U.S. soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians

ZHawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: You know what you misunderstand. War is hell, the idea of war is to break things and kill things, and although we may constantly modernize the way we do that, nothing changes the basic rules. And that's human nature, built in, genetic and all the philosophizing and utopian platitudes will not modify the truth. It's only politicians (who try to use war to give an advantage to their grabbing power and money) and ideologues (who have spirited discussions in coffee shops or Occupy encampments) that think otherwise. The politicians are dangerous, the ideologues are just annoying.

I misunderstand nothing. You misunderstand everything. Where was it posted that war isn't hell, that the idea of war isn't to break things and kill things? It wasn't. Until you stop your inane attempts to "politicize" everything and giddily laugh while trying to blame Obama and his administration for the savage act(s) of an obviously mentally deranged individual (be it from PTSD or some other root cause that made that person snap), your argument(s) have been, and will continue to be, invalid.

It IS Obama's fault.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: You know what you misunderstand. War is hell, the idea of war is to break things and kill things, and although we may constantly modernize the way we do that, nothing changes the basic rules. And that's human nature, built in, genetic and all the philosophizing and utopian platitudes will not modify the truth. It's only politicians (who try to use war to give an advantage to their grabbing power and money) and ideologues (who have spirited discussions in coffee shops or Occupy encampments) that think otherwise. The politicians are dangerous, the ideologues are just annoying.

I misunderstand nothing. You misunderstand everything. Where was it posted that war isn't hell, that the idea of war isn't to break things and kill things? It wasn't. Until you stop your inane attempts to "politicize" everything and giddily laugh while trying to blame Obama and his administration for the savage act(s) of an obviously mentally deranged individual (be it from PTSD or some other root cause that made that person snap), your argument(s) have been, and will continue to be, invalid.

It IS Obama's fault.

Is NOT, is TOO, is NOT, is TOO, is NOT, is TOO, is NOT. Having fun with that? Your argument(s) continue to be invalid.

Afghan killings bring the war to presidential campaign debate

Three days before the Republican presidential primary in Ohio, Mitt Romney was campaigning in Dayton when a woman stood up to ask a question that pointed to one of the most important missing debates of Campaign 2012, and to a widening division in the GOP over a critical foreign policy issue.

Vicki Chura said her daughter was on her second tour in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division. She said her daughter was increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity of the U.S. mission there and desperately wanted to come home. What would Romney do as president to expedite the withdrawal of U.S. forces?

The economy is and probably will continue to be the dominant issue in the campaign, but the shooting rampage Sunday, allegedly by a U.S. soldier, that killed 16 Afghan civilians could push the Afghan war into the political debate.

The killings may or may not be a shock to the political system. At a minimum, they are likely to raise uncomfortable questions, particularly for President Obama, the architect of the current policy, but also for the Republican candidates. Even for those out of power, Afghanistan provides no easy answers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

The Washington Post friends... the tide is turning. Obama owns this and I'm thrilled.

ZHawke wrote: In my opinion, violence begets violence. It's a vicious cycle. The Soviet Union found that out on an epic scale in Afghanistan prior to our involvement. Why didn't we learn from their mistake(s)?

Violence does not always beget violence. Limited violence is what prolongs conflicts and ensures that no resolution is found - particularly in areas that are tribal in nature. Our violence against Germany and Japan was not limited violence and today there is no violence between any of us. Having utterly conquered them both, and then willingly withdrawing after seeing to it that they were no longer interested in continued violence and allowing them to govern themselves once again, our mistake is in not adhering to this formula and attempting to use a limited amount of violence to accomplish this same end. That has yet to achieve the desired result regardless of where it has been attempted be it Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The British used limited violence against us once upon a day as well, and our unwillingness to submit to that limited violence is what allowed us to defeat them. Lincoln used unlimited violence to subdue what he called renegade States and it was only a willingness by those States to cease in their violence that brought about an end to Lincoln's use of it himself.

Bottom line is this. Unless you are willing to engage in unlimited violence you have no business using infantry troops for limited violence; you will lose if you try just as every effort to use limited violence has failed in the past. This is the lesson that we were supposed to have learned in Korea and Viet Nam; limited use of violence accomplishes nothing of permanence, only the unlimited use of violence in pursuit of total defeat is capable of achieving that end. Limited use of violence would not have resulted in victory over the British, over the States which were seeking to leave the union, over Germany or over Japan. If we were indeed willing to unleash unlimited violence in retaliation for the violence done on 9/11 a resolution of some permanence may have been possible, but we are as of yet unwilling to engage at that level, which only ensures that more violence will be done in the years to follow.

This is nature's law and it must be followed. The lead wolf must either kill his challenger or be challenged again for dominance of the pack by that same challenger in the future; and there will come a day when it is he that is killed in the challenge or must withdraw hoping to survive and challenge again in the future. The bull elk, who seeks only to drive off his challengers, must drive them off every year until he is no longer able to do so and he himself is driven off. Sows must be willing to kill to protect their cubs - if they only drive the marauder off, they face the distinct possibility of having to defend their cubs from that same marauder later. This is nature's law, not man's. Limited violence has limited effects, both in substance and duration. Man can't change nature's laws no matter how hard he may try. He is subject to those laws, not the author of them.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: In my opinion, violence begets violence. It's a vicious cycle. The Soviet Union found that out on an epic scale in Afghanistan prior to our involvement. Why didn't we learn from their mistake(s)?

Violence does not always beget violence. Limited violence is what prolongs conflicts and ensures that no resolution is found - particularly in areas that are tribal in nature. Our violence against Germany and Japan was not limited violence and today there is no violence between any of us. Having utterly conquered them both, and then willingly withdrawing after seeing to it that they were no longer interested in continued violence and allowing them to govern themselves once again, our mistake is in not adhering to this formula and attempting to use a limited amount of violence to accomplish this same end. That has yet to achieve the desired result regardless of where it has been attempted be it Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The British used limited violence against us once upon a day as well, and our unwillingness to submit to that limited violence is what allowed us to defeat them. Lincoln used unlimited violence to subdue what he called renegade States and it was only a willingness by those States to cease in their violence that brought about an end to Lincoln's use of it himself.

Bottom line is this. Unless you are willing to engage in unlimited violence you have no business using infantry troops for limited violence; you will lose if you try just as every effort to use limited violence has failed in the past. This is the lesson that we were supposed to have learned in Korea and Viet Nam; limited use of violence accomplishes nothing of permanence, only the unlimited use of violence in pursuit of total defeat is capable of achieving that end. Limited use of violence would not have resulted in victory over the British, over the States which were seeking to leave the union, over Germany or over Japan. If we were indeed willing to unleash unlimited violence in retaliation for the violence done on 9/11 a resolution of some permanence may have been possible, but we are as of yet unwilling to engage at that level, which only ensures that more violence will be done in the years to follow.

This is nature's law and it must be followed. The lead wolf must either kill his challenger or be challenged again for dominance of the pack by that same challenger in the future; and there will come a day when it is he that is killed in the challenge or must withdraw hoping to survive and challenge again in the future. The bull elk, who seeks only to drive off his challengers, must drive them off every year until he is no longer able to do so and he himself is driven off. Sows must be willing to kill to protect their cubs - if they only drive the marauder off, they face the distinct possibility of having to defend their cubs from that same marauder later. This is nature's law, not man's. Limited violence has limited effects, both in substance and duration. Man can't change nature's laws no matter how hard he may try. He is subject to those laws, not the author of them.

Please, help me get this straight - you appear to me to be describing "degrees of violence" while advocating "unlimited" violence on the premise that tribal societies are "uncivilized" and need to be virtually bombed into oblivion before they "get it" based on your posit that "this is nature's law and it must be followed"? OH...........MY...........GOD!!!!!!! :faint:

Also, PS, please explain how limited violence is not violence.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Afghan killings bring the war to presidential campaign debate

Three days before the Republican presidential primary in Ohio, Mitt Romney was campaigning in Dayton when a woman stood up to ask a question that pointed to one of the most important missing debates of Campaign 2012, and to a widening division in the GOP over a critical foreign policy issue.

Vicki Chura said her daughter was on her second tour in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division. She said her daughter was increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity of the U.S. mission there and desperately wanted to come home. What would Romney do as president to expedite the withdrawal of U.S. forces?

The economy is and probably will continue to be the dominant issue in the campaign, but the shooting rampage Sunday, allegedly by a U.S. soldier, that killed 16 Afghan civilians could push the Afghan war into the political debate.

The killings may or may not be a shock to the political system. At a minimum, they are likely to raise uncomfortable questions, particularly for President Obama, the architect of the current policy, but also for the Republican candidates. Even for those out of power, Afghanistan provides no easy answers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

The Washington Post friends... the tide is turning. Obama owns this and I'm thrilled.

The key takeaway: The economy is and probably will continue to be the dominant issue in the campaign....

And it's not just "where is the economy now?", but "what does someone new propose that hasn't already been done?"

JSG wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Afghan killings bring the war to presidential campaign debate

Three days before the Republican presidential primary in Ohio, Mitt Romney was campaigning in Dayton when a woman stood up to ask a question that pointed to one of the most important missing debates of Campaign 2012, and to a widening division in the GOP over a critical foreign policy issue.

Vicki Chura said her daughter was on her second tour in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division. She said her daughter was increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity of the U.S. mission there and desperately wanted to come home. What would Romney do as president to expedite the withdrawal of U.S. forces?

The economy is and probably will continue to be the dominant issue in the campaign, but the shooting rampage Sunday, allegedly by a U.S. soldier, that killed 16 Afghan civilians could push the Afghan war into the political debate.

The killings may or may not be a shock to the political system. At a minimum, they are likely to raise uncomfortable questions, particularly for President Obama, the architect of the current policy, but also for the Republican candidates. Even for those out of power, Afghanistan provides no easy answers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

The Washington Post friends... the tide is turning. Obama owns this and I'm thrilled.

The key takeaway: The economy is and probably will continue to be the dominant issue in the campaign....

And it's not just "where is the economy now?", but "what does someone new propose that hasn't already been done?"

That's YOUR takeaway... the GOP takeaway is " At a minimum, they are likely to raise uncomfortable questions, particularly for President Obama, the architect of the current policy, but also for the Republican candidates. Even for those out of power, Afghanistan provides no easy answers." The GOP can add this Obama foul up to the growing list of Obama failures.

Good luck with that.

After Vietnam, I don't know why we thought Afghanistan would be any different for us, after other countries had tried and failed there... just like Vietnam.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. And we did.

Yeah, I'm sure we all remember how Obama put us there... Oh, wait... Nope, it was one of Bush's unnecessary wars.