re: One US air strike kills 200 civilians in Mosel

Because the resources required to individually apprehend thousands of people on the other side of the world is simply prohibitive? Its also completely impractical. You're being dishonest if you think ISIS could be rounded up. If we go in, they will disappear into the population, just like they did the other times we put boots on the ground in that shithole

quote:

---

Where were these counters when Obama was in office? Where was this outrage? Did civilian casualties stop in January of 2009 and restart in mid-January 2017?

---

Yes, of course they stopped then. I can promise you that Obama's watch had plenty of civilian deaths under it. Though it does seem that Trump is taking it next level.

I think this was a daytime strike, which leads me to believe it was probably Iraqi jets that did it. I haven't really looked into it that hard though.

quote:

---

Because the resources required to individually apprehend thousands of people on the other side of the world is simply prohibitive? Its also completely impractical. You're being dishonest if you think ISIS could be rounded up. If we go in, they will disappear into the population, just like they did the other times we put boots on the ground in that shithole

---

1. Hillary Clinton couldn't wait to get started on that very thing - deploying a military force as was used in Iraq.

2. It is a simple truth that the German and Japanese governments had organized military power to effectively oppose us in a way that simply does not exist now. We rolled straight through the Iraqi Army in 2003 and it was considered one of the better Arab armies. Bombing Berlin and Tokyo were not war crimes due to special circumstances that applied to that situation. That situation no longer pertains.

Following out what you say makes our World War Two flyers war criminals.

quote:

---

it is the Iraqi military that is fighting alongside us against ISIS in their country

---

Is this the same military that has given their weapons(provided by us) to ISIS and ran away?

quote:

---

The ill-advised travel ban

---

We can't even trust their military

quote:

---

We can't defeat ISIS in the Middle East on our own.

---

No, we need people that won't run away when defending their own land.

quote:

---

The beat goes on.

---

Yes it does

You can't defeat barbarians with a progressive mindset. They will bend you over and frick your corpse.

quote:

---

The problem with this is it further strains an already tenuous relationship with Iraq. For whatever you may feel about Iraq and its people, it is the Iraqi military that is fighting alongside us against ISIS in their country. The ill-advised travel ban was bad optics for that relationship, and us bombing Iraqi civilians doesn't help it. We can't defeat ISIS in the Middle East on our own.

---

1. Iraq has repeatedly committed atrocious acts like this with daytime bombings on markets. They can't fly at night.

2. US relationship with Iraq is less relevant than their relationship with Iran, who will dictate whether the US stays and plays after ISIL

3. The GOI and the Iranian units are the ones doing the fighting, The US is bombing and doing some advising. The GOI and Iran could and would do this by themselves.

4. It's easy to sweep this stuff under the rug when partisan political strategy says to defend your team at all costs. So for 8 years team blue got top cover, and now it's going to switch. Trump and BHO are both war mongering TPOS'

I will never understand how modern people don't get that attempts at clean War have two primary results.

First the virtually guarantee that Wars will start because the combatants don't have to worry about their local populations losing support for them. That support is a key element to continue the fight for any Nation.

Second. It virtually guarantees War Without End. As long as the fighting Force can be replenished it will just continue.

I know this comes off unpleasant in today's world of Instant Video. And I completely understand that.

But I submit to you that if you would have given the average Iraqi two choices 15 years ago period the first choice is to lose 100000 civilians over the course of 15 years and the war wouldn't be over or 50,000 civilians in the first year and the war came to an end which do you think they'd take?

Because they were war criminals.... The bombing of Germany and Japan were endlessly worse than this. And we knew it was improper and immoral at the time. Curtis LeMay admitted that he would have been charged with war crimes had we lost the war. It was simply the only way to get the Japanese to stop. I'll state it again: International Law is a fiction. There are no war crimes, merely punitive punishment for the losers.

Also your characterization of the effectiveness of both Germany and Japanese gov'ts by 1945 (when the bombing stepped up), is incredibly wrong.

quote:

---

But I submit to you that if you would have given the average Iraqi two choices 15 years ago period the first choice is to lose 100000 civilians over the course of 15 years and the war wouldn't be over or 50,000 civilians in the first year and the war came to an end which do you think they'd take?

---

50,000 civilians doesn't even come close to the number you would need to kill to end the war in 1 year. More like 5,000,000 if not more.

Dirty war isn't always short. The FARC/Colombia struggle is just now closing and there were several clean and sweep attempts there.

You got mail dude

You see that on Homeland?