3,767 dead :( (small edit)

[OS]

-

 

[Karsten]

As far as I am concerned it is the Leaderships fault for not compling with very simple demands.
They had a choice and decided that their own peoples live is less worth then a criminal named Osama.

I am German. Do I blame the US for killing more people in the bombing raids on Desden then they killed in Hiroshima?!
NO... it was how war was fought. Germany made it's choice when it supportet Hitler for what he was.
Not all Germans did.... and not all Afgans do either... however you live and you die with your leadership.
So put up or shut up.

 

[Michael]

1st, the "estimate" is pathetic. The sources used are wildly inaccurate.

2nd, in regards to "what did the Afghan peiople do to the US?" question - the Taliban was (a nd to a certain extent still is) the Afghan people. Yes, many Afghans would have been happy without the Taliban, but their government sheltered and aided terrorists that attacked and killed people in the US. Even if the estimates were even close to reality, it simply would be the consequences of the earlier actions aiding the terrorists.

If anything, the number shows the incredible efforts that the US has put into keeping their attacks as targeted as possible and shows the compassion that runs deep within Americans. Americans have the power to totally destroy any country but their reposonse was measured and responsible even though they had terrific provocation to deal with.

Michael

 

[jbod]

Right on Tex...

Well stated Karsten...

 

[Pepsi90919]

I love jbod.

 

[jbod]

I love you too, Pepsi90919!



<< wow, isn't this thread just typically american. >>



Wow, isn't that remark so totally anti_American?

ah heck off!

 

[Azraele]

Tex: As to whether the article is accurate is a moot point as far as my argument is concerned (which is not to say that it is not at all important). What's important is that innocents on both sides have died.

Is Czar anti-American? If he is, that's his choice, and quite frankly, as long as he's not hurting anyone, as hard as it might be to stomach, it's none of your business nor mine. I was, however, agreeing with his post. Simply put, it's sad when innocent people die. That statement goes for all races, all peoples. That is what I am pointing out, and as far as my post is concened, that's the bottom line. If you want to take that as Anti-American, have fun.


<< Are you so bias towards Americans you just believe anything that shows America in a bad light >>


I am not biased towards Americans. I have an American flag flying at my house, and I believe the war is necessary. I do not believe, however, that America is perfect, because quite simply, no one is.

 

[StormRider]

It's always sad that many innocents die in wars. But there is no way to avoid the deaths of innocents in times of war. The best one can do is to try to minimize it. I believe this was a just war -- I know some of you think that no war is justifiable. But we just couldn't sit back and do nothing. There have been many reports that bin Laden became more emboldened by our lack of response from his earlier terrorists acts. He thought we were weak and didn't have the stomach to go after him.

Pershaps as consolation I have read news reports from humanitarian aid workers that because of the massive shipment of food to Afghanistan (because the war brought about increase awareness of Afghanistan's plight), we probably have avoided a major catastrophy.

Before the war, I think they were predicting deaths in the millions (because they have had massive droughts and the Taliban was very corrupt in preventing previous food aid from getting to those most needy). It's strange to think, but because of the war we might have saved many more lives overall.

 

[DarkLight]

I'm with Texmaster on this all the way.

As far as the article is concerned I say its a load of crap but who really knows. This guy uses the worst anti-american sources. If you want I can get my friend an English professor at Polytechnic University to write an article using the LA sources and other US media about the *estimate* number of civilians dead. Then we will have several dozen vs 3800 and nobody will be right. There are civilians dead but you know that is the price to pay with war.

Czar, you may want to post a link to some other newspaper article that disagree with these bloated figures.

 

[Pepsi90919]

<<

<< wow, isn't this thread just typically american. >>



Wow, isn't that remark so totally anti_American?

ah heck off! >>



yeah, that'll do it....

 

[hammer01]

I fear for a future when people are too afraid of being politically correct to do the right thing. Our grandfathers knew they were doing the right thing in WWII and our great grandfathers knew they were doing the right thing in WWI but todays kids have got it too easy never growing up in the fear of nazism or facism and communism (many approving of these methods as a way of life in fact when they have been proven not too work). And now that the USA is capable of dictating it's own policies and agenda to the rest of the world and could in all probability rule the entire world, and the simple fact that we don't should be proof enough to these bliss bunnies that we do not have a hidden agenda but no anytime the USA defends itseld in a controlled manner (we could have done so much more than we did up to and including that essentially no living beings were left in Afghanistan to ensure we accomplished our objective) these few loudmouths come out and cry foul. That is too bad for them and good for us that they are in the minority, but should the government keep tabs on them for their dissensionist ways as they themselves may turn to terrorism to achieve their goals? Maybe so but they won't because this country still believes in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. nuff said.

 

I found czar's homepage:

http://sf.indymedia.org/2001/12/111514.php

 

[Stark]

You forgot PCResources... so the total is really 3768.

Of course, if this campaign had been waged by any other empire in human history, there would probably be no native population left alive in Afghanistan or Pakistan after an attack like we suffered on 9/11.

 

[StandardCell]

<< I find it funny that so many people in Canada can critisize the US from their ivory towers. >>



No kidding. The prevailing ultra-liberal pacifist attitude in Canada is ridiculous. I'm Canadian, but I'm sure not proud of it. Guess who first facilitated the nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India? CANADA. That's right, Canada. The Indian government was sold Candu nuclear reactors, on the condition that they would not be used as sources for weapons-grade material. Six months later, in 1974, a big mushroom cloud appeared over an Indian desert, and thus started the arms race. Canadians should take a look at their own misdeeds before they dole out the criticism for the Americans. The truth of the matter is, if something like September 11 had happened in Canada, Canadians would be *BEGGING* NATO, the UN and the US for help because there would be NOTHING they could do about it.

The facts about the war are as follows:
1. The US has essentially completely routed the Taliban and put a severe dent in Al Qaeda activities in a very short period of time. This opposes the prevailing pacifist view that this wouldn't have been possible.
2. The primary thrust of the US military action was of short duration and was done with the assistance of resistance fighters in the country. This ALONE should have tipped people off to the fact that this was not going to become another Soviet-Afghani war where people died. The difference in this case is that, while the country in the 80s was united against a common invader, in the past 4 months the country was essentially divided against itself in that the Northern Alliance helped the US take out the Taliban government that knowingly participated in activities against both parties.
3. The US has killed civilians. But there is no evidence of purposeful intention to kill civilians. If they really wanted to kill civilians and have their anti-terrorist goals realized, they would've sent strategic nuclear weapons (read: long-range missles) and obliterated the country, civilans, Al Qaeda, Taliban, bin Laden and everything else, and achieve their goals that way. It most definitely would've worked and been easier and cheaper and faster, although from an international relations standpoint it would've been a disaster. If civilians died, especially such a small number, it is either due to targeting or weapons mistakes, or because the Taliban was using civilians as human shields. In fact, two workers in a plant making batteries for laser-guided bombs have said that their management covered up problems with the bombs that would've led to accidental bombings.

We need to help the poor peoples of the world with support, food, etc.. Too bad the ultra-corrupt governments of the countries of these people are stealing that donated food, reselling the support items to buy weapons, and then we get accused of not putting more money towards supporting poor peoples when our money gets thrown into a black hole of corruption and deceit. The difference in Afghanistan is that the US specifically overthrew the source of this corruption, and now those people have half a chance of recovery. Even if their tribulations were created internally first, even if 3767 of their civilians died. But, like Mark Twain said, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Okay - I'm sick and tired of reading about how pacifism is a prerequisite for being considered "civilized."

Often, diplomacy fails, as it did in Afghanistan. When it does, violence is the appropriate response.

9-11 was the result of Afghani state-sponsored terrorism. The Taliban gave comfort and asylum to OBL, and protected him from just prosecution for the murder of thousands of US Citizens - and citizens from all over the world. The United States made several attempts to get the Taliban government to release Bin laden, and the Taliban refused. The Taliban subsequently bunkered down in civilian areas, hiding behind civilian populations. It is the Taliban's cowardice that is to blame for the deaths of the civilians. They had every opportunity to remain in power... They chose a different path - to their own detriment.

What you liberal, whining, Europansies fail to understand is that you simply can't reason with zealots. The sad thing is that you should know that better than anyone else, if you are sutdents of you own history.

You should know that "diplomacy" often solves nothing. The Europeans should know - and remember how they failed their own people. Hitler could have been stopped before he was allowed to take Poland. What did "civilized" Europe do? They appeased Hitler - seeking diplomatic resolution to avoid inevitable conflict.

How many lives did your collective inaction cost? Millions. Millions of Jews died in concentration camps. Countries were sacked - taking decades to rebuild. Millions of lives were taken defending their collective homelands. You had the opportunity to stop Hitler before the Nazi movement reached critical mass. You didn't take it - and millions paid the price for your civility.

We, the United States, are taking the initiative to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. If you don't like it, that's fine. You will ultimately enjoy the comfort of the freedom that we, the United States, will provide, through war with zealots who are deaf to the soft voice of reason.

How many years have been wasted in trying to use "diplomacy" to resolve the Middle East crises? We have given land to try to appease those who will eventually use terror and violence to get greater gains - through further appeasment.

No longer. The world is now a different place, and your brand of "peace through diplomatic inaction" is obsolete.

God Bless America!
God Bless Our Troops!

 

[Doggiedog]

Nice Post Advocate.

 

[Optimus]

<< would think with our "smart" bombs and high technologies and the "special forces" that we would be able to isolate these people and not have civilian casualties. >>


You know, I honestly think our boys (and girls) over there are doing their absolute best to do exactly that. Its not easy to weild even "smart" weapons very accurately, and you reach a point where the risk to our own soldiers is not justifiable.


Anyway:
Examining our own actions that helped get us into a pickle like this is a good thing to do... but now we are in said pickle and they are killing our innocent people. There can be only one retaliation - once all reasonable peaceful means have been exhausted, be fight those attacking us until they no longer can/will. I think they "will" until there is one last guy standing, so we have to go with "can".

Listen - I really want to have a reasonable conversation about this and understand the anti-war stance on this conflict (understand, even though I likely don't agree). To that end I'm asking again:

Can anyone who feels this conflict is NOT justified PLEASE provide a reasonable, viable alternative to disable and prevent the terrorist attacks?

Some ground rules:

1) Going back to the debate on the reason why we were attacked is no good - i.e. "We should have had better policies and not angered them.". These don't count unless you are saying that changing foriegn policy NOW would prevent FUTURE attacks. Ways to go back in time and prevent the current state of affairs aren't feasible.

2) You must minimize the risk to American soldiers as reasonably as possible.

3) I think we all know that Osama and the Taliban would never negotiate a reasonable peace settlement, but if you really think they would, that settlement must be explained here somewhat (no "We just keep negotiating until the Taliban and Osama declare peace" - explain how).

Thanks - again, this is an open, non-confrontational request. No flames, no insults, no fighting - we just discuss it like normal folks.

 

[burnedout]

advocate - I hereby nominate you for the ATOT Best Post of the Week award. Good stuff.

kudos to StandardCell and Stark.

<edit>spelling</edit>

 

<< How many years have been wasted in trying to use "diplomacy" to resolve the Middle East crises? We have given land to try to appease those who will eventually use terror and violence to get greater gains - through further appeasment. >>



Well stated. If you can't understand this, you need more history knowledge. I can't see anyone putting up any type of logical arguement to Advocate's post.

 

[jjones]

That report is laughable if you're trying to pass it off as fact.

btw, nice post and my sentiments exactly advocate.

 

[Michael]

Czar - in reference to your "edit" - the author of the article called Americans cowards because they were using high altitude air strikes and he also whitewashed any responsibility Afghans had for the actions of their government.

If you want to have a thread that discusses how media reports deaths in wartime, then start a thread on that topic. The sources you cited had nothing to do with that topic and are basically opinion pieces attacking the American military and the government that directs them.

Michael

edit - these two paragraphs from the report summarize the fact that this is an opinion piece:

"The American Afghan War---historically the Fourth Afghan War---is anything but a 'just war' as James Carroll has adroitly pointed out. First, the disproportionate U.S response of making an entire other nation and people 'pay' for the crimes of a few is obvious to anyone who seeks out the real 'costs' perpetrated upon the people of Afghanistan. Action should be based upon some measure of proportionality, which here clearly is not the case. Secondly, this war does little to impede the cycle of violence of which the WTC attacks are merely one manifestation. The massive firepower unleashed by the Americans will no doubt invite similar indiscriminate carnage. Injustices will flower. Thirdly, by defining these events as a war rather than a police action without providing any argument for the necessity of the former, the American Afghan War is un-necessary and, hence, not 'just.' As Carroll writes, "the criminals, not an impoverished nation, should be on the receiving end of punishment."

It is simply unacceptable for civilians to be slaughtered as a side-effect of an intentional strike against a specified target. There is no difference between the attacks upon the WTC whose primary goal was the destruction of a symbol, and the U.S-U.K revenge coalition bombing of military targets located in populated urban areas. Both are criminal. Slaughter is slaughter. Killing civilians even if unintentional is criminal. "

The fact that the author of the report is unable to differentiate the WTC deaths caused by terrorism and the civilians killed during airstrikes that were not targeting them is chilling considering he has a Phd.

2nd edit - Here's fun paragraph where he plays the race card:

"But, I believe the argument goes deeper and that race enters the calculation. The sacrificed Afghan civilians are not 'white' whereas the overwhelming number of U.S pilots and elite ground troups are white. This 'reality' serves to amplify the positive benefit-cost ratio of certainly sacrificing darker Afghans today [and Indochinese, Iraqis yesterday] for the benefit of probably saving American soldier-citizens tomorrow. What I am saying is that when the "other" is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits. A contrary case might be raised with Serbia which was also recently subjected to mass bombing. But, the Serbs were in the view of U.S policymakers and the corporate media tainted ['darkened'] by their prior 'Communist' experience. No instance exists [except during World War II] where a foreign Caucasian state became the war target of the U.S government. The closest example might be that of the war waged by Britain upon Northern Ireland and, there, the British troops applied focused violence upon its Caucasian 'enemy.' When the "other" is a non-white foreigner , the state violence employed becomes amplified. "

Last I checked, the ground troops that are being saved tend to be more non-white than white. It isn't the special forces troops that would have to battle the Afghans, it would be the Marines and the Army.

I think it is blazingly obvious that the author of the report has a political agenda that permiates and taints any conclusions his number gathering may have.

 

[Aelus]

<< You should know that "diplomacy" often solves nothing. The Europeans should know - and remember how they failed their own people. Hitler could have been stopped before he was allowed to take Poland. What did "civilized" Europe do? They appeased Hitler - seeking diplomatic resolution to avoid inevitable conflict.

How many lives did your collective inaction cost? Millions. Millions of Jews died in concentration camps. Countries were sacked - taking decades to rebuild. Millions of lives were taken defending their collective homelands. You had the opportunity to stop Hitler before the Nazi movement reached critical mass. You didn't take it - and millions paid the price for your civility. >>



Germany in the late 30ies was impossible to stop, no country on earth, even a european alliance couldn't stop him, it was only after prolongued battle in eastern europe, which troubled the german army enough to stop it.

The english and the french negotiators during the 30ies could have denied hitler chechoslovachia or austria, but he could have taken it anyway, he had a huge military machine to back him.

That military machine was funded with stealing the property of the richest population group in germany at that time, the jewish people. By stealing such a huge amount of money, and with the support (forced or not, i won't comment on that), he was unstoppable.

You say he could have been stopped in the early thirties, when he got into power, but that's something i doubt. Most other european countries were still in big trouble from WW1, and of the worldwide recession. Alot of people were, since poverty was rampant, doubting democracy, and most countries had plenty of trouble containing their own extremist parties, let alone an external one.

The facist parties were even seen as the lesser of two evils, governments were seeing communist revolutionists as the prominent danger.

that's why hitler wasn't stopped throughout the thirties and in the start of ww2. Diplomacy only works with equal parties, otherwise, it becomes a one sided list of demands.



<< We, the United States, are taking the initiative to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. If you don't like it, that's fine. You will ultimately enjoy the comfort of the freedom that we, the United States, will provide, through war with zealots who are deaf to the soft voice of reason. >>



terrorism is not something that has an external source, it comes from within, therefor, it's important to ponder the motives those people have for doing such cruelties. It's ofcourse possible to kill those people, but since that doesn't remove the motive why people chose to become a terrorist, it seems likely that military action is only a temporary measurement.



<< How many years have been wasted in trying to use "diplomacy" to resolve the Middle East crises? We have given land to try to appease those who will eventually use terror and violence to get greater gains - through further appeasment. >>



what other means is there but diplomacy? diplomacy hasn't worked in the past, because the partners weren't equal, one side had to win more with a permanent solution than another side. The only way a permanent agreement can be produced is by making everyone happy enough.

The other possibility, ofcourse, is eliminating one party, then the other gets it all, and will ofcourse be happy.

Peace will not be reached in the middle east, by smashing on the table with a hammer, enforcing an unbalanced agreement onto both parties, and tell the "losing" party to suck it up, sit in the corner, or else.





<< No longer. The world is now a different place, and your brand of "peace through diplomatic inaction" is obsolete. >>



Ofcourse, at this point, the idea of enforcing unbalanced agreements upon large groups of people to root out violence seems the best solution, but people at some point will step up, and fight that unbalance, and some may be stopped, but others won't, and those people will cause problems again.

violence can have a use, but only temporarily, after the violence, diplomacy has to be used to bring real peace, peace, and no fear.

Aelus-with tired fingers

 

[Aelus]

Oh, and i'd dare to say the US government actually thinks the same way, it happened in western europe and in japan after WW2, now it's going to happen in afghanistan too, most likely.

I wonder what area will be next where "nationbuilding" will happen. My bets are on isreal/middle east, where hopefully the situation with the refugee camps will be put straight.

Aelus

 

[Doomguy]

If you believe this report you need to have your liberal head examined.

 

[erub]

This report is obviously full of crap. Let's say for a minute that 3,767 died. I read an article in the "biased" AMERICAN press, about how easily the commanders were switching sides from the Taliban to the NA so that they wouldn't get slaughtered. Smart for them, they never really like the Taliban either. Maybe some of these guys, or their families, were harboring the Taliban - then they claim to be innocent civilians? Rigghhhttt...

This total is obviously skewed. I'm sure the NA when they were conquering Afghanistan probably killed a few innocent civilians, but in war, you do what you have to do.

Europe could have stopped Hitler when he made his first advance into the demilitarized Rhineland...Nazi Germany was very weak.