Originally Posted by Kepi

So then why hasn't collateral damage been a particularly important issue ever? Especially when we talk about Clinton era bombing campaigns which were pretty much all collateral damage, but also both Bush wars where more non-involved non - combatants died than 9-11? They weren't even under the Al Qaeda banner because there isn't one as Al Queda was never a country.

All indications really point to "we don't care about people in the abstract".

But the people are individuals in the concrete and generalizations of the abstract are not much use.
The Bush invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan were terrible mistakes . We can debate/discuss , but these are now history . You speak for youself when you say 'we' don't care about people. You do not speak for me.

Originally Posted by Kepi

But that wasn't the intent of the attack. Osama Bin Laden himself said he thought he was only going to take out the top 5 floors of the WTC buildings. Now, if his goal was kill count, he would have aimed those planes at grid lock traffic on interstates right next to the buildings he paid to have attacked. So why not attack the interstates?

Because this attack wasn't motivated to change political attitudes in the US. They don't want to do anything with the west, they want political influence in the Middle East. They wanted to gain influence and recruits in the Middle East by attacking western symbols. 9/11 wasn't this declaration of war on the US by AQ, it was a recruitment video by AQ to draw in people with anti-western sentiment.

Now when you look at 9/11 from our perspective, we didn't respond with such fervor and intensity because a lot of people died. You didn't see a massive campaign to stamp out Christian Identity groups or Neo-Nazi groups after Oklahoma City. Why not? He killed a lot of people.

The reality is simple. We didn't really care about the people. We don't have the capacity to really humanize individuals on that level. If we did, we'd be losing our minds all the time. They attacked our symbols. That's what whipped the then Boomer masses into a psychotic tantrum. It had nothing to do with the people. It was a fight over symbols, over a visual.

The response was largely symbolic as well. We sacrificed billions of dollars and a whole lot of lives, and a lot of leg room in our civil liberties to do something that could have more effectively been managed by good law enforcement and/or a small, very surgical military strike. We did what didn't have to be done, at a deplorable cost, to appease a generation of adult children who want their public theater to be maintained at all costs.

This isn't about terrorism, or geo-political power, it's a post modern fight about image, symbols, and negotiating meaning on our side. The things that have to do with reality? They're tangential.

O. M. G.

An apologist for Osama Bin Laden.

You sir, are beyond despicable.

You don't negotiate with terrorists - you kill or capture them.

Try making your bleeding heart liberal "Its all America's fault" speech to the victim's families and see if you make it out alive.

Or better yet, just leave, leave this nation that you obviously hate so much and go join ISIS and see if they support your liberal views.
You wanna apologize for them, go join them - I DARE YOU!

Originally Posted by Kepi

So then why hasn't collateral damage been a particularly important issue ever? Especially when we talk about Clinton era bombing campaigns which were pretty much all collateral damage, but also both Bush wars where more non-involved non - combatants died than 9-11? They weren't even under the Al Qaeda banner because there isn't one as Al Queda was never a country.

All indications really point to "we don't care about people in the abstract".

Today's version of collateral damage is nothing compared with even 20 years ago. But it gets hyped, in order to smear the US.

Originally Posted by radind

But the people are individuals in the concrete and generalizations of the abstract are not much use.
The Bush invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan were terrible mistakes . We can debate/discuss , but these are now history . You speak for youself when you say 'we' don't care about people. You do not speak for me.

Actually, I remember protesting our continued involvement in Iraq in 2000 after having watched cruise missiles hit a hospital, among other civilian targets. That's multiple missiles with a near perfect accuracy hitting a hospital. I don't believe I saw you there. There wasn't much of anybody there. See, the news media has been told what they can and can't show on TV in order to continue getting briefs from the Pentagon and they follow lock step.

The most common response, even in free wheeling 2000 was that we were unamerican for "supporting the enemy". Because, you know, hitting hospitals with cruise missiles us totally understandable. When I say we, I mean the populace.

Originally Posted by takascar2

O. M. G.

An apologist for Osama Bin Laden.

You sir, are beyond despicable.

You don't negotiate with terrorists - you kill or capture them.

Try making your bleeding heart liberal "Its all America's fault" speech to the victim's families and see if you make it out alive.

Or better yet, just leave, leave this nation that you obviously hate so much and go join ISIS and see if they support your liberal views.
You wanna apologize for them, go join them - I DARE YOU!

Apologist, no. Someone who understands that you have to understand a situation before you stick your nose in and commit to failing for 13 years, yes. You can cry or bark or whatever it is you think you're doing for the rest of your life because it makes you feel good about yourself, but you'll keep on pushing for failure, because you're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle: terrorists aren't a nation state, they're just common criminals.

Treating them like a nation state leads that group or others like it to be treated like a nation state by everyone, and that creates groups like ISIS. So congrats, buddy, you and I created the fundamental regional instability that culminated in ISIS. Do you think, collectively, we can beat these guys without further destabilizing the region? I sure don't, because we never have. It's a 100 year old cycle of failure.

Personally, I don't think we should continue throwing ourselves into an arena we can't win in. If you can't win, you bow out. There's no point in trying. We've proven for 100 years that we can't win in this region of the world. That's fine, let's take our ball and go home.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Today's version of collateral damage is nothing compared with even 20 years ago. But it gets hyped, in order to smear the US.

When you have the accuracy that we do on our weapons, that's because it starts to look intentional.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Actually, I remember protesting our continued involvement in Iraq in 2000 after having watched cruise missiles hit a hospital, among other civilian targets. That's multiple missiles with a near perfect accuracy hitting a hospital. I don't believe I saw you there. There wasn't much of anybody there. See, the news media has been told what they can and can't show on TV in order to continue getting briefs from the Pentagon and they follow lock step.

The most common response, even in free wheeling 2000 was that we were unamerican for "supporting the enemy". Because, you know, hitting hospitals with cruise missiles us totally understandable. When I say we, I mean the populace.

I have already said that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
However, when you are in a 'war' ( actually there has no real WAR since WWII), even with very precise weapons, there is always the possibility of inaccurate targeting. So, in these wars there will likely be collateral damage. The only way to prevent any collateral damage is to stay out of all wars( Until your survival is at stake).
And yes, even though I was opposed to this 'war', I still continue to support our military.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Apologist, no. Someone who understands that you have to understand a situation before you stick your nose in and commit to failing for 13 years, yes. You can cry or bark or whatever it is you think you're doing for the rest of your life because it makes you feel good about yourself, but you'll keep on pushing for failure, because you're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle: terrorists aren't a nation state, they're just common criminals.

Treating them like a nation state leads that group or others like it to be treated like a nation state by everyone, and that creates groups like ISIS. So congrats, buddy, you and I created the fundamental regional instability that culminated in ISIS. Do you think, collectively, we can beat these guys without further destabilizing the region? I sure don't, because we never have. It's a 100 year old cycle of failure.

Personally, I don't think we should continue throwing ourselves into an arena we can't win in. If you can't win, you bow out. There's no point in trying. We've proven for 100 years that we can't win in this region of the world. That's fine, let's take our ball and go home.

Might be a good idea. Except that we have stirred up this region so much in the last 100 years, that it will come to our shores and attack us now even if we leave them alone. And taking our ball home would also have to include leaving Israel to defend itself, which Americans seem notably unwilling to do (especially since Jewish voters in Florida have the power to decide presidential elections).

Originally Posted by Kepi

When you have the accuracy that we do on our weapons, that's because it starts to look intentional.

Accuracy in delivery is not accuracy in target selection. I wonder how that target was selected? Was it some guy working the night shift at an air base in New Mexico, picking a spot from a sat-feed and saying, "Yeah, that's it!"?

ETA: After posting, I noticed that radind already made the point, but this is my added $0.02.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Accuracy in delivery is not accuracy in target selection. I wonder how that target was selected? Was it some guy working the night shift at an air base in New Mexico, picking a spot from a sat-feed and saying, "Yeah, that's it!"?

ETA: After posting, I noticed that radind already made the point, but this is my added $0.02.

Actually, just north of Vegas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creech_Air_Force_Base

Originally Posted by radind

I have already said that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
However, when you are in a 'war' ( actually there has no real WAR since WWII), even with very precise weapons, there is always the possibility of inaccurate targeting. So, in these wars there will likely be collateral damage. The only way to prevent any collateral damage is to stay out of all wars( Until your survival is at stake).
And yes, even though I was opposed to this 'war', I still continue to support our military.

Anytime two military forces engage in battle multiple times intentionally, that's a war. Calling it anything less is childish semantics. I'm not saying any and all war is warrantless, but we haven't been in one that was warranted since I've been alive. Also, let's point out that at no point have we been in a war where we were actually defending ourselves, which is the whole point of our military. So when I see the effects of the Kosovo bombings, or that 77% of casualties in Iraq were civilian, or that we've dropped nearly 1,000 tons of depleted uranium shells on Iraq and since then birth defects have sky rocketed, and then I see my friends come home and they have PTSD, and I read about the connections between DU shells and Gulf War Syndrome and I have to say that this is not an issue of whether one supports their own military, this has to do with what conditions it is ethical to deploy the military knowing this is precisely what they do.

The job of the military is destruction, and sometimes that's necessary, but the idiot children running this country have decided that we should toss that force around any time someone casually decides they want to.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Accuracy in delivery is not accuracy in target selection. I wonder how that target was selected? Was it some guy working the night shift at an air base in New Mexico, picking a spot from a sat-feed and saying, "Yeah, that's it!"?

ETA: After posting, I noticed that radind already made the point, but this is my added $0.02.

If it were a one time affair, I'd agree, but it's far too regular to be anything but either intentional behavior or total incompetence. It's one thing when you have technological or logistical limitations, and I expect to see a certain amount of civilian casualties, but the rate were are still seeing them at it doesn't strike me as within the realm of reasonable, especially with the fairly casual reasons were willing to go to war for.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Might be a good idea. Except that we have stirred up this region so much in the last 100 years, that it will come to our shores and attack us now even if we leave them alone. And taking our ball home would also have to include leaving Israel to defend itself, which Americans seem notably unwilling to do (especially since Jewish voters in Florida have the power to decide presidential elections).

When any of these nations have a navy large enough to stage an invasion, as opposed guys carry rifles, I might be concerned about an attack, but generally, this is fear mongering. Same with Israel. They're the most well armed military in the region. They really don't need is holding their hands. If they're a government that's worthy of surviving, they'll survive.

Originally Posted by Kepi

When any of these nations have a navy large enough to stage an invasion, as opposed guys carry rifles, I might be concerned about an attack, but generally, this is fear mongering.

They seemed to have done some damage on 9-11, remember?

Same with Israel. They're the most well armed military in the region. They really don't need is holding their hands. If they're a government that's worthy of surviving, they'll survive.

I agree; my only point here is that it's unlikely that the USA will adopt this policy. And so we're trapped.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Anytime two military forces engage in battle multiple times intentionally, that's a war. Calling it anything less is childish semantics. I'm not saying any and all war is warrantless, but we haven't been in one that was warranted since I've been alive. Also, let's point out that at no point have we been in a war where we were actually defending ourselves, which is the whole point of our military. So when I see the effects of the Kosovo bombings, or that 77% of casualties in Iraq were civilian, or that we've dropped nearly 1,000 tons of depleted uranium shells on Iraq and since then birth defects have sky rocketed, and then I see my friends come home and they have PTSD, and I read about the connections between DU shells and Gulf War Syndrome and I have to say that this is not an issue of whether one supports their own military, this has to do with what conditions it is ethical to deploy the military knowing this is precisely what they do.

The job of the military is destruction, and sometimes that's necessary, but the idiot children running this country have decided that we should toss that force around any time someone casually decides they want to.

I have thought this way many times in my life, and have seen wars and support for military actions that were unnecessary before your lifetime as well. However, there's a lot to be said for multi-lateral forces enforcing some kind of international law and order and ending genocides. That's what was done in Kosovo, so on balance that was a good war. Arguably, the 9-11 attacks needed to be defended against. There may well be times, as in the case of the IS, where ruthless oppressors are invading other lands and destroying the life of whole peoples, and need to be stopped by coalitions, to which international forces give aid and support. If Americans and our allies are only concerned about defending their own national borders, what kind of a world will it be? It's a good question of how far to extend this doctrine, to be sure.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They seemed to have done some damage on 9-11, remember?



I agree; my only point here is that it's unlikely that the USA will adopt this policy. And so we're trapped.

9-11 was not military action, therefore does not warrant a war, never did, never will.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have thought this way many times in my life, and have seen wars and support for military actions that were unnecessary before your lifetime as well. However, there's a lot to be said fr multi-lateral forces enforcing some kind of international law and order and ending genocides. That's what was done in Kosovo, so on balance that was a good war. Arguably, the 9-11 attacks needed to be defended against. There may well be times, as in the case of the IS, where ruthless oppressors are invading other lands and destroying the life of whole peoples, and need to be stopped by coalitions, to which international forces give aid and support. If Americans and our allies are only concerned about defending their own national borders, what kind of a world will it be? It's a good question of how far to extend this doctrine, to be sure.

Eric, you realize there was no genocide in Kosovo, right? There was unsubstantiated rumors of genocide, which we were all to eager to believe, and then we just started lobbing bombs like the ignorant apes we've become. There was mass displacement of people engaged in a very complicated political and ethnic conflict, which was their own conflict, and in perverse hopes that it was a genocide so that we just arbitrarily decided to stick our noises in and start bombing.

So pretty much I think our allies really are pretty much only looking out for their interests, as our we. Especially considering the state of Kosovo today, which is more or less a giant human trafficking hell hole surrounding a U.N. police state which perpetuates the conditions if it being a human trafficking hell hole.

We pick sides rather arbitrarily, we're prone to investing ourselves emotionally into someone else's shrill and extreme rhetoric without actually investigating after the fact, we prop up questionable regimes, then act like we had nothing to do with the creation of said regimes because we are far too eager to get involved in other people's conflicts. Looking at our own hemisphere, we're still dealing with dictatorships and cartels we were fundamental in creating because we are not good judges of other people's politics, nor are we particularly ethically sound ourselves.

Genocide is an affront to the whole of humanity. It is never a legitimate part of any armed struggle.

ISIS must die!

Originally Posted by Kepi

Anytime two military forces engage in battle multiple times intentionally, that's a war. Calling it anything less is childish semantics. I'm not saying any and all war is warrantless, but we haven't been in one that was warranted since I've been alive. Also, let's point out that at no point have we been in a war where we were actually defending ourselves, which is the whole point of our military. So when I see the effects of the Kosovo bombings, or that 77% of casualties in Iraq were civilian, or that we've dropped nearly 1,000 tons of depleted uranium shells on Iraq and since then birth defects have sky rocketed, and then I see my friends come home and they have PTSD, and I read about the connections between DU shells and Gulf War Syndrome and I have to say that this is not an issue of whether one supports their own military, this has to do with what conditions it is ethical to deploy the military knowing this is precisely what they do.

The job of the military is destruction, and sometimes that's necessary, but the idiot children running this country have decided that we should toss that force around any time someone casually decides they want to.

The first role of a strong military is to ward off or discourage attacks. Destruction may be required , but this not the primary job. The Korean Conflict was probably warranted.
-In my opinion the retalliation strike after 911 was warrranted. I agree that the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were not warranted and counterproductive.
My view is that a strong military can prevent most wars( or at least prevent military attacks on the USA). Nothing can prevent all terrorists attacks, but a strong response might ward off some of these.
Call it whatever you please , I also support the air strikes on ISIL. The Islamic countries should provide the ground troops.

Originally Posted by Kepi

9-11 was not military action, therefore does not warrant a war, never did, never will.

911 deserved a response and the initial US response was justified. ( You call that response a war, but I don't)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Genocide is an affront to the whole of humanity. It is never a legitimate part of any armed struggle.

ISIS must die!

The sooner, the better.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Eric, you realize there was no genocide in Kosovo, right? There was unsubstantiated rumors of genocide, which we were all to eager to believe, and then we just started lobbing bombs like the ignorant apes we've become. There was mass displacement of people engaged in a very complicated political and ethnic conflict, which was their own conflict, and in perverse hopes that it was a genocide so that we just arbitrarily decided to stick our noises in and start bombing.

I don't "realize" any such thing. I saw the reports and heard first-hand accounts of brutal killings of Kosovars by Serbians under Milosevic, a war criminal. I saw the wholesale refugee evacuations. For sure, Milosevic was attacking the Kosovars. The USA helped stop this genocide.

Those who deny the genocide now happening in Syria by Assad and the IS are similarly deluded.

So pretty much I think our allies really are pretty much only looking out for their interests, as our we. Especially considering the state of Kosovo today, which is more or less a giant human trafficking hell hole surrounding a U.N. police state which perpetuates the conditions if it being a human trafficking hell hole.

What substantiated info do you have on this? I have heard nothing about Kosovo being a "human-trafficking hell hole perpetuated by the UN police state." What does this mean?

We pick sides rather arbitrarily, we're prone to investing ourselves emotionally into someone else's shrill and extreme rhetoric without actually investigating after the fact, we prop up questionable regimes, then act like we had nothing to do with the creation of said regimes because we are far too eager to get involved in other people's conflicts. Looking at our own hemisphere, we're still dealing with dictatorships and cartels we were fundamental in creating because we are not good judges of other people's politics, nor are we particularly ethically sound ourselves.

Who is "we"? It depends on the specific people in power in America who make these decisions. Blanket statements amounting to "my country is always wrong" are not likely to be accurate.

Originally Posted by Kepi

9-11 was not military action, therefore does not warrant a war, never did, never will.

What it did warrant, was action to apprehend the criminals who perpetuated this crime. This apprehension would have to be carried out by multi-lateral allied military forces; who else? It also arguably justified attacking the Taliban government because they were supporting and harboring these criminals and refused to hand them over. Our NATO allies supported this action on the basis of "an attack against one is an attack against all." Another state that harbors these terrorists, a state consisting of the former Al Qaeda in Iraq, has now been set up. So, arguably, this justifies actions against it.

Look guys, when this all degenerates into yet another quagmire, I'm sure that you'll all be able to come up with a million and a half defenses for yet another episode of the endless parade of failure that is the Boomer political legacy. Just remember, I totally told you so.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Look guys, when this all degenerates into yet another quagmire, I'm sure that you'll all be able to come up with a million and a half defenses for yet another episode of the endless parade of failure that is the Boomer political legacy. Just remember, I totally told you so.

That works both ways. But it probably is good time for a Time-out. Then we can review when more data is available.