|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 26, 2010 22:08:57 GMT -4
I'm just wondering what people think about this. I'm very confused and can't take a side right now . . . are there shades of grey here?
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 26, 2010 22:54:20 GMT -4
The military says they need to keep certain things classified. I'm sure they have good reasons for some of this. This is after all a war. I don't want to be anti-military. I want to make that very clear.
On the other hand, things like civilian deaths being covered up, I don't like that. One of the leaked documents suggests that four Canadian soldiers who are officially listed as being killed by enemy action were really killed by friendly fire from Americans instead. Don't Canadians have a right to know how our soldiers were killed?
See why I'm confused?
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 26, 2010 23:20:14 GMT -4
I'm confused too, Laurel. I support the Afghan war, and I understand that some things have to be kept secret, but I think we deserve to know the truth about certain things.
I don't like to hear that one of our allies might very well be supporting the enemy, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2010 1:48:50 GMT -4
A wiser man than me once said "War is hell." There has never been anything like a clean war, when it gets down and dirty things happen that no one can be proud of. The US learned a leason in Veitnam, letting peoiple know everything results in a loss of support and the loss of the war. This time they can't afford to lose, because if they do, we all do too.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 27, 2010 10:51:17 GMT -4
I'm just wondering what people think about this. I'm very confused and can't take a side right now . . . are there shades of grey here? Civilian casualties are unfortunate but they happen. There's two reasons for this - the "fog of war" where non-combatants are mistakenly targeted due to faulty intel or just plain mistakes and the enemy's penchant for operating among these civilians. The "friendly-fire" incidents mentioned happen in every war and while tragic it's inevitable due to that same "fog of war." Pakistan has always played both sides. Their intel agency was involved with the Taliban from the get-go. I think the leaking of this info was irresponsible. After all, what good can come from it? However, the suppression of civilian and/or friendly-fire fatalities is also wrong IMO. It undermines the Afghan mission and gives the false impression that we know we are wearing the black hats. Why else hide stuff like this, eh? Actually what it really has to do with is concern over what people here, there, and around the world think. It's playing politics with our men and women in uniform, plain and simple. Folks that think we are evil-doers will think that no matter what and suppressing info only makes their arguments more believable. If the US and it's allies are to prevail they have to make it clear to the world what & why things happen and go after the enemy without "rules of engagement" that limit their options in a combat situation. Guerrilla wars can be won but not without the stomach to do what's necessary while demonstrating that our mission has specific goals and innocent lives are sometimes lost. Sad thing is I don't think we'll do that. The Taliban will just reemerge when we inevitably leave and all those lives lost will be for nothing. It sucks. If you ask me - and you didn't  ..... We should have just nuked the Tora Bora mountains back in late 2001 and been done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 27, 2010 13:02:26 GMT -4
I know friendly fire incidents happen in every war. I just think people have a right to know whether someone was killed by friendly fire or enemy action. And I think maybe there is some legal precedent for disclosure of such information. There was the 2002 friendly fire incident where an American pilot named Harry Schmidt dropped a bomb on Canadian soldiers, killing four of them and injuring eight others. He had been told to hold fire and he didn't. He was reprimanded, fined, and not allowed to fly anymore. His letter of reprimand was released to the media and he sued the Air Force for ruining his reputation by releasing the letter. The" judge said, "The competing public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs Schmidt's privacy interest. The release of Schmidt's reprimand gave the public, in the United States, and around the world, insight into the way in which the United States government was holding its pilot accountable. Thus considering all of the circumstances, the disclosures at issue were clearly warranted." Or is this an apples and oranges comparison? www.breakingnews.ie/world/judge-rules-against-friendly-fire-pilot-329087.htmlSince Pakistan was one of the only three countries to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government prior to 2001, I'm not at all surprised to hear that they're still helping the Taliban. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2010 14:38:02 GMT -4
We should have just nuked the Tora Bora mountains back in late 2001 and been done with it. Am I the only person who has always found this attitude horrifying? I wouldn't even have wanted to be the one to make the decision about Hiroshima (which is not intended as a statement about whether or not it should have been done), but the issue there was much more involved. What would have happened had we nuked those mountains was that we would have been killing unknown numbers in revenge for a few thousand. And that's what it would have been--revenge. Bringing someone to justice is one thing. A grand gesture like that is quite another. And we think people dislike America because of its throwing its military weight around now! |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2010 15:38:57 GMT -4
And we think people dislike America because of its throwing its military weight around now! Actually I think throwing our military weight around is a convenient excuse to dislike us for most anti-Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 27, 2010 18:27:42 GMT -4
Simple minds like simple answers. The real world is very complex.
I have really mixed feelings about the wikileaks. Classified information is classified for a reason. It might be OVERclassified, but who am I to judge? The analyst who classified it had reasons for the level and declass given to any information. I processed classified messages in the air force and there were messages that were clearly not for public consumption, but some were just routine communications that were blanket-classified regardless of content.
During nazi war crimes trials people plead not guilty, by reason of following orders. As soldiers, we're required to follow any legal order given. But what the heck do we know about the Geneva convention, and how does the grunt on the ground know what repercussions an action will have?
By releasing the documents in question the entire world has been given the actions of the US in Afghanistan to review, as well as many other incidents involving the other players.
The Delusional Idiots have of course decided that wikileaks is just disinformation, because the founder described the 9/11 conspiracies as "a distraction."
|
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 27, 2010 19:01:14 GMT -4
We should have just nuked the Tora Bora mountains back in late 2001 and been done with it. Am I the only person who has always found this attitude horrifying? I wouldn't even have wanted to be the one to make the decision about Hiroshima (which is not intended as a statement about whether or not it should have been done), but the issue there was much more involved. What would have happened had we nuked those mountains was that we would have been killing unknown numbers in revenge for a few thousand. And that's what it would have been--revenge. Bringing someone to justice is one thing. A grand gesture like that is quite another. And we think people dislike America because of its throwing its military weight around now! I concede I haven't met too many people that have actually agreed with my "nuke him" notion, but most have no problem with killing the SOB on the spot. My way we'd be sure we got him instead of playing the games we did at the time which allowed him to escape. We also wouldn't have needed boots on the ground. So you think a lot of innocents would die with him if we deposited a low-yield nuke in the vicinity of where he was hiding? I don't. The Afghan people, as a rule, don't live or hang out much in caves in the Tora Bora mountains and anyone that was even near Bin Laden in the aftermath of 9/11 probably was/is in cahoots with him. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2010 19:13:59 GMT -4
Yes, because the caves are all that would be hit, and not villagers in the region. And there is essentially no populated region on Earth without innocents.
And you know what? Big fan of the rule of law, here. Killing him on the spot is foolish for a whole host of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 27, 2010 19:24:06 GMT -4
Simple minds like simple answers. The real world is very complex... You can think I have a "simple mind," that's your purview, but this simple mind sees nothing "complex" about killing the SOB that killed thousands on our own soil. Making something "complex" when it didn't have to be is why we are stuck in a quagmire called Afghanistan almost 9 years later. |
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 27, 2010 19:27:13 GMT -4
Yes, because the caves are all that would be hit, and not villagers in the region. And there is essentially no populated region on Earth without innocents. And you know what? Big fan of the rule of law, here. Killing him on the spot is foolish for a whole host of reasons. Well, I know he did it and I'd kill him myself if I could. You'd do the "rule of law" thing. Guess we look at this differently huh? |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2010 21:37:32 GMT -4
Imagine if everyone treated every situation with "kill the SOB."
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 28, 2010 6:37:04 GMT -4
Imagine if everyone treated every situation with "kill the SOB." Well there'd be less cutting in line.... |
|
.....
