Another President - Another lying POS. [Archive]

DroppinScience

12-02-2009, 01:57 AM

That quote may represent the last time he ever argued he'd pull out of Afghanistan because every time from then on he said he'd escalate the war as a way of "finishing" it, which has always been dubious.

Your two posts in this thread are directly contradictory. On the one hand you're blasting Obama for escalating Afghanistan (I'm with you 100% on this) and then the next you're blasting him for proposing a withdrawal in 18 months (even that is a pipe dream unto itself).

It really is irrelevant whether they announce the date of "withdrawal" or not. The Taliban knows that America will leave one day and that they'll remain in Afghanistan.

Anyways, really important criticism from Glenn Greenwald today, in which Obama's justifications for Afghanistan sound eerily familiar to a certain ex-President's justifications for Iraq. :rolleyes:

http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/01/afghanistan/index.html

And Joan Walsh is also insightful today:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2009/12/01/afghanistan_speech/index.html

Bob

12-02-2009, 03:08 AM

PS. Thanks for telling the entire world, including the enemy that we'll be pulling our troops out in 18 mos. (y)
All they have to do is wait you out another 18 mos. now, idiot.

you make a good point but you're being a huge cock about it and i'm reluctant to have a discussion with you

freetibet

12-02-2009, 05:15 AM

There's no need to discuss the obvious: Obama is a disaster.

Schmeltz

12-02-2009, 06:30 AM

^Then stop discussing. We'll all thank you for it.

Seriously, Rob, what's the man meant to do? Devise a plan to withdraw the troops in a timely fashion - and then keep it a special secret and not tell anybody what it is? It would be just dandy if everyone in Afghanistan woke up one morning and democracy was there and all the troops had left silently the night before without waking anyone up... but it's just not going to happen. I've got bad news for you about Santa and the tooth fairy, too.

RobMoney$

12-02-2009, 06:58 AM

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " (cut off by McCain)

McCain: "Make it a hundred."
Q: "Is that ..." (cut off)

McCain: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."

Q: [tries to say something]

McCain: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

This made a great soundbyte your liberal media outlets had a field day with, and it was one of the things that brought a lot of the middle voters to Obama's side because he represented an end to the war.

One question tho for the people who fell for that,
You do realize that McCain wouldn't have had the power to keep a military presence in Iraq for 100 years, right? 8 years, at the very most.
He was simply not showing the enemy his hand.

This is where his "Life experience" comes into outweighing Obama's Ivy League education that I was screaming about back during the campaign that everyone thought I was wrong about.

And Smeltz, I don't have a problem with this surge in troops. I don't have a problem with him devising an exit strategy for 18 mos from now.
I do have a problem with him announcing it.
Hopefully we can agree that that doesn't make much sense for him to do that.

Bob

12-02-2009, 07:02 AM

This is where his "Life experience" comes into outweighing Obama's Ivy League education that I was screaming about back during the campaign that everyone thought I was wrong about.

does that stick go all the way up?

RobMoney$

12-02-2009, 07:03 AM

does that stick go all the way up?

I thought you weren't discussing it with me?

Burnout18

12-02-2009, 10:40 AM

PS. Thanks for telling the entire world, including the enemy that we'll be pulling our troops out in 18 mos. (y)
All they have to do is wait you out another 18 mos. now, idiot.

Why do you believe that 18 month time table to be true, when you already labeled him a liar?

Bob

12-02-2009, 10:47 AM

I thought you weren't discussing it with me?

i'm not, i'm being a cock

RobMoney$

12-02-2009, 06:00 PM

Why do you believe that 18 month time table to be true, when you already labeled him a liar?

Are you saying that bringing the troops home in 18 mos. is an intentional lie to confuse the enemy and that they'll remain there longer?

PFAHAHAAAAHHAHAAha.

Also, does anyone else find it odd that a press conference is even required to announce war plans?

rirv

12-02-2009, 06:30 PM

Personally I'm not convinced either way about keeping troops in Afghanistan or not.

My question is: If there had been no announcement of this nature, would there be a thread titled "Obama silent about war plans... has he even got any?"?

I suspect the answer to be yes.

travesty

12-02-2009, 07:37 PM

Also, does anyone else find it odd that a press conference is even required to announce war plans?

"Announce War Plans" is an oxymoron...it should never, ever happen. Period.

Echewta

12-02-2009, 08:03 PM

I guess it depends on what your definition of war plans are.

I'm not if a huge surge of troops should be top secret compared to "we are going to strike here and then here first."

RobMoney$

12-02-2009, 08:58 PM

Why announce anything tho?
What is there to possibly gain, seriously?
Why is publicity even on his mind?

I'm trying to be as civil as possible about this

travesty

12-02-2009, 09:16 PM

Bob

12-02-2009, 09:39 PM

Why announce anything tho?
What is there to possibly gain, seriously?
Why is publicity even on his mind?

I'm trying to be as civil as possible about this

Certainly the public has a right to an update on things once in a while.

basically, yeah. when the peoples' sons and daughters are fighting and dying in a war, it seems polite to share a word or two with them about how you plan to treat that war

as for which one or two words you tell them, i've never really figured that one out. especially with enemies like the taliban and al qaeda, which have a quite recent track record of pulling back until we fuck off and then attacking again. i'm not sure why you would share your plans for fucking off with someone like that.

i'm not the president though...

yeahwho

12-02-2009, 10:10 PM

Certainly the public has a right to an update on things once in a while. But announcing deadlines and troop levels and proposed areas for operations is EXTREMELY dangerous. This guys may have gotten elected by making people feel all warm and fuzzy and empowered but he is a fumbling idiot at the job of Commander In Chief.

Of course the irony is this is a continuation of that exact same war that started Sept. 11, 2001. And now you want to school people on the proper way to wage war. Not the fumbling idiot way.

Now that we're moving into the year 2010 let's secretly surprise the Afghans with 30,000 additional troops. That strategy would of been great when we invaded Iraq, rather than occupying an already closely monitored country, divert and hit Afghanistan.

The troop surge was openly proposed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2007:_US_troop_surge) in Iraq and most everyone universally agrees it worked at curtailing troop deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Troop_Deaths_with_Surge.jpg).

Bob Woodward who was working on his Bush book credits covert technology as the real reason behind the success during that time period. He would never actually come out and say what this technology was, but from all accounts during this period drone surveillance went from standard video to Hi Def which captured details down to eye color, addresses and multiple hideouts of insurgents previously undetected.

The Battle of Sadr City (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGpqXDbkp-M)

ToucanSpam

12-02-2009, 11:48 PM

While this troop surge is a stupid, stupid idea, Rob is still a jerk about everything Obama does that is "contradictory" to something else he said. Come on man, the one thing the left and right on this board can agree on is this stupid troop surge. Let's discuss this in a less sanctimonious manner.

Burnout18

12-03-2009, 12:07 AM

Are you saying that bringing the troops home in 18 mos. is an intentional lie to confuse the enemy and that they'll remain there longer?

Nope... I asked you why you would call him liar in the title of the thread then believe the 18 month time table.

If you are going to respond then answer, don't put words in my mouth.

Why announce anything tho?
What is there to possibly gain, seriously?
Why is publicity even on his mind?

I think it was an address to the anti-war left that supported him. There were protests outside west point, and Michael Moore said obama is another wartime president and bla bla,.... This wasn't an address to the the troops, the right, the center left, this was him telling the left "Fuck it, it has to be this way."

travesty

12-03-2009, 12:30 AM

Of course the irony is this is a continuation of that exact same war that started Sept. 11, 2001. And now you want to school people on the proper way to wage war. Not the fumbling idiot way.

Bush was no better at commander in cheif. The only "proper" way to wage a war is to use overwhelming force as quickly as possible. Make it so devastating and so horrible that no one will want to do it ever again. If you are not prepared to do that, you shouldn't go to war to begin with. Period. Political correctness dictating rules of engagement and fancy press conferences laying out the plan and timetable only work to extend the conflict, kill more Americans and embolden the enemy. But it does help to sell more guns, bombs and ammo. (y) Way to go Barry. You really will defend just about anything this guy says won't you?

[

yeahwho

12-03-2009, 01:15 AM

You really will defend just about anything this guy says won't you?

[

I am not defending anything Obama says, but if you want to take it that way I guess it's a double win for me. I proved you're full of BS and rubbed in some salt unintentionally.

travesty

12-03-2009, 01:54 AM

Schmeltz

12-03-2009, 03:25 AM

The only "proper" way to wage a war is to use overwhelming force as quickly as possible. Make it so devastating and so horrible that no one will want to do it ever again.

Doesn't work in a place like Afghanistan. Ask the Brits and the Russians. Didn't work in Iraq either.

Political correctness dictating rules of engagement

It's basic humanity, not political correctness, that dictates things like rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention. Do you think about these things before you put them down?

This is a very unpopular and costly war, but as I've pointed out many times it's a war that needs to be fought and won. Obama has to tread a very fine line in endeavouring to appease a war-weary electorate, a troubled House and Senate, and the international security needs of the country. A vague promise about recalling the troops in 18 months' time at least provides a measure or reassurance for those who have loved ones serving in combat, while still providing time for a troop surge to work (like it seems to have worked in Iraq, and which wasn't exactly some stroke of genius entirely on George W. Bush's part, by the way). And it hardly amounts to "announcing the war plans." I'm willing to bet that 18 months isn't even being considered a firm promise by the top brass in charge of the actual military planning.

Threads like these always boil down to the fact that people like Robmoney don't actually have opinions (hence the cut-and paste jobs!), they just don't like the fact that there's one of those people in what's supposed to be the White House. To that end they are determined to be dissatisfied with everything possible. If Obama had produced a troop surge without a timetable withdrawal, Rob would have made this exact same thread. If Obama had ordered every American soldier on earth back to home barracks on the first day of his Presidency, Rob would have made a thread bitching about how Afghanistan remained a breeding ground for terror. If Obama had personally gone to Afghanistan and beheaded Osama bin Laden with a barehanded karate chop, Rob would have bitched about the expense to taxpayers. He's just a bitch, that's all.

Michelle*s_Farm

12-03-2009, 05:46 AM

PS. Thanks for telling the entire world, including the enemy that we'll be pulling our troops out in 18 mos. (y)
All they have to do is wait you out another 18 mos. now, idiot.

If the enemy believed anything that an American President said in a speech they would be bigger suckers than we are. This is possible I guess. I find it unfortunate that the investments in war by American politicians does not change depending on who is voted into office. This should indicate to the voting public that voting for a Republican or a Democrat makes no difference as they are the same party with different names. Indeed historically these parties were the same so perhaps this should be no surprise. The only difference today is how they manage our expectations which is itself illusory.

Source (http://costofwar.com/)

RobMoney$

12-03-2009, 06:57 AM

A vague promise about recalling the troops in 18 months' time at least provides a measure or reassurance for those who have loved ones serving in combat

I'm sorry, but he doesn't owe the families and loved ones an answer on when ther soldiers will be home before they are even deployed.
War is not easy.
This is the responsibility you accept when you decide to enroll in the service, isn't it?

As for the personal attack on me, I'm not in the mood for an insult battle with you today, Schmeltz. Put me on ignore if what I post bothers you soo much. Both the left and the right are criticizing this decision to increase troops, but you have a problem with my criticizim?

Documad

12-03-2009, 09:05 AM

I guess I remember it differently. Maybe it's old age or something, but I remember Obama saying that he was going to escalate in Afghanistan. For some reason, I knew he was going to do it when I voted for him. It did not please me, but I never heard that McCain had a different plan for Afghanistan. I thought Obama's pitch was that he was going to ramp down in Iraq and up in Afghanistan. I swear he said it during the debates with McCain. The left wing of the democratic party has never been pleased with his stance. And the republicans aren't going to be pleased. They don't want to leave--oh no -- but they want to "win" and their pundits say it would take well over 100,000 troops and a long commitment. I don't know what a win would be in Afghanistan and I doubt that any number of troops could secure it, so I think Obama and the republicans are wrong.

As for the second question of whether you announce a timetable. I'm no expert. I've read a few books on Afghanistan but it's impossible to really know what's going on there now. Anyhow, I don't understand why we would announce a timetable unless it's because Obama thinks he can't get the funding from congress and the american people without the promise. As a matter of international strategy, it doesn't make sense. There are times when it would make sense. If we were stuck in a country where its own government was stable and they were just slow getting ready to take the reins from us, it would make sense to announce that they've got a year to get their shit together. (Enact your fucking constitution already because you're going to want something in place when we go.) But as I understand Afghanistan (and remember that's limited knowledge), there's no popular consensus behind the leader. The place is unstable. It doesn't make sense to tell them they have a year to get their shit together if they're incapable of doing it.

To summarize. I don't agree with Obama but I don't think he lied to me. And maybe he had to announce the timetable to get funding for the 30,000 troops even though it's bad strategy.

travesty

12-03-2009, 11:02 AM

Doesn't work in a place like Afghanistan. Ask the Brits and the Russians.
Then we shouldn't be there. If it's unwinnable, then get the fuck out.

Didn't work in Iraq either.
Never happened in Iraq. Too many rules.

It's basic humanity, not political correctness, that dictates things like rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention. Do you think about these things before you put them down?

The idea that war should have rules is absurd to begin with. Don't you think people would be a lot more hesitant to got to war if they knew that there were no rules? Maybe exhaust a few more dimplomatic efforts first? What is the point of having rules if only one side follows them? Sleeping soundly at night on moral highground doesn't sound acceptable when it's soaking in the avoidable deaths of US soldiers. Tell me when was the last time we fought an enemy that complied with the Geneva Convention? Never. Obviously your tender little soul has never been in combat and most others haven't either. Most can't stomach the idea so we're left trying to play out these genteel, compasionate conflicts that drag on for decades, cost trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives because of it. That is inhumane to our soldiers and their families and that is absurd.

*Being able to at shoot someone planting an IED, but not at someone walking away from planting an IED is absurd.
*Having to announce searches days before doing them is absurd
*Not being able to conduct search and seizure missions at night is absurd

These rules have nothing to do with Humanity and everything to do with politcal correctness. Did we learn nothing in Vietnam?

yeahwho

12-03-2009, 12:17 PM

So, you're a self-admitted Obama ass-sucker and acknowledge that Obama is following the same War Plans and strategy as GW. So I guess that makes you a George Bush ass-sucker by proxy right? That's gotta be tough to sort out internally. Now tell me what am I full of BS about exactly ?

I don't know what or how to respond to that post. You seem to think I'm in love with surges. All I'm really doing is pointing out the surge did work on multiple levels, when they say troop increase they also mean drone support and technological support. Things the Afghans do not possess. This isn't a suicide mission and all of that weaponry we have under the water, upper atmosphere, on aircraft carriers and in the actual arena is there for a reason.

I am highly amused that you now call me an ass-sucker. You seem a little angry and left with really nothing but how much you hate Obama. And obviously people who even agree with Obama. Thats a lot of anger and hate my friend. Look even Karl Rove likes Obama (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571852549048542.html?m od=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular)now that he's fighting a bigger war.

Dude it's giant Obama lovefest with multiple ass-sucking going on.

checkyourprez

12-03-2009, 12:28 PM

Echewta

12-03-2009, 12:52 PM

This should indicate to the voting public that voting for a Republican or a Democrat makes no difference as they are the same party with different names. Indeed historically these parties were the same so perhaps this should be no surprise. The only difference today is how they manage our expectations which is itself illusory.

Source (http://costofwar.com/)

True and sad.

Schmeltz

12-03-2009, 10:34 PM

Then we shouldn't be there. If it's unwinnable, then get the fuck out.

Just because you can't win it prettily and cleanly doesn't mean it can't be won. Overwhelming force isn't the only winning game in town, yo. Just look at Iraq, where it was indeed tried (remember Shock and Awe?) and failed, but where violence has substantially decreased since the advent of the Awakening Councils and greater cooperation between Iraqis and Americans.

The idea that war should have rules is absurd to begin with. Don't you think people would be a lot more hesitant to got to war if they knew that there were no rules?

For the seven millennia that preceded the Geneva Conventions and other such articles of war there was absolutely no reluctance on the part of any major civilization to go to war. I am surprised that you would even posit such a ridiculous idea. There were no rules when the Greeks and Romans and Mongols and Spanish set up their vast empires of rapine and conquest, and they went to war pretty much every single chance they got. Meanwhile, ever since the Geneva Convention was ratified, warfare among its adherents has become much more low in scale and casualties (at least on the Western side) have declined massively, as has the perpetuation of atrocities. You got a lot of history to read.

What is the point of having rules if only one side follows them?

The point is to safeguard the values on which your society is founded. I honestly can't believe you would even ask such a bizarre question. What's the point in fighting to preserve Western values if we abandon them whenever they become inconvenient? This isn't about some high and mighty moral high ground, it's about preserving the best and most worthy attributes of our culture.

Obviously your tender little soul has never been in combat

What, and yours has? I doubt that very much. And you're an armchair private to my armchair general, from the sound of things.

travesty

12-04-2009, 01:24 AM

Just because you can't win it prettily and cleanly doesn't mean it can't be won. Overwhelming force isn't the only winning game in town, yo.
It is if you are at WAR. In an armed WAR using military FORCE, the combatant with the the most OVERWHELMING force wins. That ain't hard to undestand. Well...maybe for you. Now when it comes to nation building and providing a "security service", yes there are other options.

Just look at Iraq, where it was indeed tried (remember Shock and Awe?) and failed, but where violence has substantially decreased since the advent of the Awakening Councils and greater cooperation between Iraqis and Americans.
Again, the WAR was won with shock and awe (overwhelming force). The Iraqi military was decimated beyond capable operations. Once we decided to stay and occupy the country then the simple application of force was not enough acheive the goal of a stable government.[/QUOTE]

For the seven millennia that preceded the Geneva Conventions and other such articles of war there was absolutely no reluctance on the part of any major civilization to go to war. There were no rules when the Greeks and Romans and Mongols and Spanish set up their vast empires of rapine and conquest, and they went to war pretty much every single chance they got. Meanwhile, ever since the Geneva Convention was ratified, warfare among its adherents has become much more low in scale and casualties (at least on the Western side) have declined massively, as has the perpetuation of atrocities.

Because for the seven millenia preceeding right now there has never been such a lopsided balance of military power in the world. The amount of force that the US military can bring to bear on an enemy has never been seen on this earth. There is no logical reason why we should ever be invloved in a War that lasts more than a year or two unless our military is being restrained internally. "Among it's adherents" nice qualifier to slip in there. Besides the Falklands (I don't call pussies beating up pussies a war), name me one other international war where both sides were "adherents" to the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention merely lays out ground rules for a duel amongst gentlemen who aren't likely to ever duel any way. It does nothing to prevent a bar fight or govern it's participants.

The point is to safeguard the values on which your society is founded
I honestly can't believe you would even ask such a bizarre question. What's the point in fighting to preserve Western values if we abandon them whenever they become inconvenient? This isn't about some high and mighty moral high ground, it's about preserving the best and most worthy attributes of our culture.

I agree in principle but the you can't win a fight if your values won't let you fight. That inner conflict and PC-ness is what keeps the military from doing it's job more effectively than it could. And that costs lives. Period.

What, and yours has? I doubt that very much. And you're an armchair private to my armchair general, from the sound of things.

Easy there skipper, choose your next words very carefully because you are about to really offend me.

Schmeltz

12-04-2009, 02:58 AM

In an armed WAR using military FORCE, the combatant with the the most OVERWHELMING force wins.

Tell that to the RUSSIANS who fought in AFGHANISTAN in the NINETEEN EIGHTIES. Or to your own countrymen who fought in Vietnam. Or Napoleon after Borodino. Or the Spanish in 1589. Or Darius III after Gaugamela. Or any number of the myriad other commanders who have seen their "overwhelming" forces cut to pieces by opponents they outnumbered and outgunned. If warfare was only ever a matter of the bigger and more dominant side winning all the time, it wouldn't exist. We could just weigh the numbers and sign the treaties. But it's a whole lot more complex than you seem to be willing to consider. Not that that comes as much of a surprise.

Again, the WAR was won with shock and awe (overwhelming force). The Iraqi military was decimated beyond capable operations.

I guess that's why there aren't any soldiers in Iraq anymore! Oh wait, a war involves more than just battlefields and "Mission Accomplished" banners.

(I don't call pussies beating up pussies a war)

Wow, that's just about the most retarded thing I've seen on the internet. valvano's got some competition! Seriously, do you want to have this conversation or not?

I agree in principle but the you can't win a fight if your values won't let you fight. That inner conflict and PC-ness is what keeps the military from doing it's job more effectively than it could. And that costs lives. Period.

I suggest you check out The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson, a highly acclaimed military historian who posits that your country has arrived at its present position of military dominance precisely because of its devotion to the values you seem to think "restrain" your army's capabilities. He's a fervent conservative and Iraq war supporter too, I suspect you'd quite like him. Even though he seems to think your soldiers are better off as men than as animals.

Easy there skipper, choose your next words very carefully because you are about to really offend me.

Oh, heavens to Betsy. Sorry for ruffling your feathers there tough guy.

travesty

12-04-2009, 03:51 AM

Tell that to the RUSSIANS who fought in AFGHANISTAN in the NINETEEN EIGHTIES. Or to your own countrymen who fought in Vietnam. Or Napoleon after Borodino. Or the Spanish in 1589. Or Darius III after Gaugamela. Or any number of the myriad other commanders who have seen their "overwhelming" forces cut to pieces by opponents they outnumbered and outgunned.
Better equipped and outnumbered does not make overwhelming. Obviously none of those situations had (or more correctly used) "overwhelming" force, or by the very definition of the word (M-W: to overcome by superior force or numbers) they would have won.

If warfare was only ever a matter of the bigger and more dominant side winning all the time, it wouldn't exist. We could just weigh the numbers and sign the treaties.
That exact tenet is what reasonable countries follow. It is also the idea that has kept us from complete nuclear armeggedon to this point.
I guess that's why there aren't any soldiers in Iraq anymore! Oh wait, a war involves more than just battlefields and "Mission Accomplished" banners.
Our soldiers in Iraq are no longer fighting a war, it's just the only label to call the situation of an occupying police force that will still get it funding from Congress.

I suggest you check out The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson, a highly acclaimed military historian who posits that your country has arrived at its present position of military dominance precisely because of its devotion to the values you seem to think "restrain" your army's capabilities. He's a fervent conservative and Iraq war supporter too, I suspect you'd quite like him. Even though he seems to think your soldiers are better off as men than as animals.
That sounds plausible given that the moral high ground and self-righteous BS we sell ourselves here makes it very easy to swallow the outrageous defense budget year after year after year. The less blood we show the American people, the more $$ they'll give us to keep shedding blood, right? After all, we're the good guys...we don't treat anyone badly(n) Doesn't the mere act of aggressively toppling and occupying a country pretty much trump any acts comitted while it happens? Or are we OK with essentially wiping out a country who never attacked us as long as we do it "humanely". Seems odd to me.

PS- I'm no tough guy.

Schmeltz

12-05-2009, 11:12 PM

Better equipped and outnumbered does not make overwhelming. Obviously none of those situations had (or more correctly used) "overwhelming" force, or by the very definition of the word (M-W: to overcome by superior force or numbers) they would have won.

So an overwhelming force is a force that overwhelms. Not a very fruitful conclusion you've drawn there. On the other hand, in none of the examples I cited could the victors be said to have had or used "overwhelming" application of force. They won through the application of strategies and tactics that maximized the potential of their forces while denying the same advantages to their enemies. Point being: there's more than one way to skin a cat, and simply unleashing raw firepower in the hope of overwhelming an enemy doesn't always work. Witness Iraq and Afghanistan.

That exact tenet is what reasonable countries follow.

Like signatories to the Geneva Convention?

Our soldiers in Iraq are no longer fighting a war, it's just the only label to call the situation of an occupying police force that will still get it funding from Congress.

Your cynicism is appreciated, but American soldiers are engaged in active military operations against armed and hostile opponents in a foreign nation. Sounds like a war to me. What makes Afghanistan a war and Iraq a police action?

Doesn't the mere act of aggressively toppling and occupying a country pretty much trump any acts comitted while it happens?

No, it doesn't. It's been accepted for decades now, if not centuries, that military goals can and should be accomplished without the need for excessive atrocity and bloodshed. Moreover, it's been repeatedly shown that allowing or forcing soldiers into committing such deeds is extremely damaging to their psyches and makes it much harder for them to readjust to civilian life after their combat experiences. It's not just the welfare of your opponents that's at stake here, it's the wellbeing of your own soldiers. It's kind of disturbing that you think warfare was somehow better back in the days when an army was little more than a vicious mob with sex and blood on the brain.

PS- I'm no tough guy.

Well we've got that in common anyway.