- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: One US air strike kills 200 civilians in Mosel
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:12 am to Northwestern tiger
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:12 am to Northwestern tiger
quote:
Some reports saying the toll is close to 500
Fingers crossed
quote:
Northwestern tiger
GTFO
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:13 am to WhiskeyPapa
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
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:14 am to Northwestern tiger
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.
I don't know if it's a war crime. We'll likely never know. Our military has gotten pretty good at sweeping these things under the rug and keeping it out of public light. It was about six months ago we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria, and there's been little press on it since it happened. The beat goes on.
I don't know if it's a war crime. We'll likely never know. Our military has gotten pretty good at sweeping these things under the rug and keeping it out of public light. It was about six months ago we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria, and there's been little press on it since it happened. The beat goes on.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:16 am to Roaad
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.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:18 am to The Spleen
quote:Not really
Our military has gotten pretty good at sweeping these things under the rug and keeping it out of public light. I
quote:
t was about six months ago we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Syria, and there's been little press on it since it happened. The beat goes on.
I think that was in Afghanistan and Obama was president when it happened so that's why it hasn't been harped on.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:18 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
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.
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 8:19 am
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:19 am to Northwestern tiger
Sorry, I'm not going to get upset over collateral damage in a war zone.
I'm sorry to see anyone lose their life, but war is hell, and that's what war is.
People die in wars, and not all of them are guilty of anything.
It's not like we sent the plane to specifically kill 200 civilians.
I'm sorry to see anyone lose their life, but war is hell, and that's what war is.
People die in wars, and not all of them are guilty of anything.
It's not like we sent the plane to specifically kill 200 civilians.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:19 am to The Spleen
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.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:21 am to Northwestern tiger
I'd buy that JTAC a beer
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:21 am to The Spleen
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'
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 8:32 am
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:22 am to The Spleen
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?
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?
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:23 am to Northwestern tiger
quote:
War crime?
Sure, right after you provide the proof that the civilians were the intended target.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:23 am to WhiskeyPapa
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.
Also your characterization of the effectiveness of both Germany and Japanese gov'ts by 1945 (when the bombing stepped up), is incredibly wrong.
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 8:29 am
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:25 am to tedmarkuson
quote:
good
One day this board won't be psychotic.
Today is not that day.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:26 am to ShortyRob
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.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:28 am to The Spleen
That's what the mouth breathers here don't get. Fair or not, civilian casualties are bad PR for the US with Middle East and Arab countries. Our military leaders understand this and go to great lengths to avoid it.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:30 am to BayouBlitz
Of course civilian casualties are bad. But you either have to: 1) Consider them completely unavoidable at some level. You simply cannot win any war by taking a stance of "zero civilians dead at all costs" or 2) Admit we cannot win this terrible conflict without killing civilians, and GTFO
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:31 am to Northwestern tiger
You see that on Homeland?
Posted on 3/27/17 at 8:32 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Is that not true?
It may be true for some targets, but others will obviously be more heavily guarded. You're definitely oversimplifying this, and that's coming from someone who doesn't want to even have troops in the middle East.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News