3,767 dead :( (small edit)

[Optimus]

While I am terribly saddened and struck by the loss of innocent life in that country, I still don't see where we had any reasonable or effective alternative to stopping the terrorists that country so openly harboured and assisted.

They had to be stopped, and the Taliban refused all reasonable and peaceful resolution (hand over Osama, stop helping the terrorists). The blood of those Afganistan civilians is clearly upon the hands of the Taliban leaders and Osama. Like they didn't already have enough innocent blood on their hands!

 

Sad.

But no one cries about the thousands of babies that get killed by parents in China every year.

 

[Doomguy]

That study can't be right. Think about it logically. There's no way we would be able to kill that many civilians by accident. Use your brains people.

 

[Valnir]

Professor Marc Herold at the University of New Hampshire

The same University whose faculty have said 9/11 was the US's fault and who have declared totally oppostition to the War.

Yea I'm sure he has put his bias aside.

 

[Texmaster]

<< That study can't be right. Think about it logically. There's no way we would be able to kill that many civilians by accident. Use your brains people. >>



Its NOT a study is an ESTIMATE. Thats it.

And here comes Czar and his hate filled Anti American propaganda trying to pass it off as Fact.

An Apology to ALL Americans is in order for posting this LIE.

 

[burnedout]

Let me guess. The world according to the pacifists................. sure, sure, we allow Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to stay in Afghanistan without any recourse. Sure.

Even though there was evidence of Al-Qaeda research and experimentation with nuclear, bio and chemical weapons, we do nothing in Afghanistan. Nope. We take the easy, pacifist way out.

NOT!

Sorry folks. We don't bend over for anyone.

 

[Ryan]

<< Oh boo hoo. >>

 

[Elledan]

Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience? >>



What part of ESTIMATE don't you get Elledan? Its not a factual figure.

Now, show me a war with a smaller amount of civilian casualities than even the estimate here.

Back up your bigotry against Americans just once Elledan

 

[dxkj]

Well...... what can i say.... this report doesnt seem any MORE believable, probably less believable than reports we've been getting all along. We've killed X amount of our fellow men, putting aside the fact that their death was on accidentwhen we were attempting to take down the Taliban, is this really so wrong? When we go to war we send innocent men to fight other innoccent men so that the ones in power will have to turn from their course of action. Innocents die all of the time, and it makes NO sense to sit around and let the Taliban get away with what they have been doing... at the VERY VERY least, our stepping in and stopping the Taliban has saved at LEAST as many civilian lives as it has cost them...... does it suck that civilians have died? yes, but even more so does a world with the Taliban in it, especially for the poor afghanistans.... also tell me how many lives have been saved from starvation by relief from the US?


sooo, yeah, even if those numbers are true, I believe it is best for US, best for the AFGHANIs, best for the world that we have attacked the Taliban...... sometimes you have to make judgement calls and try for the best... its all strategy (albeit not always the best)


and from now on Czar you might want to post a little support for the Americans, especiallywhen you come about so hostile...

 

[conjur]

No telling how many were killed by Taliban over the last decade. I'd be willing to bet it's far more than that.

The fact that the Afghani people were rejoicing in the streets and women were joining society again speaks tomes about how the Afghani people viewed our routing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

 

[Doggiedog]

<Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience? >

It would bother my conscience if we didn't get those bastards that killed all those people on 9/11.

 

[burnedout]

Go get 'em Texmaster. Sorry I must bail. I would continue on with this, but I must go repair a monitor.

 

[Optimus]

<< Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience? >>



I believe that there is such a thing as a "Just War" - a war can be just if waged as follows:

1) It is only fought in self-defense or defense of a weaker, innocent group/nation.
2) It is fought as morally as possible - civilians are NEVER tagetted and all reasonable means are taken to avoid harming them, no looting/rape/pillage, and all mercy and fair treatment possible is shown to the captured/defeated.
3) The war is only waged as long as is absolutely necessary to achieve the necessary elimination of the threat.
4) All reasonable assistance is given to the defeated party(ies) to rebuild government,food and medical supplies, and stability after.

I believe that in this war, the above is actually being followed by America about as well as one could hope a country could. Has this always been the case with every war America has been in? Probably not - but I believe it is this time.

Therefore my conscience is clear in supporting this anti-terrorism conflict.


BTW, debate about the numbers is pointless. 3700+ is terrible, but so would be just 100 deaths. The ONLY justification for ANY civilian deaths is as outlined above. Civilian deaths can never be intended - they can only be an undesired and avoided-as-best-we-can side effect. A very, very sad side effect at that...

I do, however, believe that estimate is higher than reality, and that it is being released as a form of anti-war propeganda. But again - the number of civilian deaths is secondary to the fact that there ARE civilian deaths - and those deaths are, I believe, being avoided as best possible by our military.

The number of our dead is not the issue, nor is the number of their dead - the issue is that the Terrorists and the countries backing them are an attacking aggressor on the innocent civilians of the United States, and the U.S. is justified in defending itself by eliminating that threat.

After all - when was the last war where so much effort was put into feeding the starving citizens of the enemy country while the war was raging?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience? >>



What part of ESTIMATE don't you get Elledan? Its not a factual figure.

Now, show me a war with a smaller amount of civilian casualities than even the estimate here.

Back up your bigotry against Americans just once Elledan >>


ROFLMAO

I post one single observation and I'm immediately attacked by the patriotic zealots. How predictable.

Listen, Mr. Zealot, you've accused me multiple times of hatred and now bigotry against Americans/the US, yet not even once has the thought crossed your mind that perhaps it's you who is (partially) wrong. Or perhaps it has, but the mere idea of being wrong send you into synaptic shock.

You're so closed-minded that even a bullet from a machinegun would have trouble penetrating it. I therefore consider it to be futile to discuss anything with you. Got that?

 

[dxkj]

Q]The same University whose faculty have said 9/11 was the US's fault and who have declared totally oppostition to the War.[/i] >>




ok what bullshT is this? we have a University that is saying its OUR fault for beinga free country and being a target of terrorists? How does that evene make sense? Please someone help me out here...



and silencing our consciences? I just explained to you that I didnt see anything wrong with our attack, the only conscience I have to silence is the one where I wish I could do something to END the threat to free nations, and free those who have no hope.... and yes, the pacifist way is best, if you dont shoot back, eventually they hit you enough times that you bleed to death lousing f passifists ) if peace were possible dont you think we would have it by now?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Why do I get the feeling that quite some people in this thread are merely trying to silence their conscience? >>



What part of ESTIMATE don't you get Elledan? Its not a factual figure.

Now, show me a war with a smaller amount of civilian casualities than even the estimate here.

Back up your bigotry against Americans just once Elledan[/i] >>






<< ROFLMAO

I post one single observation and I'm immediately attacked by the patriotic zealots. How predictable. >>



Your bigotry is predictible Elledan.



<< Listen, Mr. Zealot, you've accused me multiple times of hatred and now bigotry against Americans/the US, yet not even once has the thought crossed your mind that perhaps it's you who is (partially) wrong. Or perhaps it has, but the mere idea of being wrong send you into synaptic shock. >>




How am I wrong? Back up your BS. I have the article on my side.

It even ADMITS its an estimate.

Prove me WRONG Elledan. Back up your BS.



<< You're so closed-minded that even a bullet from a machinegun would have trouble penetrating it. I therefore consider it to be futile to discuss anything with you. Got that? >>




You call me close minded when I have the facts on my side.

Why don't you try debating the FACTS for once?

 

[Elledan]

<< 1) It is only fought in self-defense or defense of a weaker, innocent group/nation. >>

Self-defense is permitted.


<< 2) It is fought as morally as possible - civilians are NEVER tagetted and all reasonable means are taken to avoid harming them, no looting/rape/pillage, and all mercy and fair treatment possible is shown to the captured/defeated. >>

That makes me wonder: who's morality, and how long is it going to last? Nay, this point is impossible. In a war, morality is easily lost


<< 3) The war is only waged as long as is absolutely necessary to achieve the necessary elimination of the threat. >>

Same as #2. It's merely a way to cure an illness which could have been avoided.


<< 4) All reasonable assistance is given to the defeated party(ies) to rebuild government,food and medical supplies, and stability after. >>

Same as #1 and #2.

Violence is only a logical choice in the following cases:

- self-defense.
- to keep a situation from quickly escalating.

War can therefore only be used for self-defense, since no war ever lasts shorter than at least a couple of days, which is everything but 'quick'.

 

[chibchakan]

I wish nobody was dying over in Afghanistan, but better them than us

 

[novon]

Revenge is a pretty shallow deed for such and "advanced civilization."

 

[Elledan]

<< How am I wrong? Back up your BS. I have the article on my side.

It even ADMITS its an estimate. >>


Wow.. you are indeed dense.

I wasn't even talking about the article, get it?

 

[Optimus]

dxkj:


<< ok what bullshT is this? we have a University that is saying its OUR fault for beinga free country and being a target of terrorists? How does that evene make sense? Please someone help me out here... >>


I believe that the common objection is that the U.S. brought this on themselves by backing Israel and other foreign policy decisions. Many allege that the U.S. has caused many problems overseas and this is the payback...
Or that the U.S. flaunts its wealth and power in the face of poor nations, and thus provoked the attacks (this is the whole "wore a short skirt and asked for it" argument).

While concerned about the possibility that bad policies overseas might have hurt countries and peoples, I maintain strongly that those policies in no way can justify the terrorist actions of Osama and company, nor can it justify the harbouring of terrorists by Afganistan. They attacked the civilian peoples of the U.S. and continue being a threat to them. For that the U.S. is perfectly justified in eliminating that threat by force if necessary (it is).

This war is not revenge for the poor souls of 9/11. It is about making sure those terrorists can NEVER do that again!

 

Revenge is a pretty shallow deed for such and "advanced civilization."

Let me kick your ass all over the place day after day because your are "Advanced" and will not fight back.
Makes sense doesn't it ?

America will defend itself and in this case,military force is an acceptable solution.
If we do nothing,the terrorism will continue and Americans,british,japanese will continue to suffer and die.

There is no arguement against that

 

[Ferocious]

I think CZAR should have used the word "estimate" somewhere in his opening post.

Because some people who read the post and not click on the link....might think of that number as being exact.....SINCE estimates usually are NOT exact numbers.

An ESTIMATE would have been something like 3800 (two signififcant digits at most with a 4 digit number)....and people would have assumed it to be an estimate...without clicking the link.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< How am I wrong? Back up your BS. I have the article on my side.

It even ADMITS its an estimate. >>


Wow.. you are indeed dense.

I wasn't even talking about the article, get it? >>



But you Endorse the article's findings.

Why? Explain to us all why you endorse an article with an admittance to being nothing more than an ESTIMATE?

And your endorsement is your silence to the lack of factual evidence.

Now please, explain to everyone here your view of this article.