Jump to content

Reality vs Idealism For Those Who Stood On the Sidelines..


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

You've never voted for a D so remind the class about your nonpartisanship 👍

I voted Republican up til 2000. Now I am straight 3rd party. Because well you know.. the 2 are both the same... 

So I am in fact participating, just not how you would like because I dont double down on failure. 

Edited by Anler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

:lmao: Nope and you're too stupid to comprehend the topic :bc: 

You are a massive hypocrite and you're too stupid to see it. You're the proverbial low watt light bulb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f7ben said:

There is no war.....we are bombing civilians. It has to end

as long as there are known terrorists, or terrorists training in a certain area, I'm all for bombing the shit out of them. but, every measure should be taken to eliminate civilian casualties. if some civilians knew some things about what was going on, too fucking bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Democrat bombs someone and kills innocent civilians it's okay because they were trying to protect the country.

If a republican bomb someone and kills innocent civilians it's not okay because they were trying to protect the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Democrat bombs are specifically designed to kill only terrorists.

Republican bombs don't have a conscience like Democrat bombs do.

is carpet bombing the same as precision guided bombs?

 

 

Edited by Snoslinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

poor noggin. how do you think this would go over?

"citizens of the US, this is the POTUS. yesterday we were hit with a dirty bomb that killed thousands, known to have been made at a training camp in jihadville. yes, it's true we knew about it beforehand, but i choose to do nothing. if we leave these terror groups alone, this carnage will eventually stop. so please bear with me, continue voting for me, and we will get through this"

and you nimwits call us loons? my god.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

poor noggin. how do you think this would go over?

"citizens of the US, this is the POTUS. yesterday we were hit with a dirty bomb that killed thousands, known to have been made at a training camp in jihadville. yes, it's true we knew about it beforehand, but i choose to do nothing. if we leave these terror groups alone, this carnage will eventually stop. so please bear with me, continue voting for me, and we will get through this"

and you nimwits call us loons? my god.

 

Lol, buying into the neocon narrative does nothing for your position. 

Totally tone deaf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

 I have no problem with collateral damage. Its of their own choosing.  IF you don't wont to get blown up, don't habitate with someone that the worlds biggest military wants dead. Quite simple. Don't want none, don't get none. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

The reality is @f7ben and @motonoggin pouted on the sideline and have not offered any viable solutions.  Do we stop?  If so will there be an increase in civilian deaths and atrocities at the hands of those we are targeting?  Careful measures were taken under Obama to minimize the casualties of civilians and those very measures that were increasingly effective are being rolled back by Dump.  Unless you can offer viable solutions that reduce/eliminate casualties  - not simply by walking away as there will be an increase from the hands of those we are targeting - then your complacency has led to an increase of civilian casualties which you seem consumed by while you pretend both sides are the same.  You can bask on fantasy island and feel as though you have no culpability but the reality is,far different from your idealism.  

Moto=?7 Momo = Momo = Creeeper = Doe Dumber = Woolie = Snake etc - you are one in the same 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 hours ago, SnowRider said:

The outrage over Obama's bombs and the new reality of Dump:

 

Donald Trump's Presidency Is Only 10 Months Old, But New Data About His Airstrikes Is Alarming

By Steven Feldstein  On 10/13/17 at 8:39 AM 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

When President Donald Trump took office in January, it was unclear whether the bombast from his campaign would translate into an aggressive new strategy against terrorism. At campaign rallies he pledged to “bomb the hell” out of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). He openly mused about killing the families of terrorists, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits violence against noncombatants.

Ten months into his presidency, a clearer picture is emerging. The data indicate several alarming trends.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

According to research from the nonprofit monitoring group Airwars, the first seven months of the Trump administration have already resulted in more civilian deaths than under the entirety of the Obama administration. Airwars reportsthat under Obama’s leadership, the fight against ISIS led to approximately 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths. Through the first seven months of the Trump administration, they estimate that coalition air strikes have killed between 2,800 and 4,500 civilians.

Researchers also point to another stunning trend—the “frequent killing of entire families in likely coalition airstrikes.” In May, for example, such actions led to the deaths of at least 57 women and 52 children in Iraq and Syria.

The vast increase in civilian deaths is not limited to the anti-ISIS campaign. In Afghanistan, the U.N. reports a 67 percent increase in civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes in the first six months of 2017 compared to the first half of 2016.

The key question is: Why? Are these increases due to a change in leadership?

Delegating war to the military

Experts offer several explanations.

One holds that Trump’s “total authorization” for the military to run wars in Afghanistan and against ISIS has loosened Obama-era restrictions and increased military commanders’ risk tolerance. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations notes: “Those closer to the fight are more likely to call in lethal force and are less likely to follow a value-based approach.”

In other words, an intense focus on destroying ISIS elements may be overriding the competing priority of protecting civilians. Because Trump has scaled back civilian oversight and delegated authority to colonels rather than one-star generals, the likely result is higher casualties.

 

10_13_Iraq_MosulSmoke billows following an airstrike in the Old City of Mosul as Iraqi government forces battle Islamic State (ISIS) group jihadis, on July 8. Fadel Senna/AFP/Getty 

Urban battlefield?

A second explanation points to the changing nature of the counter-ISIS campaign. The Pentagon contends that the rise in casualties is “attributable to the change in location” of battlefield operations towards more densely populated urban environments like Mosul and Raqqa.

This is a partial truth. While urban warfare has increased, Trump’s team has substantially escalated air strikes and bombings. According to CENTCOM data, the military has already used 20 percent more missiles and bombs in combined air operations in 2017 than in all of 2016. One notable airstrike in March, for example, killed 105 Iraqi civilians when U.S. forces dropped a 500-pound bomb in order to take out two snipers in Mosul. In fact, a Human Rights Watch analysisof bomb craters in West Mosul estimates that U.S. coalition forces are routinely using larger and less precise bombs—weighing between 500 and 1,000 pounds—than in prior operations. Finally, the urban battlefield explanation also does not account for increased civilian deaths in Afghanistan from airstrikes, where the environment has remained static for several years.

Pressure from the president

A third explanation of higher civilian casualties is that aggressive rhetoric from the president is inadvertently pressuring the military to take more risks and to deprioritize protecting civilians.

As former Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski observes: “If your leaders are emphasizing the high value of Raqqa and Mosul, while saying less about the strategic and moral risks of hurting civilians, it’s going to affect your judgment.” Words matter, especially coming from the commander-in-chief. In the face of such aggressive rhetoric, it should not come as a surprise that military officers feel encouraged – if not indirectly pressured—to take greater risks.

Unfortunately, the increased trend of civilian casualties is unlikely to diminish. In fact, signs abound that the White House is developing a new set of policies and procedures that will authorize more sweeping discretion to the military. In September, The New York Times reported that White House officials were proposing two major rules changes. First, they would expand the scope of “kill missions” and allow for the targeting of lower-level terrorists in addition to high value targets. Second – and more notably—they would suspend high-level vetting of potential drone attacks and raids.

These changes represent a sharp about-face. The Obama administration carefully crafted a deliberate set of rules guiding the use of force. In 2013, Obama released the Presidential Policy Guidance for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets (PPG), which created specific rules for determining when the use of force against terrorists was legally justified.

Then, in 2016, Obama issued an executive order on civilian harm that established heightened standards to minimize civilian casualties from military actions, and required the public release of information pertaining to strikes against terrorist targets.

While the latest actions from the Trump administration stop short of reversing Obama-era restraints, they are unsettling steps in the opposite direction. For example, it appears for now that the White House will preserve the “near certainty” standard, which requires commanders to have near certainty that a potential strike will not impact civilians. But this could change over time.

One senior official quoted in The New York Times article bluntly asserts that the latest changes are intended to make much of the “bureaucracy” created by the Obama administration rules “disappear.” As the White House dissolves the existing bureaucracy and relinquishes civilian oversight, Trump is embarking on a slippery slope that will potentially lead to major diminutions of civilian protection.

The current battle to take the Syrian city of Raqqa is emblematic of the stakes at hand. The U.S. is leading a punishing air war to soften ISIS defenses. In August, U.S. forces dropped 5,775 bombs and missiles onto the city. For context, this represented 10 times more munitions than the U.S. used for the whole of Afghanistan in the same month and year. The resulting civilian toll has been gruesome. At least 433 civilians likely died in Raqqa due to the August bombings, more than double the previous month’s total. Since the assault on Raqqa commenced on June 6, more than 1,000 civilians have been reported killed.

U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein cautions that the intense bombardment has left civilians caught between IS’s monstrosities and the fierce battle to defeat it. Zeid insists that “civilians must not be sacrificed for the sake of rapid military victories.”

Trump would be wise to heed this warning. Even as U.S. forces continue to turn the tide on ISIS, the trail of destruction left in the campaign’s wake is unsettling. The specter of massive civilian casualties will remain a rallying point for new terrorist organizations long after anti-ISIS operations conclude.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-presidency-only-10-months-old-and-new-data-his-airstrikes-alarm-684084?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp

Airwars?  :lol:  That's the source?  Do you realize how they count?  Just how exactly do you determine civilian casualties in a conflict like this?

Don't get me wrong I want us out of there completely but to claim they have an ability to accurately know who is and isn't combatants is laughable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Airwars?  :lol:  That's the source?  Do you realize how they count?  Just how exactly do you determine civilian casualties in a conflict like this?

Don't get me wrong I want us out of there completely but to claim they have an ability to accurately know who is and isn't combatants is laughable.  

Look at Dump's policies relative to the OP and ask yourself...more or less responsible and precise.... :lmao::lol::lmao: 

Hurry.....Dump enjoys you stroking him off :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Airwars?  :lol:  That's the source?  Do you realize how they count?  Just how exactly do you determine civilian casualties in a conflict like this?

Don't get me wrong I want us out of there completely but to claim they have an ability to accurately know who is and isn't combatants is laughable.  

is it the same group that counted previously? if so, it's all relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...