It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US accused of using 'illegal' white phosphorus in chemical attack that killed Afghan civilians

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 

munkey, I've read many of your posts, and I wish to God I could be that misinformed about how things really work.

No, you completely misunderstand the principle of war.

War is killing your enemy in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can. When you kill enough, the other side quits.

Another way of stating this is that war is two sides killing each other until one side is incapable of killing further, or unwilling to die further.

The purpose in war is victory, not persistence.

The more ruthless and bloody on the front end, the quicker it's over. The more "polite" and careful the war, the longer the war, and the greater total deaths on both sides.

Another way of saying that is:

Unlimited war means limited suffering. Limited war means unlimited suffering.

You don't have to like this, and you personally, certainly won't believe it, but this is the absolute truth.

It's ugly, it's brutal, and done properly, requires absolute ruthlessness.

To do it any other way is to create many more deaths, and much more suffering.




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   



I care and I am with you on all the things that would make this a better country for your children. I think you have exaggerated all the changes. You should look forward with hope, speak your mind, and be aware that we could all be free and safe, with minimal inconvinience.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Dooper says it better than I do.

Thanks Dooper.

It is rather mind boggling at times, having to argue basic war . . . then the pity card comes in.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The latest on the commander's removal with a bit more meat in the story.

U.S. Replaces Commander in Afghanistan in War Overhaul

www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is replacing the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, less than a year after he took over, marking a major overhaul in military leadership of a war that has presented President Obama with a worsening national security challenge.

Defense officials said that General McKiernan was removed because of what they described as a conventional approach to what has become one of the most complicated military challenges in American history. He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander of the Joint Special Operations Command who recently ran all special operations in Iraq.

The decision reflects a belief that the war in Afghanistan has grown so complex that it needs a commander drawn from the military’s unconventional warfare branch.


Did the allegations of civilian deaths and burns from white phosphorus have anything do do with this?

Perhaps in part, and maybe there were other reasons as well?


One spot on his generally sterling military record came in 2007, when a Pentagon investigation into the accidental shooting death in 2004 of Cpl. Pat Tillman by fellow Army Rangers in Afghanistan held General McChrystal accountable for inaccurate information provided by Corporal Tillman’s unit in recommending him for a Silver Star.

The information wrongly suggested that Corporal Tillman, a professional football player whose decision to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks drew national attention, had been killed by enemy fire.


Curiouser and curiouser.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 

Walks, I can assure you that this event had nothing to do with the change of command.

For years now, our dumbass generals have been using conventional troops and conventional tactics in an unconventional war.

The fact that they are bringing in a man with a background in unconventional forces and unconventional warfare is to properly address a badly needed change.

How do you know when you're doing it wrong?

When year after year, you find yourself in the same or worse postion.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 

Walks, I can assure you that this event had nothing to do with the change of command.


Can you now?

What credentials and/or qualifications can you offer here to back up that assurance?

Barring your life changing revelations here, I would maintain that for now it is a very incredible coincidence.

On about the 5Th of this month the General was being praised for his work and leadership, then these attacks followed by demands that they stop from the Afghan President, and a heck of a lot of bad press and he is now at this time being removed for other reasons eh?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Dooper you don't know me my friend. I don't have the time or inclination for the macho routine either.

You question people's information, intelligence and motives.

They reply, you ignore, to go on to your next little tangent, and deflect the fact that you failed to prove your point in the post you first assail people with questioning their information, intelligence and motives.

It's a lot of hot air and a lot of nonsense and frankly you act and pretend like you have been in the thick of everything from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan and I don't believe you have been.

I probably know far more about military strategy, history, tactics and doctrine than you.

I have met a lot of fine respectable young men and women who come out of the military minus all the bravado and venom, unbridled hate, and passion for aimless wanton destruction.

There is a difference between a soldier and a killer and a killer and a murderer, and the only thing I think you have ever murdered besides your charachter and good name is maybe a fly or two by pulling off their wings.

They don't take section 8 material in the military son, at least not in the U.S. Military.

You pretend like the Constitution and protecting America means something to you, frankly the only thing that means anything to you is your endless obsession with violence without end.

It's your only focus on every thread war related or not.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

No, you completely misunderstand the principle of war.

War is killing your enemy in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can. When you kill enough, the other side quits.

Another way of stating this is that war is two sides killing each other until one side is incapable of killing further, or unwilling to die further.

The purpose in war is victory, not persistence.

The more ruthless and bloody on the front end, the quicker it's over. The more "polite" and careful the war, the longer the war, and the greater total deaths on both sides.



This is absolute foolishness; a view of war that has been outdated since 600 BC.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Sun Tzu, and his famous The Art of War?




For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.





In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.



Your childish conception of war, calling for the efficient killing of as many as possible, is eerily reminiscent of the third reich's strategy in taking over Europe.

You forget that 99% of Muslims are not terrorists, nor are they associated with terrorist regimes.

You forget that this is not a real war, only a prolonged conflict under the guise of a "peace-keeping" operation.

You do not understand that the true goal of war is to subdue an enemy, and prevent losses. The goal of war is not to simply kill as many as possible.

Your gradeschool interpretation of war leads me to believe that you in fact have never served in the armed forces, let alone studied military doctrine. If you have in fact served, then it is truly frightening how efficient the military is in brainwashing its subjects into bloodthirsty compliance.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Since it was written in the Art of War it must be the only way to fight and win a war.

I guess those bombs we dropped on Japan had nothing to do with them signing the treaty.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by jd140]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Your're right. I don't know you, nor would I ever want to.

The fact that you've met a large number of fine young men and women of the military does not equate with being able to somehow assimilate some of their knowledge by your near proximity.

Let's face it. It pisses you off that you have no direct knowledge or experience in the military arts, and it shows. Your suggestion that you know more about military history, strategy, tactics, and doctrine than me, is without any discernable merit.

Blow that smoke on school children. They'll likely get all wide-eyed in wonder and maybe even believe you. I've seen military leaders like you. To hear them tell it, they were all-knowing. On paper.

But when required to get their pompous asses in the field, they fell apart almost instantly. They couldn't lead, they couldn't actually fight, and they found their guts locked up with fear. They simply weren't up to the task.

Theory and practice are different. A lot different.

Forgive me if I discount your concepts, but they run directly contrary to the principles of warfare, practiced with success by the Masters of Warfare, without fail, since 1479 BC. You'd know that if you were half the student of military history you claim to be.

Forgive me for not bowing to your superior postulations of intelligentsia, which fail time and again. You guys never learn. Hell, you already know it all.

Your nebulous ideas about killers, soldiers, and murderers are fine for theoretical discussions as hair-fine academic exercises, but gee, how many times were you acting as a soldier? And how many times acting as a soldier, due to sudden circumstances, were you compelled to transition from soldier to killer?

And how many times in the fury born out of the desperation of the moment, did you resort to what a third party may consider to be murder?

So, how many scalps have you taken?

This world is not like most sections of the US, and it's far from the secure, serene settings found behind fences and gates monitored by security. No. In most parts of the world, violence is a very real currency.

You either have it, or you don't. You obviously don't. But to sit behind your fence and criticize efforts you know nothing about is complete foolishness.

Oh. The section 8 comment. I would expect you to claim something like that because you don't understand it. It's beyond your comprehension, therefore it must be aberrant.

Odd.

Those times I behaved most "badly," I was decorated for valor.

And it seems to just chap your butt that others here on ATS have actually walked the walk.

And you can only talk the talk.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

War is killing your enemy in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can. When you kill enough, the other side quits.

Another way of stating this is that war is two sides killing each other until one side is incapable of killing further, or unwilling to die further.

The purpose in war is victory, not persistence.

So you are saying that the only way to win this war is to carpet bomb the entire country and kill every last man woman and child, because your enemy is not a country, it is not a political party, it is a belief.

I will repeat the question.
"who is it that has to surrender?"



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Once again Dooper, all your talk is like a bad day with Clint Eastwood and someone who's had a little too much sun and forgotten to pack any water.

Your justification of war and bloodshed is disgusting and people like you will do nothing to contribute towards a hopeful peace at the end of the day.

Your vietnam stories may impress some people, but not me.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Since it was written in the Art of War it must be the only way to fight and win a war.

I guess those bombs we dropped on Japan had nothing to do with them signing the treaty.


Dropping bombs on Japan was horrific. If you are defending those actions because they "won the war" (the war was basically over by that point), then you are a poor excuse for a human being.

We're lucky that we were the only ones with nukes back then. If we tried that # today it would be the end of the world.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   






I don't care how many military men and women those who have never served talked to. I don't care how many books they have read and studied. Those who never participated in this type of thing will never understand it.

That is why these "historians" want to talk about it and try to understand it and those who have done it just want to leave what they did behind them. They understand that it was bad and cannot understand why someone would want to write a book about it or ask someone in the military what it was like.

Thats how I feel anyways.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nammu
 



Originally posted by Nammu
The 'this is a war get over it' comment sickens me. Perhaps some day you will realise why when a war hits your country if you're ever unlucky enough to have your sister, brother, father and mother blown to smithereens by those noble soldiers just for being in their own homes and doing nothing. But hey, they're expendable aren't they? This is war and it's unavoidable. Do you think that will comfort you when you're crying at their funeral? I don't think it will at all.


No matter how many times you repeat your allegation that the US intentionally targets civilians, it does not make it true. Nobody is buying it.

Casualties occur. And civilian casualties in Afghanistan are the responsibility of the Taliban who use civilians as shields, and their homes as storage bunkers.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Your premise is a load of crap.

You pull one quote from one man, and yet you didn't quote anything from Vegetius, Heraclitus, Herodotus, Jomini, Wavell, Montague, Riggs, Suvarov, Napolean, Marlborough, Fuller, Lawrence, Thucidides, Grant, Sherman, Clausewitz, Churchill, Cicero, Patton, McArthur, Li Quan, Alexander, Jia Lin, Erasmus, Rommel, Forrest, Euripides, Frederick, Fischer, Watson, Zhang Yu, Machiavelli, Solon, Cao Cao, Meng Shi, Li Quan, Ho Yanki, Chung-ho-chi, Du Mu, Mencius, Johnson, Valilyevich, Zhuge Liang, Caesar, Mei Yaochen, Halsey, or Xenophone, just to name a few.

You have the balls to quote Sun Tzu? And then make this assumption?

How about we look at some other things Sun Tzu said?

"The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or ruin. Hence, under no circumstances can it be neglected."

Doesn't sound like he declared war over, now does it?

"A skilled attack is one against which opponents do not know how to defend; a skilled defense is one which opponents do not know how to attack. Therefore those skilled in defense are not so because of fortress walls.

That is why high walls and deep moats do not guarantee security, while strong armor and effective weapons do not guarantee strength. If opponents want to hold firm, attack where they are unprepared; if opponents want to establish a battlefront, appear where they do not expect you."

Doesn't sound like he's suggesting that war is now over either, does it?

"If you can strike the few with many, you will thus minimize the number of those with whom you do battle."

Start reading.

Geez.

Sudden experts.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 

munkey, you really need a course in reading comprehension.

At exactly what point did I suggest carpet bombing?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Since it was written in the Art of War it must be the only way to fight and win a war.

I guess those bombs we dropped on Japan had nothing to do with them signing the treaty.


Dropping bombs on Japan was horrific. If you are defending those actions because they "won the war" (the war was basically over by that point), then you are a poor excuse for a human being.

We're lucky that we were the only ones with nukes back then. If we tried that # today it would be the end of the world.


Thanks for the insult.


The fact is that it won the war. It brought them down to their knees when before they didn't care how many of their soldiers were killed, how many of their planes they crashed into our navy boats and how many civilians they snatched to replinished their troops.

I don't regret our actions on that day one bit.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I would never set out to impress you.

Crossdressing was never one of my things. I never even understood it.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


drwizard would rather incur a million American casualties and untold millions of Japanese casualties, rather than dropping the bombs.

The peace pansies love death and destruction, and apparently, the more death and destruction, for the longest of durations, is what they desire the most.

More were killed during the 81 days of fighting for Okinawa, than both bombs together killed.

The difference?

The killing stopped. Right there.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join