Help support TMP


"UN declares US strikes in Afghanistan unlawful" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

476 hits since 9 Oct 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2019 12:54 p.m. PST

"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

USAFpilot09 Oct 2019 1:40 p.m. PST

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

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

Stryderg09 Oct 2019 2:04 p.m. PST

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?

Ghostrunner09 Oct 2019 2:15 p.m. PST

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

USAFpilot09 Oct 2019 2:18 p.m. PST

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.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2019 2:53 p.m. PST

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.

Stryderg09 Oct 2019 9:06 p.m. PST

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.

Zephyr109 Oct 2019 9:20 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2019 8:33 a.m. PST

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.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2019 11:52 a.m. PST

Glup!….


Amicalement
Armand

Lion in the Stars10 Oct 2019 12:35 p.m. PST

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.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2019 3:32 p.m. PST

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.

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP10 Oct 2019 4:24 p.m. PST

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

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

RUSS DUNAWAY

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.