*DAMN R6 Forum

With the afganastan opperation coming to an end here, does anyone think that it was handled right? And what are peoples views on how the U.S should handle having to try thousands of al quida prisnors with almost no evidence - Just the fact that most of them are/were alquida? Even if they're all found guilty which is a possibility considering that all of the trials will use prettty much the same evidence, what should you do with them all? Do you think that the Afganastan opperation was done poorly, or that this was going to happen no matter what - or both?

The terrorism debate thread on p.14 or 15 covers this pretty well.

The entire thing was a ridiculous waste of resources and human life.  'nuff said

The biggest error is all the innocent civilians killed by Americans and their accidental misses on bombing.  We always manage to do it.  In Kosovo or wherever we hit the Chinesse Embassy and in Afghanistan we hit Red Cross buildings amoung others.

Not to mention that wedding.

I would have to say that with all things considered, this is a success minus not finding Osama Bin Laden. We took out the Taliban and installed a democratically elected government, we dealt a huge blow to al-qaeda, and we lost very, very few soldiers given the size of the operation. Yes, some things did go wrong. While we may have accidentally killed some civilians (or Canadians), these were accidents that frankly are always a part of war (well maybe not the friendly fire). I know everyone is going to go off on us for this, but it has ALWAYS happened and ALWAYS will. This is an unfortunate byproduct of war. Rather than blaming the country who is defending itself, blame the country that harbors terrorist bitches.

What I think is interesting is to see where we go from here. If/when we invade Iraq, what will be the outcome and who will support us.

Accidents are bound to happen Bondo...not every weapon is perfect nor is every pilot. The Chinese embassy bombing in Kosovo was dumb, but the Red Cross buildings that were bombed were bombed because they were taken over by the Taliban as storage facilities for munitions...also Anti-air missiles and guns were set up outside of them.

I agree with Ace's statement 100%.

As for the wedding thing, it was unfortunate that they planned a wedding at the site of an Anti-aircraft battery that had been firing at American planes on the hour for the previous two days leading up to the airstrike.

Sorry, but I'm not idealistic enough to think that war should be bloodless and that only the guilty die.

I look at it like this... compare civilian (and friendly forces) deaths in any other conflict.  Hell... 50 years ago, everyone was a target.  Remember that CITIES were bombed all to hell in WW2... and overrun and destroyed in just about EVERY WAR before that.  

We are getting better and better at not killing people that we (American / NATO military) don't want to... but it's still war, and people die.  It sucks yes, but it's true.

Here's another way to look at it... especially in IRAQ...  at least the US TRIES not to kill non-combatants...  Can that be said about the Iraq, Bosnian, Somolian or many of these other countries... where genoside is practiced (just not perfected)??  

And Loud, I respect you for hold true to your anti-war beliefs... but the question is, how many more lives would be lost if the US hadn't gone in there??  Do you think that the terrorist attacks would just stop??  Shrink or escilate??  

For those that think we should have just assinated Bin Laden... look at all the stores of weapons that were captured in this...  all the death that those would have caused if let loose...  does anyone think that if Bin Laden had died that these weapons would no longer be used??

Force, while never a good thing, is sometimes a necessary thing.  

Here's another good example for you.  If a nutball goes into a shopping mall, and kills 50 people with his trusty assult rifle... and a cop guns him down as he's taking aim on another crowd of fleeing victims... and the cop accidently takes out a small child as well as the asshole shooting... is the cop wrong?  Should he not have shot??  Should he have watched 20 more people die in order to not risk that little child's life??  Sure, it would be great if he didn't have to make that choice... or if he didn't miss... or lots of things.  But, in my opinion, he has to take that shot.  Because those 20 lives, and who knows what else, are worth more then the risk.  If you agree with that statement, then just increase the scale and you have perspective.

Sure, what happened in Afghanistan is more like going back to the guys hideout, and he lives in an apartment building that's filled both with other very bad men and lots of innocents....  but it's the same thing.... if they don't go in after him, how many more would he kill later?

I am not against war in all instances, only most. ?And in your hypothetical example, the cop did nothing wrong - he was right to take the shot - but still, he should have had a little more target practice first. ;)

And the reason I don't think this war was justified is that I think the risk of further terrorist attacks was and still is overestimated. ?Al-Qaeda in particular is no more dangerous to us than any other splinter group - they were merely the (un)lucky ones who caught us when we were complacent. ?The damage done was terrible, but this administration has used it as an excuse to promulgate our belief systems into unwilling nations.

Al-Qaeda could have been neutralized or so carefully monitored that they would be ineffective without a war on Afganistan. ?

How many more people could bin Laden kill? With a well-executed intelligence or special forces mission or two, zero. ?Full-fledged war was unnecessary - and that's the bloodshed I object to.

I for one dislike the new imperialism of the US...simply because we have the power to push other nations around does not mean we should exercise it. ?It leads only to the formation of new groups who hate us and will try to destroy us. ?

Example -


How is that a good thing? ?Perhaps democracy is better for us, but that we assigned it to Afganistan is not good for them. ?Democracy doesn't work when it's not desired in the first place. ?However, since Afganistan is now a US colony, they don't have a choice.

I speak figuratively of course - but I don't understand why this country thinks it can just attack any nation that harbors terrorists. ?For those nations, their terrorists are the (much smaller) equivalent of our nuclear arsenal. ?It's their only weapon, their only leverage, and for us to demand that they be removed is unilateralist and ridiculous. ?We may not like Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, etc., but why are we destroying them? ?Do we just sit around and wait for the next 9.11 so that we can have the moral high ground long enough to attack another nation?

Instead of all that, perhaps we could work at the source of the problem, and try to act less like a desirable target for Jihad - a country that no one wants to blow themselves up to harm.

The US setting up goverments all over the place or overthrowing them is what makes the terrorists attack us.  We could do two things, fight back with force which will give them reason to keep attacking us as we are not truly defensible.  We can't protect everything.  In this scenario we will suffer, and that is what is in progress.

The other solution is that we fix our foreign policy problems, stop enforcing our system of beliefs and politics on people who don't want them and the attacks would stop much quicker and we would be safe.

First, you overestimate our ability to monitor people that live half a world away, in a remote country. ?This isn't Enemy of the State. ?I don't think we could monitor Al-Qaeda near close enough to be secure.

As for a specail forces mission or two... I laugh. ?First, have you seen pictures of the arms stores that we captured and didn't even know were there?? ?Could you imagine special forces making it through those caves alive if they hadn't been bombed first? ?They've been looking for Bin Laden for years... and they couldn't find him with a full out war... what makes you think they could counter him with less?


Ok, let's look at that for a second. ?If the US were to start firing off it's nuclear weapons at say..... South Africa.... without warning or diplomacy.... we just decided to nuke em... don't you think someone should come and take those weapons away from us?? ?If Isreal or China or India fired off a nuke at the US... would war be justified then? ?The difference you didn't make was that these nations with these terrorist "weapons" are USING THEM. ?

On another note... we didn't INSTALL a government, we RESTORED the last internationally recognized one. ?It's not the same thing.

So here's a question for you Bondo and Loud... Should we not honor our treaties?  When a country asks for our help, should we say no?  

If two neighbors on your block are fighting... who are you going to side with??  The ones you agree with?  The ones that you don't?  Or are you forever going to close your window shades and ignore it??  (you aren't allowed to move in this situation).  

Put all the other crap aside... just think human nature.  If you don't want to be complete isolationalists.... then you have to pick a side.  You are always going to pick the side that sits better with you (either morally, or because you get something else out of it).  It's human nature.  

Odd, I didn't realize we had any treaties with Afghanistan.  A less extreme way for the US to help itself is to stop being Unilateral.  If we work as one many countries in the UN and NATO and not the #1 country that will do what it wants regardless of what others think, then we take less blame for anything that is disliked.  If the UN decides to do something we help out, if they don't then we leave it alone.

With Afghanistan... nope... with Kuwait.. yep. ?We have treaties with many countries... other countries ask for help... we should deny them all?

Two reasons I disagree with you on the UN thing.... ?First, the UN can't seem to get it's head out of it's ass. ?They are worse then Congress when it comes to getting things done. ?Where was the UN when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan? ?Where were they when Iraq invaded Kuwait? ?Where were they when Iraq was killing off all the northern tribesmen?? ?The UN is mostly impotant.
Second, we are our own nation. ?We have the right to make up our own mind on what we think should be done. ?If the UN disagrees with us... then let them sanction us. ?Belonging to the UN doesn't mean that we give up the rights as a nation to use our power or influence. ?

Hell, even when the UN steps in, it's usually half assed.

Not that I think the US forign policy is great or anything... but it's better then the UN's.

As for NATO.... I see Canadians and Brit's over in Afghanistan.... where are the rest of them?  According to treaty they should all be there...  Where are they standing together??
?

Grifter, you're ignoring the fact that the US is bullying just because it can.  Britain and Canada have trade and foreign policies so intertwined with ours that they have no choice but to follow our lead.

The rest of NATO, the majority of it, I might add, has chosen not to make war on Afganistan, because its not the right thing to do in the first place.  Why aren't canada and britain and the US joining with the rest of NATO?

And Grift - maybe I shouldn't have compared it to nuclear weapons.  But the US uses military deterrent all the time.  These nations have only their terrorism.  It's not justified, but it's their only weapon.

Loud, Canada and Britain are not forced to help us out at all. They do so because they think it is the right thing to do. You think if they didn't send forces over we would cut trading with them or something? It's preposterous. We wouldn't be happy, but ultimately they have been allies and good friends for so long nothing would come of it. As for the rest of NATO, if you remember correctly, NATO was basically formed with us in the lead. Sugercoat it however you wish, NATO was an alliance of nations who would help us because we had saved their ass from being Nazi colonies. You should think of it as why the rest of NATO wasn't joining with us, not the other way around.

As for these nations using terrorism as their only weapon, you even say it's not justified. Since it's not justified, we must do whatever we can to stop it and protect ourselves. Yes, that means being selfish bastards as you would probably say and attacking and killing Al-qaeda and/or Taliban fighters because the safety and lives of our civilians are more important ultimately.

Loud, I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with you.

Britin and Canada are also upholding their end of the NATO alliance. ?The US was attacked... NATO is supposed to act together on this. ?France never has (they are pretty useless to NATO as far as that goes). ?If the rest of NATO doesn't want to uphold it's side of the bargin, then it's time to disolve NATO (or at least do some house cleaning). ?And Britin's economy is just as tight or more tightly bound with that of Europe. ?So I don't agree with you about them just being there because they have to.

Loud, you don't think we should have gone in to Afghanistan... I disagree. ?I've stated clearly why. ?Without taking out Al-Qaeda supplies and forces, I don't think they would have stopped, or even slowed down. ?They brought the fight to us, so we took it back to them. ?That's not being a bully, it's taking care of yourself.

I don't agree with your premise that the US is being a bully... I see reasons for all the military actions. ?Give me a reason to think it's just because we can....

BTW, terrorism has killed more innocent people then nuclear bombs have....  so I think that terrorism is just as bad, eh?

Wait...how many people has terrorism killed?  I want to know where your numbers are coming from here.

Well, nuclear bombs have probably killed a quarter million people, but they've only been around for less than a century.  I'd say that is more than terroism has killed in that same period.

excuse me while i laugh my ass off. u INSTALLED a democratically ELECTED government? does "contradiction in terms" mean anything to someone?

What is a terrorist, how can you distinguish a terrorist from a freedom fighter. Britain said that the American militiamen were a bunch a terrorists. We say that Al Queada are terrorists. Others say we are terrorists. Any how I agree with Grifter 50% and loud 50%. I agree we (you, gets confusing with dual citizenship) should be in Afghanistan. US also gave an ultimateum to the Taliban. The taliban could have retained their hold on power if they gave the US Osamma bin Laden. We did not set out to destroy the Taliban they did it to themselves. But then again who is the United States to call people terrorists. Because they do not beleive in democracy church and good ol american apple pie is that what makes them terrorists. Is it those that bomb innocent people. If  you want to talk about bombing innocent people than what is the the thing with Iraq about. They have not harmed us. One looess the moral high ground when you do a premptive strike. We could possibly exploit Sadamm instead of conquer him. Remeber what Ronnie Reagan said about Sadaam, "He is an asshole, but he is our asshole" We can impose sanctions on him, we can kick him from the U.N. and block Aid further but unless he attacks us or one of our allies then we do not have moral highground to attack him. What will you base your attack off of? That he has chemical and nuclear weapons. Then lets bomb India and Pakistan, they are on the brink of nuclear war. Lets stop it before it happens. Destroy China Destroy Russia they got nukes and they also have anthrax. They are a possible threat. ANy how you see where I am going with this post?

also one should not fore democracy on to people. Afghanistan is not a case of this. Technically the Northern Alliance (mujahdeen) was a republic. It was a corrupt republic but still a republic.

Loud, I'm basing that on the fact that terrorism has been around for a very, very long time.  I'm not just talking about in the US or in the West... terrorism has whiped out villages in Africa...  Figure the IRA, and PLO have both killed thousands in their bombings...  people die to terrorists in Palistine and Isreal every week.  Poison gas was released in a subway in Japan years ago (thank goodness that terrorist group sucked at it)...  Cambodia... I'm not only counting the World Trade Centers or Oklahoma City...  Hell, lumberjacks die every year to eco-terrorists too.

Cossack, my personal idea of terrorism is the intentional slaughter of innocents... not military targets.  I personally don't consider the attacks on the Cole, the Marine Barraks in Beruit... even the sinking of the Main terrorist acts.  I consider those acts of War.  But those were military targets.  Bombing train stations and airplanes... killing athletes at the Olympics... blowing up buildings... poisoning water supplies.... spiking trees... those are terrorist acts to me.  

And I agree too... I'm not for us marching in and telling anyone else how to run their country, unless it is a true danger to us or the world.  Government methodology doesn't constitute the danger... but if India or Pakistan actually start firing off Nukes at each other... then it could justify getting involved.... The use of nukes is stupid and we should know better (we being the whole wide world).  So, just like in my gun argument... I don't think we can say anyone can't have them... but if they ABUSE them, they should (and I'm sure will) be punished.

And you are right... Democracy cannot be forced on anyone... it's impossible.  But most people confuse a Democracy and a Republic.  There hasn't been a true democracy since ancient Athens as far as I know.  

And the US didn't install that republic, they just restored the last internationally recognized government... I said that before...

The whole topic of the war on terrosim brings up something i said at the beginning of it all. I made a plan how we could easily take out Osama Bin Laden without the use of planes or any tactical weapons. I would have set it up this way. What we shoud have done is taken about 100 snipers and giving them food, water, a rifle, bullets, and nightvision goggles. We should place snipers on every mountain, hill, anything that provides cover and camped them there. Then at night when Osama has been moving we should have the snipers on full alert and shoot that fucker in the face. Easiest way. He wouldnt even see who shot him. It would be over just like that then we could move on to more important tragets such as the problem with Iraq and other terrorists in the Mid east. This idea may have worked but maybe not. But now we will never know.

Rebel out

U.S. foreign policy = primitive bullshit.

Headline: EU offers to step in if US move out of Bosnia

July 03 2002 at 06:43PM


Brussels - The European Union offered on Wednesday to take control of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia to prevent its collapse if last-minute talks with the United States failed to produce an accord on its future.

Negotiators had until midnight New York time on Wednesday to avert a US threat to veto the mission's renewal unless US peacekeepers are given exemption from the jurisdiction of a new global war crimes court.

Senior EU officials renewed their criticism of the US veto threat and reaffirmed their commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which came into force on Monday.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the EU was ready to speed up its timetable for taking over the 1 600-strong police mission run by the UN if the threat is carried out. Under present plans it is due to take charge of it next January.

'We will be ready to take the responsibility of filling the gap'"If the situation in the Security Council of the UN is such that the mission is over, we will be ready to take the responsibility of filling the gap until the moment when we had decided already to take it over," he told reporters in Brussels.

"I think we are in a position to accelerate the procedures if necessary," Solana said.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said he regretted the US opposition to the ICC.

"The EU fully supports the establishment of the International Criminal Court and sees it as a major progression in the development of international law," he told a news conference at the European parliament in Strasbourg, France.

"I deeply regret that differing views on this court threaten to jeopardise the whole peacekeeping role of the United Nations. A solution must be found to prevent this while also respecting the statute of the court," he said.

Washington wants the UN Security Council to pass a resolution placing US personnel overseas beyond the court's reach or adding language to each mission's mandate shielding US peacekeepers.

Speaking on a visit to Belgrade, the European Commissioner for External Relations Chris Patten said the 15-nation EU would not give in to US pressure to weaken the court.

"We think the ICC is the most important advance in international rule of law since the establishment of the UN and we are not going to allow anyone to water down our commitment to the principle," he said.

US envoys circulated a draft compromise text in the Security Council late on Tuesday, and hopes of a deal persisted as US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice met visiting Danish officials representing the EU.

The US proposal would give 12 months' immunity for crimes by peacekeepers from any country that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court. - Reuters      

I think it is a bit silly of us to expect to be beyond getting in trouble if we commit a war crime (as there were reports of being done in Vietnam at least).  So I think the UN or whoever it is that runs the war crimes tribunal would be smart to stand up to the US and say "No, we won't let you be held to different standards"...typical Americans are better bullshit.

hmm... first of all... anyone that's used a shotgun in a battle has technically commited a war crime (since shotguns were banned long ago... before the Spanish-American war I believe).  That would cover many countries as being guilty... including the US, since there were films of shotties in Vietnam.

Second of all.. maybe it's just America wanting a grandfather clause, because that's how I read it... and the previous post doesn't disagree with it.  

The US proposal would give 12 months' immunity for crimes by peacekeepers from any country that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court. - Reuters ?

Immunity for those that had not yet ratified the treaty... meaning that they haven't signed up for it yet.

Sounds to me like they just don't want to get charged for something that may have already happened.

That clipping was from Brussels... any reason to think it's any less jaded then the American press?

as i understand  this(they coverd this on the local news radio station) this court could  say that  thi court cold charge anyone for warcrimes, which include(if i remeber correctly) ' deragatory statements' made against combatants so in other words talkshow hosts could be in deep shit.
also
this would mean that if ever there were civilian casualties, american soldiers could be tried and convicted of warcrimes

and i dont even want to discuss how this court could be used as a crowarbar against the us if we take a stance that the europeans dont like

if you ask me, this whole thing is a very bad idea

There is a bunch around this issue that's not clear and a bit scarry... (just because too much power is something to always be worried about).  

One big question is... who makes up the laws that all these soilders are going to be held accountable to?  Because if I'm an American soilder (or even Canadian or any other).. I've agreed to uphold the laws of my country...  not of the UN.  

Lots of questions before I'd pass any judgement on it.

if i remember correctly, the laws are the standard warcrimes laws, but that's not what bothers me.
what i find particulary disturbing is that there is no mandate nor a timeline here. it they had a purpose, like say nuremburg(i just totaly slaughtered that) i wouldnt mind that much, it is the open endedness that bothers me in particular

Like I said, I'm too ignorant on the topic right now.  All I have is questions, time to do  some reading.

The United States is afraid that since it is the only remaining superpower in the world, lesser nations would try to take potshots at it by putting American troops on trial unfairly...despite these fears, no one that has ratified the treaty has yet mollified these fears.

Also as Grifter stated above, this new court doesn't mean shit for the US since the US hasn't signed it.

I haven't read anything about this outside the forum, but generally I would be opposed to this for reasons like Assassin and GRIFT state. We can take care of our own guys; we don't need other nations trying us for spitting on the wrong side of the street or whatever it may be. If they really have a problem with it, I suggest they try picking up all of the slack. Let's see how long they last.

I'm double posting cuz I can, but who is the fucking pansy who talks shit about the US but won't post his name?