Brits Bombed By US Plane

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Ok guys, mea culpa.

It was silly of me to entertain the idea that that particular pilot didn’t do his best without as much as a shred of evidence.

It wasn’t very bright to speculate on such a([n] apparently) sensitive issue as whether the US army was doing the best it can to avoid killing innocents.

More importantly, I shouldn’t have amalgamated this case of “friendly fire” with cases of soldiers shooting at unarmed civilians.

For all that, I apologize.

But I learned quite a lot. First, that Americans will come to the defense of their troops not matter what. I personally have a hard time liking people shooting guns because-they-were-told-to-do-so, but it’s always refreshing to hear the other side where 60-years old tales of patriotism are alive as vivid memories in the minds of 20-years-old. Secondly, we have no idea what the Brit who called for air-support had in mind. If he knew that the US Air Force might end up dropping 500lbs bombs, well…it’s sad to say, but he is not blameless. I’ve never seen one of those things blow up in real life, but I can imagine that they do a lot of damage. Heck, they’re designed for that very purpose. And I guess since you have plenty of planes and an abundant supply of explosives, might as well use them…right?

To everyone but Lixy:

Guys, why do you bother? This dickhead has the debating integrity of, well, a dickhead.

My suggestion is for everyone to put him on the “Ignore” list, and wait for him to go away.

[/quote]

Sage advice my friend. Excellent idea.

63

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And no, douchebag, I’m not comparing them at all. What I am saying is that you stated that every pilot who drops a bomb on a city is a war criminal. Now, you’re rescinding it. Why? Cause you’re full of shit. Funny how you didn’t leave your statement in the quote though. Good job trying to hide it.[/quote]

Ah. lixy taking statements out again. No this isn’t new, FI. His amendment skills are known. LOL

64

Faster, deadlier pilotless plane bound for Afghanistan

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
[i]CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. �?? The Air Force this fall will deploy a new generation of pilotless airplane with the bombing power of an F-16 to help stop the stubborn Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The Reaper is an upgraded version of the Predator, which has become one of the military’s most sought-after planes since it first appeared in Afghanistan in 2001. The Reaper can fly three times as fast as a Predator and carry eight times more weaponry, such as Hellfire missiles, the Air Force said.

The Reaper’s greater range and speed make it better suited than the Predator to Afghanistan with its vast, rugged terrain. The Reaper will also be deployed to Iraq. Its speed and arms will let it track and kill moving targets able to elude a Predator, said Brig. Gen. James Poss, director of intelligence for Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va.[/i]

Eh, what do you know…?

65

In fresh news…

In Afghanistan, the U.S. military is being accused of killing at least twelve civilians in a weekend airstrike on Helmand province. Afghan elders say U.S. warplanes killed twelve people, including six children and two women. Another twelve were reportedly wounded. The Pentagon is denying the claim and says Taliban fighters were responsible. More than three hundred Afghan civilians have died in NATO airstrikes this year, more than have been killed in Taliban attacks.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526236

66

LOL

67

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=21379&sectionid=351020403

This is another friendly fire incident.

I wonder why there wasn’t a thread made about it?

Or is it only wrong when the Coalition troops accidently kill their own, or civilians.

68

[quote]lixy wrote:
In fresh news…

In Afghanistan, the U.S. military is being accused of killing at least twelve civilians in a weekend airstrike on Helmand province. Afghan elders say U.S. warplanes killed twelve people, including six children and two women. Another twelve were reportedly wounded. The Pentagon is denying the claim and says Taliban fighters were responsible. More than three hundred Afghan civilians have died in NATO airstrikes this year, more than have been killed in Taliban attacks.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526236[/quote]

Why don’t we just fucking exterminate the Talibans and take them out of the equation? Then maybe we can go about rebuilding the place and replacing the poppy fields with food crops?

I mean, what’s the plan over there? We removed the Talibans from power, but there’ still there, festering like an open sore and we’re sitting around, waiting for them to attack or blow us up on the roads and leave them alone in between skirmishes… WTF?

They’re not going to “evolve” and join the 21st century anytime soon, so we either let them have the place, or remove them more permanently. This stupid type of humane, media friendly war is completely retarded and will see the West lose every time. All they have to do is to outwait us.

They just skirmish us at their discretion, for years if need be, while breeding like rabbits, until we tire and go home. What’s the fucking point?

69

[quote]pookie wrote:
Why don’t we just fucking exterminate the Talibans and take them out of the equation? Then maybe we can go about rebuilding the place and replacing the poppy fields with food crops?

I mean, what’s the plan over there? We removed the Talibans from power, but there’ still there, festering like an open sore and we’re sitting around, waiting for them to attack or blow us up on the roads and leave them alone in between skirmishes… WTF?

They’re not going to “evolve” and join the 21st century anytime soon, so we either let them have the place, or remove them more permanently. This stupid type of humane, media friendly war is completely retarded and will see the West lose every time. All they have to do is to outwait us.

They just skirmish us at their discretion, for years if need be, while breeding like rabbits, until we tire and go home. What’s the fucking point?
[/quote]

WOW! pookie, something wrong? You must be down, because this is way out of character for you. I’ve never pegged you as a Fatalist… yet here is this post.

Most perturbatory.

70

[quote]kroby wrote:
WOW! pookie, something wrong? You must be down, because this is way out of character for you. I’ve never pegged you as a Fatalist… yet here is this post.

Most perturbatory.[/quote]

I think it’s a valid question (my previous post). What is the goal in Afghanistan? I’ll take Afghanistan as the example, because it’s a UN mandated, NATO led mission, but much of the argument can be made for Iraq too.

What is the West trying to accomplish there?

Obviously, extermination of the Talibans is not the goal. “Reconstruction” is. But how can you rebuild the country when those Talibans are still around? You spend months building a school and it gets burned down because it has the audacity of teaching boys and girls. Or you have a project that suddenly goes into a slump because the locals who help get death threats on their families.

We displaced the Taliban government, but the replacement government has maintained the old warlords in place, to prevent massive civil unrest. The West has been there for longer than they’ve been in Iraq and there’s very little progress to be seen.

What’s the end goal of that mission? Is it even attainable using our current methods? The Talibans come from the Uzbeks tribe, who happen to be close to 50% of the Afghan population. Has that fact been taken into account?

To reiterate: What are we trying to do there? Is it even doable?

If we’re just wasting lives, time and money; why don’t we apply our efforts to more worthwhile pursuits?

As for being into or out of character, I’m not sure that matters. I like to consider new ideas, or approach a subject matter from different sides. Helps to think about stuff.

If the goal in our discussions is simply to defend our initial opinions and viewpoints against any counter arguments, to remain “in character” even to the point of denying reality, then why bother? Just make a static web page detailing your eternal opinions on every subject, conclude with “and that’s final!” and go do something else.

71

[quote]lixy wrote:
Faster, deadlier pilotless plane bound for Afghanistan

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
[i]CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. �?? The Air Force this fall will deploy a new generation of pilotless airplane with the bombing power of an F-16 to help stop the stubborn Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The Reaper is an upgraded version of the Predator, which has become one of the military’s most sought-after planes since it first appeared in Afghanistan in 2001. The Reaper can fly three times as fast as a Predator and carry eight times more weaponry, such as Hellfire missiles, the Air Force said.

The Reaper’s greater range and speed make it better suited than the Predator to Afghanistan with its vast, rugged terrain. The Reaper will also be deployed to Iraq. Its speed and arms will let it track and kill moving targets able to elude a Predator, said Brig. Gen. James Poss, director of intelligence for Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va.[/i]

Eh, what do you know…?[/quote]

Excellent news! Hopefully the Reaper will live up to it’s name and really no better place to test it out then in Afganistan.

72

DALEKS ON A PLANE!!!

73

[quote]pookie wrote:
kroby wrote:
WOW! pookie, something wrong? You must be down, because this is way out of character for you. I’ve never pegged you as a Fatalist… yet here is this post.

Most perturbatory.

I think it’s a valid question (my previous post). What is the goal in Afghanistan? I’ll take Afghanistan as the example, because it’s a UN mandated, NATO led mission, but much of the argument can be made for Iraq too.

What is the West trying to accomplish there?

Obviously, extermination of the Talibans is not the goal. “Reconstruction” is. But how can you rebuild the country when those Talibans are still around? You spend months building a school and it gets burned down because it has the audacity of teaching boys and girls. Or you have a project that suddenly goes into a slump because the locals who help get death threats on their families.

We displaced the Taliban government, but the replacement government has maintained the old warlords in place, to prevent massive civil unrest. The West has been there for longer than they’ve been in Iraq and there’s very little progress to be seen.

What’s the end goal of that mission? Is it even attainable using our current methods? The Talibans come from the Uzbeks tribe, who happen to be close to 50% of the Afghan population. Has that fact been taken into account?

To reiterate: What are we trying to do there? Is it even doable?

If we’re just wasting lives, time and money; why don’t we apply our efforts to more worthwhile pursuits?

As for being into or out of character, I’m not sure that matters. I like to consider new ideas, or approach a subject matter from different sides. Helps to think about stuff.

If the goal in our discussions is simply to defend our initial opinions and viewpoints against any counter arguments, to remain “in character” even to the point of denying reality, then why bother? Just make a static web page detailing your eternal opinions on every subject, conclude with “and that’s final!” and go do something else.
[/quote]

I just meant that you seemed rather dire. The question was blunt and should be asked.

I’ve not been around here lately. I must have lost the pulse.

74

Small dogs bark the loudest, but have no bite!

75

[quote]kroby wrote:
I just meant that you seemed rather dire. The question was blunt and should be asked.

I’ve not been around here lately. I must have lost the pulse.[/quote]

Well, it’s a dire situation. A lot of people are dying over there; one would hope that it’s not in vain.

It’s just that these are weird wars. We get very little “official” info; mostly we get media reports about atrocities and small victories.

Nothing about the main goals; how it’s going, etc. I know you don’t want to reveal your plans to the enemy on CNN, but still, you’d think the people would like to know a little more about why their sons and daughters are getting shot at over there. Something less vague and bullshitty than “we’re bringing them freedom” which is a crock of shit anyway.

76

Lebanon says 222 militants killed in camp battle:

Lebanon ruthlessly crushed the �??militants�?? of the Nahr al-Bared �??refugee camp,�?? killing (at least) dozens of civilians and hundreds of Islamists and tossing them into mass graves.

Lixy, will you be starting another thread questioning the battle engagement protocols employed by the Lebanon army? “Tossing into mass graves?”… Perhaps you should be investigating this with another trip abroad, or at least do some of that consulting with Arab meeting you supposedly do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070904/wl_nm/lebanon_fighting_dc