm wondering if the AP covered the story.

You might find my thread on AP Doublespeak at the Culture and Media Issues discussion to be relevant.

[DarrenBent]

I went to the AP archives on line and see that they did run the same ofd story about apologies for regretable civilian casualties, but I don't think that the Jax paper ran it.
News from The Associated Press

[Czrzftmz]

This doesn't change the fact that Al-Quida would return to Afghanistan and use it to kill thousands of more Americans right here is we gave up.

The fact that both administrations involved have done a poor and terrible job at bringing about the needed changes to prevent that doesn't either.