[CaptainHaplo]

A black unit targetting leadership without trials? Thats a suprise to people? C'mon - last time I checked this was combat - taking out leadership is a common and acceptable tactic. No different than tankers told to look for red star tanks with command antennae....

Unmanned drones that don't work as expected? Nothing is 100% - better the cost of a 3-5M for a crashed drone that crashed vs 17M for an F-16, plus the cost of a human life lost or captured. Gee they have bugs - big suprise. Show me a new weapon that doesnt......

Not every civilian casualty is reported by and to the press? Wow - now thats a shocker let me tell you. Even the articles linked point out how "hundreds" of civilians have been killed by coalition forces - but also admits multiple thousands have been killed by extremists using stuff like roadside bombs. Funny how the mainstream media doesn't keep a real tally. Lets point out the deaths on ALL sides why don't we - or would that make the media admit that the people who are actively targetting civilians - and not caring if any innocents are hurt - are in fact the terrorists. But the media doesn't want to do that....

144 civilian incidents that went "unreported". Funny - how could they go unreported if they were in the documetation. Someone reported them - there was a record of them. Just because the news media wasn't briefed it somehow becomes "unreported"? Give me a break. Oh - and 144 "incidents" in 5 years. Basically 29 per year. A little over 2 a month. Think about this. Combat happens in multiple places there every day - and its suddenly "Oh my god - we in the media didn't KNOW about this" and that makes it a coverup?

Did no one notice how the Guardian article stated French troops in 2008 had an incident, 2007 Polish troops did to - but when mentioning US troops it gave absolutely no date frame at all?

Of course - one look at the title of that article and you already know its leaning...... "occupation" makes it clear they have a predefined view. Yet isn't it odd the article itself doesn't make any kind of case for occupation - and in fact details the weakness of the current government - which is WHY allied forces are still in country - to prop up a weak but democratically elected government. So what would it be if the pakistani/iranian supported taliban took over? Would they still call it an "occupation"? I doubt it.

I agree this war has gone on far too long and at too high a price. But trying to villify those who are fighting it - when the decisions to be there and HOW we fight it are political - is putting the blame on the wrong people.

When bullets fly, bad **** happens no matter what. People die. But if your going to fight a battle or a war, you have to be willing to actually fight it. That still has not really happened. When the media is more about trying to "nail the soldier" - so that they ignore the more heinous and intentional acts of the enemy, as well as fail to hold the political leadership accountable, they lose total credibility.

Want to end this war? Then decide how you want to do it. Either victory (meaning extremists lack the ability to organize and do more than minimal disruption) or failure (meaning a withdrawal in which a legal government cannot continue to function). We have the means to do either one - I support the first option - but the leadership of NATO has consistently lacked the will to pursue it. This war could be over in one year. Or it could be over tommorow. If your going to pursue failure (which both Bush and Obama have done) - then we should end it tommorow - or today. If you are going to pursue success - then the leadership has to make the determination and make it happen. Forgive me, but I am not holding my breath.

And for those who want to say "the people don't have the will to pursue success" - that is because the media has sapped their will to do so. If you turned on your TV and saw the carnage that the taliban create - saw the tears of the families of those they brutally murder - then you would know why those men and women were there fighting. But the media doesn't show you that, now does it.

Fair and balanced my big fat ass - and that goes for every single outlet out there.... Some are simply closer to actual news than others.