Pentagon confirms airstrike that killed more than 100 civilians

[kasuke06]

The hell is the point of becoming a soldier then? You sign up for the job then that's a very real threat you face. Should cops just never do anything either since their lives are at risk even with a basic traffic stop?

We have the technology and the capability to prevent their deaths. Or would you like it if your son/daughter came back in a box with a flag on it? "We could have used drone/airstrikes but decided to send them in to die because feelsies."

[Dug]

We have the technology and the capability to prevent their deaths. Or would you like it if your son/daughter came back in a box with a flag on it? "We could have used drone/airstrikes but decided to send them in to die because feelsies."

The only one using "feelsies" here is you with you dramatic "came back in a box with a flag on it". I didn't say all war should be conducted with boots on the ground but the argument of "why put our soldiers lives at risk?" is stupid as hell if they signed up for combat roles. We can't just never use boots on the ground again just because their lives are at risk. That's the job they sign up to do.

[Edge-]

What was the original plan? Take Baghdad before the end of Obama's regime? Seems that they failed miserably.

Fucking what? Where did you pull that from?

Are you just making shit up so you can throw some shade at Obama to try to defend Trump or something?

[nacixems]

collateral damage. it happens. move on,

[Deleted]

Fucking what? Where did you pull that from?

Are you just making shit up so you can throw some shade at Obama to try to defend Trump or something?

ParanoiD84 corrected it, I was thinking of Mosul. Makes it even more hilarious.
And I don't have to "throw some shade at Obama". He managed to do that himself.

[kasuke06]

The only one using "feelsies" here is you with you dramatic "came back in a box with a flag on it". I didn't say all war should be conducted with boots on the ground but the argument of "why put our soldiers lives at risk?" is stupid as hell if they signed up for combat roles. We can't just never use boots on the ground again just because their lives are at risk. That's the job they sign up to do.

and just hurl them into danger for the fun of it? If we can prevent our own soldiers from dying, then we should. if we actually NEED boots on the ground(say to actually hold a position or take a fortified one that can't be handled with simple aerial superiority) then by all means, charge in. But just throwing away lives because "oh they signed up for it!" is rock-fucking stupid.

[Dug]

and just hurl them into danger for the fun of it? If we can prevent our own soldiers from dying, then we should. if we actually NEED boots on the ground(say to actually hold a position or take a fortified one that can't be handled with simple aerial superiority) then by all means, charge in. But just throwing away lives because "oh they signed up for it!" is rock-fucking stupid.

That's what I am saying... that if our soldiers have to be there then that's the way it goes. We can't just never conduct ground operations again because it's risky was my point.

[Gimlix]

So any protests and street marches against this? Nope???

I guess this is just Trump finally doing something presidential.

Let's be honest, when it comes to islam related things, most people don't care, unless there is a terrorist attack, then they look first at the islam.

[Edge-]

ParanoiD84 corrected it, I was thinking of Mosul. Makes it even more hilarious.
And I don't have to "throw some shade at Obama". He managed to do that himself.

You mean US support of Iraqi efforts to retake Mosul. The Iraqi military is leading that fight with US support, last I checked. I don't believe Obama ever made claims that the US military would take the city during his term.

You know, the same type of thing that's going on right now.

Again, what was the point of your post other than to try to play defense for Trump by bringing up an entirely pointless attempt to attack Obama?

[kasuke06]

That's what I am saying... that if our soldiers have to be there then that's the way it goes. We can't just never conduct ground operations again because it's risky was my point.

I'm not against ground ops, just save them for when it's needed. as it stands, the target saturation is still high enough for air strikes and drones to be efficient. Once that goes down, then boots on the ground to mop up/do humanitarian things and photo ops to show off how nice we are to the locals so they hopefully stop doing this whole "Rise up against the rest of the world and get our asses bombed back to the stone age" thing every decade.

[Dug]

I'm not against ground ops, just save them for when it's needed. as it stands, the target saturation is still high enough for air strikes and drones to be efficient. Once that goes down, then boots on the ground to mop up/do humanitarian things and photo ops to show off how nice we are to the locals so they hopefully stop doing this whole "Rise up against the rest of the world and get our asses bombed back to the stone age" thing every decade.

Personally I think drone warfare just makes that worse. You get a generation of people that grow up not even seeing the people that are dropping bombs and the cycle repeats. But it's also necessary and the natural progression of warfare so... kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[Varitok]

Didn't they surround Mosul so that ISIS wouldn't escape? And why would we want to topple Assad, it would just turn Syria into another Libya. At this point, can't we admit that the whole topple Assad agenda is being pushed because the Gulf states have bought off so many US politicians?

Assad is a war criminal using chemical weapons against his people.

[Deleted]

You mean US support of Iraqi efforts to retake Mosul. The Iraqi military is leading that fight with US support, last I checked. I don't believe Obama ever made claims that the US military would take the city during his term.

You know, the same type of thing that's going on right now.

Again, what was the point of your post other than to try to play defense for Trump by bringing up an entirely pointless attempt to attack Obama?

Where did I ever mention Trump? How am I defending Trump this time? I said that Obama and his policies failed miserably.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-u-...y-end-of-year/

"My expectation is that by the end of the year, we will have created the conditions whereby Mosul will eventually fall," Mr. Obama said in a wide-ranging interview from The White House with CBS News' Charlie Rose. "As we see the Iraqis willing to fight and gaining ground we must make sure that we are providing them more support."

[Mehrunes]

Obviously they were militants and enemy combatants. Deus vult and glory be to Murcia, the flawless country that's blameless in everything it does.

This is the fundamental issue with debating any of this. For all the "horror" at hundreds of civilians dying, too many people seem to much rather the idea of 100 civilians dying in an airstrike than risking even one AMERICAN soldiers life (who actually signed up for this in the first place).

I wonder what do these people think a soldier is for if they have an almost allergic reaction about the mortality of soldiers when faced with a proposal these soldiers actually do something. Are they supposed to just look nice during national parades or something? Because if so, it makes large parts of US military extremely superfluous and pointless. Which is weird, because people who argue that way are often in favor of US military spending.

[Edge-]

Where did I ever mention Trump? How am I defending Trump this time? I said that Obama and his policies failed miserably.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-u-...y-end-of-year/

Yes, and Mosul is falling as we speak. It's slowly happening, but it's falling.

So where did he fail to deliver?

Notice, he never said it would fall by the end of the year. Only that US support would create the conditions to allow the Iraqi army to retake the city. Which they started late last year (remember, Trump accused the Iraqi government of only invading Mosul because they wanted to help Hillary win? Or has that conspiracy theory been sufficiently swept under the rug), and is still ongoing.

You didn't need to mention Trump. You bringing up a nonsense attack on Obama is defending Trump by default, especially knowing your support of Trump from your other posts.

[Kuntantee]

This is surprising to some people? USA is direct responsible of millions of deaths in ME.

[Deleted]

Yes, and Mosul is falling as we speak. It's slowly happening, but it's falling.

So where did he fail to deliver?

Notice, he never said it would fall by the end of the year. Only that US support would create the conditions to allow the Iraqi army to retake the city. Which they started late last year (remember, Trump accused the Iraqi government of only invading Mosul because they wanted to help Hillary win? Or has that conspiracy theory been sufficiently swept under the rug), and is still ongoing.

No, it isn't progressing as well. Many more "allied" soldiers died than ISIS soldiers. No mentionable territory was gained in months.
Remember the talks about how Russians will lose in Aleppo? The battle for Aleppo is over yet they managed to win it with 4 times less deaths of civilians - and Mosul is far from won.

You didn't need to mention Trump. You bringing up a nonsense attack on Obama is defending Trump by default, especially knowing your support of Trump from your other posts.

Assumptions and ad hominems.

[May90]

The only one using "feelsies" here is you with you dramatic "came back in a box with a flag on it". I didn't say all war should be conducted with boots on the ground but the argument of "why put our soldiers lives at risk?" is stupid as hell if they signed up for combat roles. We can't just never use boots on the ground again just because their lives are at risk. That's the job they sign up to do.

They signed up for combat roles, knowing that their commandment will do everything it can to protect their lives during dangerous operations. They didn't sign up for dying because the government backed down before terrorists using the dirtiest tactics to make sure that if they go down, civilians also go down.

As much as minimizing the number of civilians casualties is one of the priorities, there is a point at which you should put your foot on the ground and say, "Enough, time to get things done". Not to mention that it is not clear if in this particular case sending in the ground forces could lead to a much worse result, given the terrorists' positional advantage.

You cannot save every civilian. At the same time, you cannot ignore all the civilian lives and take out Mosul with a nuke. There is a middle ground, and in this case the commandment decided that airstrikes are one.

[Mormolyce]

It doesn't matter where perpetrators took the weapons from.

The last bit is a fabricated lie.

The UN and UNHRC are lying, or you are.

Yeah. I'm going with you.

[Pipebomb]

The UN and UNHRC are lying, or you are.

Yeah. I'm going with you.

I'd go with the UN lying. Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels

• In 1968 Hersh exposed the fact that the U.S. was compiling a huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and beginning to use some in Vietnam. The government denied, until his reporting made that a ridiculous claim. Nixon quickly halted the biological weapons when elected. It was Sy Hersh’s first big victory. (I document this and the others that follow in my 2013 Hersh biography Seymour Hersh: Scoop Artist.)

• In 1969, when Hersh poked around the My Lai story, he reported that American soldiers, led by one officer, killed a few hundred civilians in the small village — old women, men and children. The U.S. denied it, until it was clear his reporting rang true. And it turned out that more than 500 had been killed. He won the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting without ever leaving the U.S. (He visited My Lai just recently.)

• In 1974, as the New York Times ace investigative reporter, Hersh revealed that the CIA was snooping into the mail and phone calls of American citizens (sound familiar?) which was roundly denied by the Ford administration. Hersh was pilloried for his careless reporting and denied the Pulitzer Prize that April. In June the Rockefeller Commission reported it was all true and Hersh had grossly underestimated the spying. Victory Sy Hersh.

• In the lead up to Nixon’s resignation, Hersh revealed that Henry Kissinger and Nixon had covered up illegal bombing of Cambodia; some House members wanted this included in his impeachment. Of course, all denied it, but it turned out to be very true.

• In 1980, when he left the Times, he wrote his signature work, using 1,000 interviews to piece together the story of The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, a vicious attack on the former Secretary of State for a slew of misdeeds. Kissinger never read the book but said it was all “slimy lies.” Nonetheless, Ronald Reagan did not dare try to put Kissinger in his cabinet for fear of public hearings that would ensue. “Kissinger’s nemesis,” as Hersh was called, derailed Dr. K.

• More books followed, and all were controversial. His 1991 The Sampson Option showed how Israel has nuclear weapons which much of the diplomatic worked knew but would never admit; it infuriated many. Hersh was called a self-loathing Jew and on one occasion he was run out of a synagogue as a traitor. But the story could not be denied.

• His personal low point came in 1999 when he probed the The Dark Side of Camelot to see if John Kennedy’s active extramarital sex life impeded his policy making, And Hersh concluded it did, with Secret Service agents revealing for the first time ever the nights of parties with women who no one could knew or trust. Hersh was viciously attacked by Kennedy acolytes as tabloid trash — in words similar to what is being said now. No one observed that the left-leaning Hersh was going after a Democrat, as he is now in Obama.

Should I go on? To his expose of Gen, Barry McCaffrey’s post-peace attack on returning Iraqi soldiers...to his detailed reporting of the missteps of the Bush Administration on trying to get bin Laden in the early days after 9/11...to the chaos at the CIA as it realized it had no operatives in the Middle East, thanks partly to Hersh’s earlier reporting which forced CIA reforms.

And then, of course, it climaxed with Abu Ghraib in 2004, another story that a White House tried desperately to muffle.

The point is simple: Hersh has a history of getting it right.