Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heron TSG]

Also, they would need to have reflexes fast enough to zoom in and check before they would get shot, if it happened to be a gun.

Flying 75 feet above the action, with enough time to talk to their superiors, get the firing order and tell each other to shut up and shoot? That sounds like plenty of time to twist the knob and zoom in on the guy you're about to shred. They almost did a half rotation of the suspected insurgents before they decided they were a threat.

Oh, I was talking about ground troops. Yeah, helicopters should have at least some pretty swell binoculars.

[Cthulhu]

I'm pretty sure we all saw the video, and saw what kind of cameras they had.  From several hundred yards away you're not going to get crystal clear video on a camera you can mount on a helicopter.  I know we'd all do it right if we were there, we'd notice that the gun was a camera, we'd spot those kids, we'd check and recheck and triple check and nothing would go wrong, but if that video hadn't been annotated I would not have assumed that was a camera.

[nenjin]

I'll forgive the ground troops, they're not looking through grainy image-enhanced optics, and they are in the direct path of weapon fire. You could make the same argument with RPGs and helicopter crews.....but an RPG is slightly larger than a camera.

And seriously, if they have optics for night vision, heat vision, every other kind of vision....how about "not mowing down civilians carrying stuff" vision. It sort of speaks to what the military's priorities are.

I'm pretty sure we all saw the video, and saw what kind of cameras they had.  From several hundred yards away you're not going to get crystal clear video on a camera you can mount on a helicopter.  I know we'd all do it right if we were there, we'd notice that the gun was a camera, we'd spot those kids, we'd check and recheck and triple check and nothing would go wrong, but if that video hadn't been annotated I would not have assumed that was a camera.

Neither would I. And when Nasir took a knee by the corner of that building, he looked like a dude in a firing position to me too.

I'm not blaming the helicopter crew. They reacted with the information they had, which was black long looking things in the hands of the guys on the street.

I'm just saying....seriously, invest in some better fucking cameras for guys that are supposed to make judgment calls from hundreds of feet away.

[ChairmanPoo]

Oh, I can understand the human mistake in shooting the first not-actually-fighters group. I'm not happy with civilians getting killed, but yeah, the camera images could be mistaken for that. The outrageous part was the van massacre. This was mentioned in the other thread too. By Aqizzar, if I recall properly.

then again...

I know we'd all do it right if we were there

I dont know what I would do, and neither do you. But I do know that I haven't undergone extensive drilling in attack chopper piloting and tactics. Surely it's reasonable to expect that a trained proffessional soldier would NOT have the same knee-jerk reactions as an untrained civilian in fight-or-flight mode, right?

[Nikov]

FakeEdit: Abandoning Afghanistan right now would send the country into an absolute bloodbath. Anyone who cooperated with the Coalition troops would be murdered by death squads. You would see mass exodus, tribal warfare, and very likely Pakistan would see a lot more blood and ash. Speaking of which...

I know something you don't know.

But being a patriotic and honor-bound sort of fellow, I'm not telling.

I know something you apparently don't want to admit.  That bloodbath that will happen when the American army leaves Afghanistan?  Yeah, of course that will happen.  And if we keep a million soldiers in Afghanistan for a hundred years, it'll still happen when they leave.  The only way to avoid that post-withdrawal bloodbath is to leave the army there until the end of time.

Do you have special needs? Do you not know about the Afghan National Army? Are you unaware they're having elections now? Have you no idea what the country was like in 1960? Sure, its a shit army, and sure, its a rigged election. But you can't tell me a country that once had a thriving tourism industry is doomed to be a bloodbath no matter the circumstances. If we pull out today, there's what we call a power vacuum into which every tinpot pol pot is going to throw his chips. If we continue the current strategy of building up a national government and army, we can leave the country in its own hands rather than just dropping it to the floor.

I agree with you about the US military not needing to be in central Europe, but that has very little to do with Afghanistan. Seriously, (and this is one of my jokes) you're advocating pulling out more than a Catholic priest (end joke).

[Aqizzar]

So, you're calling me retarded for doubting that the shambling gang of people we've propped up as a government, made from the most easily bought elements of the same people who used to run the country's backlands, will maintain a lasting peace like the imagined recollection of Afghanistan's glory days.

Fuck it.  Have fun in your world of machismo and definitional righteousness.

[Strife26]

I've got to agree with Aqizzar (and my father, annoyingly enough). Don't expect Afghanistan to be stable. Hell, I've got doubts that it's even possible.

[optimumtact]

I've got to agree with Aqizzar (and my father, annoyingly enough). Don't expect Afghanistan to be stable. Hell, I've got doubts that it's even possible.

Oh it's possible all right, the question is will it be throught the american led rebuilding of the nation or under the iron fist of some random dictator? America and it's allies can succeed. Just don't expect it to be easy or fast.

[C4lv1n]

I really don't see the big fucking problem with leaving the collective militaries of the world there untill the end of time, our live's are great. Their's suck, so let's help them out.

Besides, we don't need to stay there untill the end of time, we just need to make sure the givernment is stable. Like the other guy said, Afganistan is way better off than it was 50 years ago,and even if it takes another 50 years, we need to stay and help.

[fenrif]

Loving the idea that leaving an invading army in a country will stabalise it. Or the idea that the people that invading army puts into power will magically stop all the racial and cultural differences of all the people who live there.

"Hey, we came and blew up your country, murdered quite a few of you, but we're going now, sorry. Anyway... This guy's in charge now, do what he says please."

[C4lv1n]

Loving the idea that leaving an invading army in a country will stabalise it. Or the idea that the people that invading army puts into power will magically stop all the racial and cultural differences of all the people who live there.

"Hey, we came and blew up your country, murdered quite a few of you, but we're going now, sorry. Anyway... This guy's in charge now, do what he says please."

We're not really invading Afganistan, were destroying the Taliban. And no, it's not going to magically stop all the racial and cultural differences of all the people who live there but it's better than not being there, and having wome and children get raped and murdered.

Also, we didn't blow up Afganistan, and the only deaths were screw ups like this. It's not like WWII where we carpet bombed cities, or Vietnam where we napalmed everyone. What happens is they find out where the Taliban are hiding, and they drop one or two bombs there, with very little collateral damage. Also, on the topic of collaterall damage, it happens in every war, it sucks, but it's war.

EDIT: Also, having an army there to stabalize things, is better than not having an army to stabalize things.

[fenrif]

We're not really invading Afganistan, were destroying the Taliban. And no, it's not going to magically stop all the racial and cultural differences of all the people who live there but it's better than not being there, and having wome and children get raped and murdered.

Also, we didn't blow up Afganistan, and the only deaths were screw ups like this. It's not like WWII where we carpet bombed cities, or Vietnam where we napalmed everyone. What happens is they find out where the Taliban are hiding, and they drop one or two bombs there, with very little collateral damage. Also, on the topic of collaterall damage, it happens in every war, it sucks, but it's war.

EDIT: Also, having an army there to stabalize things, is better than not having an army to stabalize things.

Lol, your version of events is priceless.

We're not invading, we're totally just moving our army into your country for a party. We heard it's at joes house, y'know joe. he has crazy parties! What do you mean we declared war? That was just a joke! Can't you guys take a joke?

It's very easy to say "nah we didn't blow up anything, we just surgially strike EXACTLY where the enemy is" but in reality that doesn't happen and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Noone In Afghanistan is unaffected by the war. 66% of people have had to leave their homes due to damage. 64% due to not being able to acess basic necessities. 60% due to loss of livelyhood.

I'll agree these are because of screw-ups. But don't make out like its a small minority, or that the occupation force is some benevolent mercy force that goes out of it's way to avoid damaging civillian property.

Sure collatoral damage is a part of war, noone is disputing that. But on this level and scale? Do you really think the Afghani people are going to be terribly gratefull?  Do you think they view the invading army as a stabalizing force?

Or do you think perhaps that there is a reason the Taliban recruitment rate has skyrocketed since the invasion? Do you think that perhaps the fighting will just rage on till the invaders leave? If a forgein army invaded your country, blew up all your infrastructure and homes, killed many of your friends and family, then set up for the long haul (After saying time and again they would leave soon) and told you it was for your own good, would you think of them as friends or enemies?

It's a fucked up situation, but invading made it worse. Staying made it worse. And it will continue to deteriorate untill certain countries realise that they perhaps don't know what is best for the rest of the world. And that their involvement doesn't always make things magically better.

[Nikov]

Here's a video for y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNiR3elmul8

[fenrif]

Here's a video for y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNiR3elmul8

Saying the country was stable 40-50 years ago is pointless when the current young generations have known nothing but war and fighting their entire lives. Just because they had tourists there decades ago doesn't mean the country hasn't drastically changed since then.

The interviewer says "the president of Afghanistan is a bandit, the war cannot be won, there is nothing for the US to gain there, it doesn't end well"

To which the guy replies "well we did D-day... So there!" Which answers none of the points posed to him.

When even someone who is (I assume) a proponent of the war in Afghanistan cannot come up with a positive ending to the conflict, it's kind of telling.

[C4lv1n]

Fenrif, you're assuming that we declared war on Afganistan, we didn't, we declared war on the Taliban, and I'm not delusional to think that we're only bombing the Taliban. And where are you getting your information and statistics? We don't go and kill peoples families, unless they're Taliban. The Taliban is also probably the greater cause of your 66, 64, and 60 percent statistics, and it was probably pretty much the same before.

Our involvement has made things better, way better than if we let the Taliban do whatever they want.

I'll say it again, where do you get your infromation? I get mine from the best source, the people fighting and dieing so less fortunet people can live a bit better.

EDIT:: Something I forgot to mention, they are very grateful, greatful enough that they don't want us (At least us Canadians) to leave in 2011, something that we are doing because of uneducated people like yourself, and anyone else not wanting us to be involved.

Leaving now would be spitting in the face of every person that has died in this war. The families of dead soilders have said that they want the military to stay, so their sons and fathers haven't died in vain. And if we stay, and fix this, they won't have.