A depressing thread

[DinoDoc]

Who said anything about your reasoning? I find your apparent disregard for the welfare of millions of people distasteful.

I'm simply being honest. Building the Afghan people a country that never existed in any meaningful existence in the first place, was a flawed policy from the start. Beyond punishing the Taliban for their complicity, the welfare of the Afghan people was never our responsibility.

[Lorizael]

The most depressing thing about this thread is how some of its participants are able to rationalize the killing of random Afghans and Pakistanis.

[Jaguar]

Let's start a betting pool on regexcellent and Albie becoming officers. It will be fun!

[C0ckney]

The most depressing thing about this thread is how some of its participants are able to rationalize the killing of random Afghans and Pakistanis.

QFT.

there's also a curious overlap with these people and those who call arabs/muslims savages.

[Wiglaf]

What is a "random Afghan?" A spontaneous one who likes to drink on Mondays? A man cut down and molded into a coin? Learn how to speak English, or you'll never get out that community college.

[giblets]

An Afghan who got killed by a drone strike because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Dinner]

Because only stout Nazi Supporters got Bombed

With us or against us.

Not opposing them means they defacto supported the Nazi regime.

War is hell.

Oh, and the drone strikes are still the best policy option available to us.

[giblets]

With us or against us.

Not opposing them means they defacto supported the Nazi regime.

War is hell.

Yeah, if you didn't want to have yourself and your whole family taken away by the gestapo then you defacto were a Hitler supporter and deserved death.

[Dinner]

Lots of people did find ways to work against the Nazi regime. Most Germans didn't even try.

[Kidlicious]

Lots of people did find ways to work against the Nazi regime. Most Germans didn't even try.

Spoken as someone who sits back in his easy chair and watches people die on TV.

[Dinner]

I believe there was also that two tours in designated combat zones thing in there some time as well. Just saying.

[regexcellent]

See Oman.

Oman is surrounded by countries that refuse to give quarter to terrorists, thus demonstrating my point.

Yes, most people thought bombing neutral countries was not an acceptable strategy.

Take a moment to consider what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos after we left. Preventing the rise of Communism in those countries was a worthy goal. As soon as we left, thousands, and later millions of people were murdered. Our presence was the only thing stopping that. See for example the "killing fields" in Cambodia, the boat people of Vietnam, and the Hmong people of Laos.

Yes I wonder where he got that idea. Maybe it was because just a decade earlier China had invaded during the Korean war and made it quite clear they were willing to do so again.

But they weren't, as it turns out.

North Korea was a very different sort of ally. Neither China nor Russia had anything particularly invested in Vietnam; indeed, China actually fought a very bloody war against it not too long after it was taken over by the Communists. Also, if the Chinese were willing to nuke us over any level of containment of Communism, we might as well have just thrown in the towel. The Chinese and Russians weren't run by crazy fanatics the way North Korea and Iran are. They had no interested in starting the apocalypse over some backwater in Southeast Asia. The bluff was obvious and the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew it. In fact they went over McNamara's head to protest to Johnson that the war was being fought wrong, and that we should have been fighting it in a less limited way.

There were other issues with the way Johnson prosecuted the war as well; for instance, the refusal to use the National Guard for political reasons, thus contributing to the deterioration of those units as they became filled with draft dodgers, and the lack of experienced volunteer troops.

Which can be combated in other ways than bombing neutral countries.

Countries aren't neutral if they're providing aid and comfort to terrorists. What you're saying is that the insurgents can regroup, rearm, recruit, and train in complete safety as long as they stay across a line in the sand. That's absurd; you can't fight a war like that.

By the forced relocation of about half a million people and a successful hearts and minds campaign.

I never said the "hearts and minds" aspect isn't important. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

No, they just kill lots of innocent children instead.

The Taliban kill way more innocent children. Maybe if the drone strikes kill enough then the people will get fed up with the Taliban making them targets. This has happened in other places, such as Zambia during the Border War.

I can't decide is this means you are foolish or a genuinely bad person. I hope the former.

Neither. Using human shields is a war crime. You know those baby carriers that hold babies to your chest when you're walking? Suppose you walked around with a machine gun and a baby in one of those on your front. You then shoot at a bunch of soldiers. Is it their fault or yours if the baby gets shot when they return fire? Obviously it's yours.

[giblets]

They still have a responsibility to attempt to not shoot the baby.

[regexcellent]

And we do make a concerted effort to avoid blowing up civilians, but it happens every now and again. When it does happen, it's not our fault.

[MrFun]

The most depressing thing about this thread is how some of its participants are able to rationalize the killing of random Afghans and Pakistanis.

yeah