politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
because civilians were in the area?
Nah, this is even more fucked.
The US Military actually thought it would be fucked up to throw explosives at those kids. platner and his unit told Uncle Sam to hold their beer while they figured out a way to still throw explosives at children without getting caught.
I assume he put that front and center on his CV when he was applying for a gig at Blackwater.
I don’t know how so many keep missing the point here.
Routinely, one weapon system is not authorized for use, when another of lesser explosive yield is authorized for use.
They did not, due to concerns for collateral damage, want to use the higher powered indirect fire option (mortars). So the marines created a way to calculate trajectory for use of a lower powered option (40mm grenades).
Every single conflict in the last 100 years occurred with noncombatants in the theater of conflict. None, I repeat none, hold themselves to the standard of never using a munition is it could harm a civilian at all. We try like hell to avoid it, and you do due diligence to target attackers embedded in civilian infrastructure as precisely as possible.
In the very same deployment, in the very same AO, the same command team did change authorization later for the larger indirect fire munition (mortars). There was no evacuation of civilians. Decisions on what weapon to employ are made based on ground conditions at the time.
Tell me this; what is the standard of when you can use a munition? 90% confidence no civilian casualties? 99%? 99.99999%? If it is 100% no military force could ever fire a shot, so why does this use of force in a calculated way to avoid civilian collateral damage not make the cut but other instances do?
I'm opposed to all wars except the class war, if you're going across the world to kill civilians in an imperial war and you joined the Marines to kill, I'm not going to have a lot of charity about the use of improvised explosives in civilian areas
do you think there was anything wrong with what the US was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? do you think that launching full scale invasions of other countries is okay as long as there's a justification?
As I have stated in other comments:
“To be very clear, we never should have been there fighting in cities in an unjust war or inversion…”I will repeat it over and over again.
I joined the military before it was known where I would go. I joined before we knew about WMDs or the lack thereof. I joined to give to something bigger than myself, and serve my nation. It was an idealistic view of civil service, and I was deployed to a theater I did not want to be in. The military doesn’t choose where we go. Elected officials do. Enlistments are 4-6 years in length. I watched the towers crumble in high school and signed the recruitment documents.
While deployed I rebuilt infrastructure, brought cooking oil to families, created wells for water, rebuilt community, and in 10 months we went from casualties every single day to press being able to walk the streets openly daily without issue. We treated their people with dignity and respect. We ensured women were present to search other women at traffic security points. We took our boots off in reverence when entering homes to speak to leaders. We learned Arabic to ensure communication in stressful situations could be maintained.
I stood on top of IEDs as part of my job, and placed my whole body over a family in a living room of their home when an insurgent was firing into their living room. He was shooting at us because I had rendered safe two blast grenades he stages by the road side to kill people that I was still holding.
So no, I do not want nor justify any use of military force beyond defense of our own sovereignty. Once deployed, enlisted personal are under oath to follow all orders deemed legal by the UCMJ. Which include, killing people who shoot at you, in urban areas, near civilian populations.
A CWO5 ordered me to shoot a child while deployed. He was running towards our vehicle with a bulky vest under his shirt. 2 weeks before that the parents of a child rigged a suicide best to him and detonated it to kill marines. I shouted in his language and mine. I tried desperately to think of something as this kid was not stopping and the crew served weapon on top was rotating to mow him down. I ran at the kid and hugged him, picked him up, and figured if I was wrong it would just be me as I carried him away. Kid had had a back brace for spinal deformity. I would rather be wrong, and die, than be wrong and kill an innocent person.
War is a horrible practice. It should never be entered lightly, as no conflict will avoid harming innocent people fully. They are the monument to all our country’s sins, but in the case of Platner he did his job and did it with more than enough due diligence to say with certainty it was not a war crime.
why qualify it? if there's a justification does that suddenly make full-scale invasions okay?
I'm actually curious, would Afghanistan an example of another unjust war?