I'm thinking that it either never happens to the Afghani's working with the allied forces, or they don't get reported because they are worth less than British or American soldiers.
I'm thinking that it either never happens to the Afghani's working with the allied forces, or they don't get reported because they are worth less than British or American soldiers.
Five seconds of searching tells me the answer is yes.
The apostrophes keep them safe.
Five seconds of reading your posts tells me you are an asshole. Live Long and Prosper.Quote:
Originally posted by Baldwin
From the link - bear in mind it is The Scum and they could be out either way by a factor of 10!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but IED's have been going for a long time haven't they? So, why with all the money the military can throw at it, have they not come up with a method to explode these devices before someone walks or drives over them?Quote:
It is believed around half the 265 British fatalities suffered in Afghanistan were caused by roadside IEDs.
One man's scum is another man's freedom fighter. Me, I tend to side with the invaded against the invader. Especially when the invaded have a long history of being invaded and when the invaders have a long history of aggression. But that's just me.Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Because things are not as simple as you wish they were? Because wishful thinking does not automatically lead to practical results?Quote:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but IED's have been going for a long time haven't they? So, why with all the money the military can throw at it, have they not come up with a method to explode these devices before someone walks or drives over them?
Do you have any ideas you would like to share with us or with American and British militaries?
The only idea I can offer if you do not want to get killed in Afghanistan is to stay the hell out of Afghanistan. It's simple, cheap and it works!
The Scum I was referring to, was The Sun news(ha!)paper. It's a pet name we more well-read Brits have for it.Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
Loads of them, but I wouldn't want to give any advantage to the enemy by disclosing them here.Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
It's a bit too late for that.Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
ps. The Scum views that sort of news headline as a "feelgood story".
I did not know that but the wording looked a bit odd for my interpretation so I might have thought twice.Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Really? You have loads of ideas and solutions which have elluded the militaries of the USA and the UK in spite of all their resources? Are you sharing them with such militaries and governments? Do you plan on cashing in on your ideas or will you donate them as goodwill? What makes you think the insurgents read this board or even get any of their tactics from the Internet?Quote:
Loads of them, but I wouldn't want to give any advantage to the enemy by disclosing them here.
It's never too late to get the hell out of Dodge. Never too early to stop throwing good money after bad and good lives after wasted lives. Never too late or too early to stop doing what is wrong and start doing what is right.Quote:
It's a bit too late for that.
The Vietnam war was clearly lost by 1969 but neither the American government nor the American people had the guts to face reality and so they continued the war for another six years in a vain attempt to not have to admit defeat. They continued to waste money and thousands upon thousands of lives in a hope that they would somehow justify what had already been wasted. In the end it was all for nothing. And now here we are again.
Smart people know when to fold but smart is in short supply these days.
I have an idea. We force march Afghanis down the street in colums and make them pick up any debris on the side of the road ahead of our boys. It's not the most palatable idea, but it would work.
As for why the military hasn't employed more anti-IED technology there is a fairly recent article here that describes some of the challenges involved:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...fghanistan-119
I hope you are not serious but just in case any fool takes this seriously I'll say that this is a crime which would immediately turn the Afghans and the world so fast against the USA that it would ensure a quick defeat for America.Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
From that article:Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Good luck keeping hundreds of miles of roads under surveillance 24/7. You might catch a few but cannot hope to catch most. Not to mention that it will lead to more "accidents". How do you know if a group by the road are planting an IED or taking a leak or repairing a broken-down vehicle.Quote:
Commanders are working to shift much of the coveted unmanned aircraft fleet from Iraq to Afghanistan to spy on people planting bombs,
This is a losing issue. $10 worth of explosives can blow up a vehicle and soldiers which cost hundreds of thousands if not millions. Just like America funded the resistance against the soviets, today there are too many countries who have an interest in keeping this resistance going.
Don't get involved in a land war in Asia.Quote:
In the meantime, the IEDs are wreaking havoc, killing and badly wounding Western troops and Afghans while piling pressure on the Nato-led mission.
With the carnage from the bombs undermining public support for the war on both sides of the Atlantic, some lawmakers in Congress say the military has to move faster.
The Pentagon has promised anti-IED programmes will produce results “soon” but the death toll keeps rising, said Representative Duncan Hunter at a congressional hearing on Thursday.
“We’ve been... told that since I got into office in January. ‘It’s going to be there soon, sir. It’s going to be there soon,’” said Hunter, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq.
“It isn’t there now. And we’re losing guys every day. So what are we going to do tomorrow to defeat IEDs so that we don’t have any more IED deaths?”—
UAV's combined with infantry/air have already proven to have great effectiveness in locking down regions. Nobody knows what 'accidents' you're referring to either, there are much greater requirements for calling in an air strike these days. I believe reports even indicate that the Taliban killed more civilians last year than the Allies did.Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
IED's are great weapons but they tend to blow up anything around them when they trigger, eventually civilians get irked about it.
I am not convinced and, in any case, if the locals want you out you may gain the upper hand briefly but this only makes matters worse with the locals. You think they like being controlled by foreigners? You think they like foreigners frisking and interrogating their women? It is a losing proposition all around. Ask the French how it went for them in Algeria and Vietnam.Quote:
UAV's combined with infantry/air have already proven to have great effectiveness in locking down regions.
I guess nobody reads the news any more. A google search for Afghanistan bombing error yields plenty of cites, including errors that resulted in killing Canadian forces, Red Cross, etc. Americans seem to be trigger happy. You think all the Afghan victims are going to forget that easily?Quote:
Nobody knows what 'accidents' you're referring to either, there are much greater requirements for calling in an air strike these days.
Just in the last few days, during Operation Moshtarak, there have been several "mistakes" that have resulted in the killing of civilians and for which American commanders have apologized.
And American forces complain they cannot defend themselves adequately. This is a catch22 situation. If you shoot first you kill civilians. If you wait they often kill you. You can't win.Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8527627.stm
22 February 2010
At least 27 civilians died in a Nato air strike in southern Afghanistan
America has said they are more careful with the bombings but this just shifts the problem to troops who are nervous and shoot first. Many such shootings may go unreported in the west but they sure get reported. It was the same in Algeria, Iraq, Vietnam. You cannot win. Those people have nowhere to go and we are occupying their country. We will get tired before they do.
I do not know if that is true but even if it was, a civil war is one thing, a foreign occupier another very different thing. they will have to settle their own scores but none of them want foreigners ruling them. The only thing they might all have in common is that they want the foreign invaders out of their land. They might use us for a while but that makes them traitors and they know it. In the long run we will see the heroes are those that resisted, not those who collaborated. Try to see how many collaborators are celebrated today in Vietnam or Algeria. Of course, at the time our governments tried to tell us that the Vietnamese or the Algerians really wanted us there and as proff showed a few corrupt collaborators. Those collaborators usually ended up dead because the imperialists would not even have the decency of taking them with them when things went south. They just abandoned them to their fates. As is happening in Iraq.Quote:
I believe reports even indicate that the Taliban killed more civilians last year than the Allies did.
It seems to me it is the Americans who are getting irked.Quote:
IED's are great weapons but they tend to blow up anything around them when they trigger, eventually civilians get irked about it.
What do you think they would rather endure, if asked - a) being frisked by foreigners until the country is no longer run by heroin warlords, or b) carry on being beheaded for not sporting a beard, and stoned for thinking about lipstick?Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
If they did not want their farmers growing heroin you might think they would get rid of it themselves. What makes you think Afghan farmers do not want to grow such a profitable crop? Again, America cannot control drugs in their own country and they want to control Afghanistan?
If history shows anything is that people prefer to be free to govern themselves, even if badly, than to be ruled by others. We have seen this everywhere in the world and Americans would feel no different. Do you think Americans would welcome any foreign government if they provided health care or good government in general? Anyone who thinks so does not have a clue. What makes you think other peoples are any different? Look at most of Africa. Do you see any country clamoring for colonial powers to return?
When Napoleon invaded Spain in the 19th century France was much more advanced and claimed they would bring social and scientific advances to Spain and make it better. A few Spaniards believed it and collaborated but the huge majority resisted and finally the French had to leave in spite of their calling the insurgents "terrorists" and committing all sorts of attrocities against them Immortalized by Goya). The collaborators had to leave with them. Today in Spain there are plenty of memorials to those who resisted and May 2, the day of the uprising in Madrid, is a holiday. How many memorials do you estimate their may be for the invaders? About zero is correct. I figure about the same number you will find to the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq in a few years time.
Go to India, go to China and you will find monuments and memorials to those who fought the invaders, not to those who collaborated.
Do you think ill-will towards America and the rest of the interfering west can get much worse, or do you reckon the coalition will finally go to far by going all out to kick the Taliban's arse, while we are still over there?
I am not sure I understand the question. Of course their ill will is dependent on how we behave. It does not have to get any worse, it just has to outlast us and I believe it will because as long as we are there they will want us gone.
Can America commit worse crimes? No doubt about it. Will they? I have no idea. I hope not.
Up until ten years ago I never would have believed America would start a war like Iraq or would condone torture or things like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib or Fallujah were possible. Now I make no predictions as to what America might or might not do but if history teaches us anything is that this kind of occupation generally does not end in the occupied people being happily occupied by foreigners. No matter how brutal the occupation it just turns worse for the occupier. I believe history will judge America harshly. I already do.
My phrasing was a bit clunky. I'll try again - seeing as the manpower and resources have already been committed, do you not think they may as well kill as many bad guys* as they can, before they leave?Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
Well, tbh, none of it surprised me.Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
So, do you think it is beyond the capabilities of the coalition - assuming they could ever read from the same page - to begin helping to build things that are useful to the Afghani's, on the off chance they might instill some good will before they pack their bags? ( I know some of this will be going on already, but it doesn't seem to be getting much airtime.)Quote:
Originally posted by sailor
* And they ARE "bad guys", because that is the nature of top level heroin dealers who hang out with known terrorists.
Insurgents are not terrorists. Opium producers arenot "bad guys", they are just farmers who grow a profitable crop. Opium production is *way* up since the Taliban were ousted. If you want to reduce opium production you need to put back the Taliban in power.Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
So opium money supports the insurgents? So what? American taxpayers support the invading Americans. Does that make every American taxpayer a "bad guy" responsible for the invasion and the killings?
It is this thinking of "killing bad guys" which gets America into trouble. Thinking that anybody who does not bend to their will is a "bad guy" and that you deal with bad guys by killing them.
Would you support a foreign invasion of your country if they built schools or gave away Mercedes cars? Look at Italy. They have dismally corrupt government at all levels. Do you think they would support a foreign invasion?Quote:
So, do you think it is beyond the capabilities of the coalition - assuming they could ever read from the same page - to begin helping to build things that are useful to the Afghani's, on the off chance they might instill some good will before they pack their bags? ( I know some of this will be going on already, but it doesn't seem to be getting much airtime.)