"UN declares US strikes in Afghanistan unlawful" Topic

"A United Nations report issued Wednesday deemed U.S. airstrikes that killed or injured at least 39 Afghan civilians unlawful.

The May airstrikes, which hit dozens of sites in the western provinces of Nimroz and Farah, were targeting what the U.S. believed to be drug labs used to fund the Taliban.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and U.N. Human Rights Office said funding activities are considered civilian objectives under international law, and workers at such facilities are therefore civilians…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Do people actually think you can fight a war without civilian casualties?

We did it to ourselves, always talking about "surgical strikes" and worrying about casualties. Gives people the impression that you can drop a 500 pound bomb on a building and only flatten the three bad guys leaving the rest of the neighborhood unscathed. They forget that explosives explode, usually violently.

Does the UN have a drug fighting wing, and would they consider this an unlawful attack against civilians or a drug interdiction act against criminals?

I've talked to career military people (retired now) who steadfastly believe that any civilian casualties are 'unacceptable'.

Now, looking at those conversations I am not sure if they were saying:

- No operation should be conducted if civilian casualties are a possibility.

- We should never 'accept' that x% of non-military casualties is 'good enough' in planning and execution

I don't have much faith in the UN. Where drugs are involved so is big money. If we hit a major drug lab there are going to be some very upset rich dudes. Drugs flow because of corruption at many levels.

I'm amazed we continue to fund the corrupt UN, which is against us most of the time, as are many nations around the globe, who use it to bash the USA almost daily.

I suspect the former, Ghostrunner, from what I've seen and read, which is absurd.

Please don't misunderstand me (and I don't usually don't make myself understood the first go around). I'm not saying that armies should not care if civilians become casualties or not. I'm saying that expecting zero civilian casualties during an attack is usually not realistic. Western armies tend to try and avoid civilian casualties, but mistakes, errors in judgement, bad intel, garbled orders, unrealistic expectations and the fog of war in general all happen. They should be minimized, but that's not always possible.

Maybe the UN should take responsibility for the crimes their own 'peacekeeping' forces have committed against civilians…

Well that's just crazy talk. The UN is not about applying the same standards to everyone, everywhere. They'd never get anything done with that constraint.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

I've talked to career military people (retired now) who steadfastly believe that any civilian casualties are 'unacceptable'.

Now, looking at those conversations I am not sure if they were saying:

- No operation should be conducted if civilian casualties are a possibility.

- We should never 'accept' that x% of non-military casualties is 'good enough' in planning and execution

At least among the submariners, we would mean "We should never accept that x% of non-military casualties is good enough in planning, we should be planning to minimize civilian casualties."

Having zero civilian casualties is utterly unrealistic and impossible to achieve.

I'd settle for the UN representatives and their countries' leaders visiting NYC being punished for their crimes committed in the USA, but also those committed abroad would be nice as well.

I find the very name hilarious!!
"UNITED NATIONS ??"

Nothing "united" about them all -- perhaps except against the United States?

RUSS DUNAWAY