3,767 dead :( (small edit)

[TripleJ]

So many of the responses are disappointing to say the least. Any loss of life like this is a tragedy. Period. Sure, it is a war that was in everyone's interests but they didn't deserve to die. Just like the victims of the terrorist attacks. Disregarding the deaths of these innocent Afghanis is a root symptom of so many problems we face.


How are we to set the example of valueing life and striving for peace when we treat others people's with such contempt?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Hey Tex, here's one for you. What about the billions in humanitarian aid we shell out yearly? You know if we (meaning the USA) stopped or even drastically reduced this aid, I wonder how "damned" we would be then?

This is what really bites. All these lamers come in here with their cheap shots. Repetitive cheap shots, I might add. How soon they forget the generosity. >>



It really is amazing watching some of the selective minds working. They only see the bad in America.

 

[Texmaster]

<< So many of the responses are disappointing to say the least. Any loss of life like this is a tragedy. Period. Sure, it is a war that was in everyone's interests but they didn't deserve to die. Just like the victims of the terrorist attacks. Disregarding the deaths of these innocent Afghanis is a root symptom of so many problems we face. >>




#1 No one is saying that innocent Afgan civilizans have not died in this war. Dont' put words into people's mouths.

#2 The beef many of us have is with this SPECIFIC report that has no evidence, admits its an estimate, and quotes sources that used the Taliban for their numbers of the dead.

Fairness and accuracy is what we want, not speculation or taking the word of our enemy.

 

[TripleJ]

I was refering to remarks such as "boohoo".

Of course it admits it's an estimate. What do you think it's gonna say? "This is official, we have the bodies lined up and counted thrice over." The death toll for the WTC varied a lot for a long time.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In case you return Corn,
1) My mistake for misunderstanding your comment but from your previous posts I assumed you believe neither UN estimates or ANY degree of blame being attributed to sanctions. The US has lead (through the UN and often unilaterally) the design and implementation of sanctions for Iraq. Even with liberal rules for food/medicine Saddam has attempted to defy America by sneaking oil out of his country to fund weapon development while purchasing inadequate amounts of staples. I think my previous statement conveyed the perspective that SADDAM is ultimately responsible for the starvation of his people but poorly executed sanctions give him a vehicle to starve detractors and propaganda to feed his supporters.

Oh, and I really like that Indonesia story....what hooked it for me was the part about witnessing some demonstrators getting beat down. Genius my friend, pure genius
Actually, I'm a certified genius. If you've got a broadband connection go to www.crazybabydoc.homestead.com. I put up some pix right after my travels but never completed the site or modified the pictures. I do have pictures of the protesters and thugs in JogJog as the locals call it. When I have the time I may finish my site and post some of them. If you doubt that you'll love this. The active volcano . . . I climbed it the next day; including going DOWN into the cauldron AND taking pictures (it was 5AM so can't see much but lava which looks orange with my digicam but sunrise was fantastic from 11K ft).

While I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that technology, as it stands today, has yet to render a cost effective substitute for petrol. There are any number of "reasons" for this I suppose.....to it simply not yet attainable
Absolutely, but do you have any idea how much we will spend (government and industry) on alternative energy R&D this year? A fraction of what we will spend on SDI (which many authorities; including former developers consider not yet attainable), the V-22 Osprey program (which many authorities no only consider not yet attainable but downright lethal (20 built/12 flown/4 crashed/26 dead soldiers) . . . oh yeah and our VP Cheney who tried to kill the program in two different administrations), subsidies for ethanol, credits for automakers to sell flex fuel vehicles knowing full well that most people aren't actually putting NG in them, subsidies for coal (particularly for that dirty WVA crap), codified prohibitions against studying CAFE st'ds. We enable industry and individuals to waste so they do. I'm not just giving a tree hugger perspective that's just how self interest works. The problem is that our progress as a nation is not beholden just to capitalist ideals but also some degree of collective good. And in the long term it benefits our nation to be at the forefront of alternative energy 1) decreased reliance on foreign energy 2) keep American industry competitive in the future when conventional sources become inadequate 3) we will either buy this technology or sell it but if we have to buy it (probably from GermanyEU or Japan) we're screwing ourselves for the next century. Oh and will we spend more on R&D this year. Hell no, at least according to an analyst for FoxNews (granted not a particularly reliable source) reporting White House leaks on the 2003 budget proposal . . . that same source reported cut backs in conservation and social programs and considering GWB's first budget proposed cuts in all of these areas I wouldn't doubt the report even if came from the Sierra Club.

Some likeminded piece off footware has concluded that all that is needed for world peace is to eliminate poverty.
I'm sure some people do think like that. But solving hunger of body does not assuage hunger of soul. Most of Europe's wars were not fought b/c of poverty. But over a millenium of fraticide on the continent has more to do with warped perspectives of entitlement than trying to support the common man. Poverty should be eliminated b/c it's the humane thing to do. Some conflicts will be resolved but others will remain as long as other natural resources are in limited supply. There's a real doozy brewing between Turkey, Greece, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel over water. And even when everybody is fat and happy (America) we will pursue other avenues of becoming fatter and happier.

Who will you blame then?
My blame game was in part tongue-in-cheek. My point is that antagonists tend to see all of their admirable qualities and all of their adversaries' faults. We are no different. OPEC nations that export nothing but crude and terrorists will pay the piper if they don't think any farther ahead than the next double-hulled tanker leaving port. Saddam is actually a sadistic visionary . . . far more vision than any of the US presidents he's encountered b/c he knows the only way to stay on top of the game is to control great oil reserves 1/4 of which likely lies under Saudi territory and 3/4 within the Middle East overall.

As a country America has done great things all over the world. We've also done some not so great things. But our country is not great. It is the best of current alternatives but calling it great in kind is fanciful. We are truly great in potential. Potential that lures immigrants from all over the globe . . . hell half the world's terrorist can probably claim some degree of education in the country they hate with such vitriol. But that's their issue not ours. But as long as we turn a tin ear to legitimate complaints of US hegemony the world's future is in peril. We can protect our turf ala Micro$oft or share with all ala designers of the Internet.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I was refering to remarks such as "boohoo". >>



Thats exactly why I didn't say no one is saying its not a tradgedy.



<< Of course it admits it's an estimate. What do you think it's gonna say? "This is official, we have the bodies lined up and counted thrice over." The death toll for the WTC varied a lot for a long time. >>



But there isn't even any realy basis for the number even given! Thats the problem.

 

[Aelus]

<< Hey Tex, here's one for you. What about the billions in humanitarian aid we shell out yearly? You know if we (meaning the USA) stopped or even drastically reduced this aid, I wonder how "damned" we would be then? >>



talking about that, did you know that the USA, with alot of other industrialized nations promised to spend 0.7% of the GNP on humanitarian aid. Last i heard, the USA spent 0.07%, or a tenth of the promise, lots of other nations try to increase the % to that 0.7% goal, a few nations even spend more than that (sweden does 1% iirc).

are there concrete plans in the USA to increase the spending to the promised value?

Aelus

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Hey Tex, here's one for you. What about the billions in humanitarian aid we shell out yearly? You know if we (meaning the USA) stopped or even drastically reduced this aid, I wonder how "damned" we would be then? >>



talking about that, did you know that the USA, with alot of other industrialized nations promised to spend 0.7% of the GNP on humanitarian aid. Last i heard, the USA spent 0.07%, or a tenth of the promise, lots of other nations try to increase the % to that 0.7% goal, a few nations even spend more than that (sweden does 1% iirc).

are there concrete plans in the USA to increase the spending to the promised value?

Aelus >>




We still give more money. Sweeden and the others should try and match the amount of meny we give not the percentage.

 

[TripleJ]

OK, you seemed to have missed my point. So let's break down the areas where you have gone astray:



<< #1 No one is saying that innocent Afgan civilizans have not died in this war. Dont' put words into people's mouths. >>


Where did I say some people in this thread are denying it? "Disregard" does not mean "deny". It means to throw aside, not care and devalue.



This following point which you have seemed to have added as a reply to my post has extremely little to do with my post. But anyway:


<< #2 The beef many of us have is with this SPECIFIC report that has no evidence, admits its an estimate, and quotes sources that used the Taliban for their numbers of the dead.

Fairness and accuracy is what we want, not speculation or taking the word of our enemy. >>


This is a fair and reasonable query. But I think you are a little subjective in your views and you lost my respect as a poster a long time ago with some of the most hysterical posts I've read(thanks for the laughs though, which were quite unintentional I'm sure ). On the other hand, the Guardian is a well respected paper with credibility. Although I don't take it at face value I do recognise that it has some worth to it and simply dismissing the report is shortsighted. The report even states for all to see what sources they have used so people like you can take advantage of in threads like this. Why? To keep it as scientific and transparent as possible. This adds to it's credibility. It also is not an unreasonable figure either considering the bombing campaign. And I guess you did not read this bit: "But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days; nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment."

 

[Texmaster]

<< Where did I say some people in this thread are denying it? "Disregard" does not mean "deny". It means to throw aside, not care and devalue. >>




Ok so you were just being redundant. Gotcha.




<< This following point which you have seemed to have added as a reply to my post has extremely little to do with my post. But anyway: >>



Actually since you were posting I was assuming you were adressing the original post since you didn't quote anyone else.



<< This is a fair and reasonable query. But I think you are a little subjective in your views and I lost your respect as a poster a long time ago with some of the most hysterical posts I've read(thanks for the laughs though, which were quite unintentional I'm sure ). >>



LOL At least you are not going to be bias! I know facts are laughable to people like you, but they are important to me.



<< On the other hand, the Guardian is a well respected paper with credibility. >>



Did you even read the title? The innocent dead in a coward's war

And you call them credible?



<< Although I don't take it at face value I do recognise that it has some worth to it and simply dismissing the report is shortsighted. The report even states for all to see what sources they have used so people like you can take advantage of in threads like this. Why? To keep it as scientific and transparent as possible. This adds to it's credibility. >>



Just because you list your sources doesn't make you credible, honorable perhaps but certainly not credible.



<< It also is not an unreasonable figure either considering the bombing campaign. And I guess you did not read this bit: "But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days; nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment." >>




LOL Obviously you didn't read the WHOLE report, just what the Guardian said about it. Your bias and ignorance is just shining through here.

The sources he quotes include 3 pakestini newspapers and 1 Egyptian newspaper who ALL got their casualty reports from the Taliban!

Use some common sense TripleJ, do you really beleive the Taliban are going to give accurate numbers on civilian casualities in a propedgana war as well as a military war?

Honestly, you cannot be that niave.

Not only did you not read the original article you took the opinion of the Guardian at face value. Your ignorance is almost overwhelming.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

On the other hand, the Guardian is a well respected paper with credibility. Although I don't take it at face value I do recognise that it has some worth to it and simply dismissing the report is shortsighted.

If you don't take it at face value, how can it be a credible source?

If I remember, the Guardian also took the number of dead Iraqis in the Gulf War from the Iraqi government and reported those...
and we know how credible the Iraqi government is. Remember - the people who have been hiding biological weapons from UN weapons inspectors.

In order to be credible as a news agency, you must base your reports on credible sources. In that way, the news business is a lot like data processing - garbage in, garbage out.

The Taliban numbers are likely just that... garbage. The Guardian should confirm its numbers before just publishing the figure that it likes to push its liberal, candy-ass agenda. Where are the other numbers from the other side?

If you can't tell that the Guardian is a biased liberal rag from the title of the piece itself, then you are obviously reading without thinking. That is a dangerous combination.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There is a problem in that statement. "Essentially everyone" it not everyone. And Jbod is right. If other countries like Germany and France Really had a problem they would have been more vocal.
I could certainly be mistaken but outside of Britain and the US which countries have sanctions against Iraq that did not exist before the war. Germany, Russia, and France bitched bitterly in the mid-ninties. I won't presume to know your ages but as a college student I remember vividly. Furthermore, now they just openly trade so it doesn't matter if they're vocal or not b/c they're doing their own thing.

LOL Failed? Neither one of these countries have been able to openly wage war. I'd say thats a victory. I think most people know Cuba gave Russia permission to put nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida and got us the closest to a nuclear world war than any other time in history. Call me crazy but that kind of danger is enough for me to support the sanctions.

History and perspective is what you appear to lack. Cuba openly wage war against the US? The Cuban Missile Crisis had more to do with a little guy being used as a pawn in a lethal game that should never have been played. Fortunately, we had a president who stared down the barrel and did not blink (while the warmongerers were screaming for a first strike). His cooler head prevailed (probably b/c he was getting some). Even Castro admits it was a mistake (ever make a rash decision) but his regime in Cuba was under persistent covert and overt attack by the US so he tried to puff up like some adders. But much like the adder YOUR encroachment is the stimulus. Cuba has actively supported many insurgents throughout Central and South America. Do you even remember why we "liberated" Grenada? The only reason we aren't still engaged in those battles is that the USSR went bankrupt, Cuba lost its sugardaddy and decided it wasn't worth the cheddar to continue to support leftists in the hemisphere (fortunately these groups have the support of the US appetite for drugs). So after failing to take the island by force and botched assassination attempts we have a hostile leader with legitimate populist appeal (but a definitive authoritarian streak) who can always point to the great threat to the north. We made and sustain Castro . . . if you doubt it read/review anything current by Robert McNamara.

According to a far left friend of mine (but keep reading), in LBJ's archives is one account of an advisor saying a minor incident in Cuba being sufficient impetus to invade Cuba. This advisor then told LBJ (who was to meet with NYT editors the next day) to discuss it with the editors. This advisors statement . . . "I think the public will buy it . . ."

My brother used to be a Pershing Missile crewman in Germany. How is parking tactical nukes on the border "to defend NATO from overwelming conventional forces" of the Warsaw Pact any different from Castro hosting Soviet nukes to defend against US aggression. It's not. Palestinian boys throw stones at armored troops b/c 1) they're dumb 2) their parents are irresponsible and 3) they don't have anything else. I repeat Castro was stupid he admits he was stupid. But after Bay of Pigs and other episodes he had good reason to fear our country. Could he fight an open conflict? Of course not, it's a damn tiny island off the coast of a superpower. Did he invade his neighbors? No. Did he support like minded insurgents all over the hemisphere? Absolutely. Did leftist kill, rape, and pillage those that disagree with their beliefs? Sometimes. Did US supported regimes kill, rape, and pillage those that disagreed with their beliefs? Sometimes.

Current danger from Cuba. US and world tourist dollars. Crime is still quite low, the climate is great, the people are wonderful. But remember that it is illegal to travel without prior approval from OUR government, pleasure trips are strictly prohibited, and you can only spend $100 per day. OK which country is authoritarian?

Yeah we knee-capped Saddam. Problem is that we should have castrated him. We have prevented him from openly waging war against everyone except those that matter most . . . the revolutionaries within his country that we hoped would topple his regime. Yes we enforce the no fly zones in the north and south but when it mattered most . . . right after the armistice . . . we allowed him to slaughter opponents in both regions. But how much sympathy do you really have for the sovereign non-democratic states in that region? Saddam controlling Gulf oil is a bad idea but oligarchies that suppor international terrorists and educational systems that distort US culture and foreign policy aren't exactly a gem either.

Not to mention that the younger people of Saudi Arabia have no love for the US mainly because they did not attend Western Schools like their Elders did but stayed in country. SA's governemnt is holding onto power by a thread. If they support the US too openly, they go under.
Yes, but their cradle-college support system provides plenty of opportunities to foster respect for the good in America. Some people call it teaching history, past to geopolitical present. My understanding is that the radicals rule the schools and are fostering hate amongst the young. Their are many young worldwide (Iran for instance) that love the US by image and have never set foot in a western school. Matriculation at Harvard, UNC, or UC-Irvine isn't even close to being the MAIN reason. They learn their hate at home just like we do. The difference is they are far more likely to travel to other countries and see how others live instead of relying on the O'Reilly Report, Rush Limbaugh, www.drugereport.com, or even CNN (which sux in the States but is pretty good international).

Does a government that fails to act in the best interest of the people deserve to hold onto power? Maybe the people should overthrow the monarchy. The radical right (in SA) maybe hostile to the US but if they fail to support international trade it will become apparent to the populous that a crappy self-absorbed monarchy maybe better than elected lunatic fringe. Apparently, the radicals breed like rabbits and will soon dominate elected offices. Representative democracy in action is a wonderful thing to watch. And the new republic of SA should be welcomed; assuming they can avoid the theocratic morass of the first twenty years of Iran. But that means we've got to support our ideals not just control and supply of cheap crude.

And where did you get this account? From East Timor perhaps? Yes the US funds some very nasty people but you cannot put the blame entirely on the US. I'm sure people in East Timor had similar weapon supplies.
Nope, never been there even as an adventure traveler I know some places are better left to those that believe in concealed/carry (of semiautomatics). Account comes from UN observers, various human rights groups (primarily AI), political record of Sudharto, and official US policy. I NEVER put the blame entirely on the US for anything for the same reason we NEVER deserve exclusive credit for good outcomes. Give me even the slightest evidence for your position that the people in East Timor could defend themselves adequately from government troops and aligned militias East Timor.

I will cover the rest of your points later . . .

 

[Chrono]

I must agree, I could care less about the taliban or the afghans.

Maybe if all of this September 11th stuff and terrorist actions never happened then I could maybe shed some sympathy, but nope.

I'm actually really happy, I think I'll be sleeping more comfortably tonight knowing this.

*sleeps*
ahhh

 

[burnedout]

talking about that, did you know that the USA, with alot of other industrialized nations promised to spend 0.7% of the GNP on humanitarian aid. Last i heard, the USA spent 0.07%, or a tenth of the promise, lots of other nations try to increase the % to that 0.7% goal, a few nations even spend more than that (sweden does 1% iirc).

are there concrete plans in the USA to increase the spending to the promised value?

Aelus >>

We still give more money. Sweeden and the others should try and match the amount of meny we give not the percentage.

http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cp99/budreq.htm

"SUMMARY OF USAID

FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET REQUEST

For Fiscal Year 1999, the President is requesting appropriations of $7,319,197,000 for USAID-administered programs, including those jointly administered with the State Department. The FY 1999 request compares to the FY 1998 appropriation level of $7,018,600,000. The FY 1999 USAID request includes funding for Development Assistance (DA), the Economic Support Fund (ESF), Support for East European Democracy (SEED), and Assistance for the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS). P.L. 480 Titles II and III (Food for Peace) resources administered by USAID are formally requested as a part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget."

The above is a portion of the economic aid. Doesn't include UN or other agencies.

Aelus: You don't look a gift horse in the mouth, do you? Hypocritical attitude, don't you think? We give give give and now you want us to give more. We give more assistance than the entire GDP of some countries.

Tex: Yes, good point. Why don't the socialists also consider the amount spent on defense? Oh, I forgot, according to them, we spend too much on our "empiracal" military anyway.

Bunch of damn hypocrites.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I could certainly be mistaken but outside of Britain and the US which countries have sanctions against Iraq that did not exist before the war. Germany, Russia, and France bitched bitterly in the mid-ninties. I won't presume to know your ages but as a college student I remember vividly. Furthermore, now they just openly trade so it doesn't matter if they're vocal or not b/c they're doing their own thing. >>



Openly trading? I must admit I did not know that it was open trading.



<< History and perspective is what you appear to lack. >>



LOL I was just going to say the same thing about you. But please, go on..



<< Cuba openly wage war against the US? >>



Openly wage war against ANYONE. That was the goal.



<< The Cuban Missile Crisis had more to do with a little guy being used as a pawn in a lethal game that should never have been played. Fortunately, we had a president who stared down the barrel and did not blink (while the warmongerers were screaming for a first strike). His cooler head prevailed (probably b/c he was getting some). Even Castro admits it was a mistake (ever make a rash decision) but his regime in Cuba was under persistent covert and overt attack by the US so he tried to puff up like some adders. >>



This is nothing but your own opinion. I am only interested in the results and the goal. The goal was to keep Castro from attacking the US or allowing others to use Cuba for their pruposes. The goal was reached no matter what your opinion is about how it came about the results are the same.



<< But much like the adder YOUR encroachment is the stimulus. Cuba has actively supported many insurgents throughout Central and South America. Do you even remember why we "liberated" Grenada? The only reason we aren't still engaged in those battles is that the USSR went bankrupt, Cuba lost its sugardaddy and decided it wasn't worth the cheddar to continue to support leftists in the hemisphere (fortunately these groups have the support of the US appetite for drugs). So after failing to take the island by force and botched assassination attempts we have a hostile leader with legitimate populist appeal (but a definitive authoritarian streak) who can always point to the great threat to the north. We made and sustain Castro . . . if you doubt it read/review anything current by Robert McNamara. >>



What part of "waging OPEN war" don't you understand? You really need to read more carefully. I never mentioned Grenada or other conflicts where Cuba armed a small amount of people because that is impossible to stop altogether.

Keeping Cuba at bay and not being able to wage OPEN war was my point. Please read more carefully next time.



<< According to a far left friend of mine (but keep reading), in LBJ's archives is one account of an advisor saying a minor incident in Cuba being sufficient impetus to invade Cuba. This advisor then told LBJ (who was to meet with NYT editors the next day) to discuss it with the editors. This advisors statement . . . "I think the public will buy it . . ." >>



Without a shred of eviendence. Can't say I'm suprised. Speculation is speculation. Deal with the facts.



<< My brother used to be a Pershing Missile crewman in Germany. How is parking tactical nukes on the border "to defend NATO from overwelming conventional forces" of the Warsaw Pact any different from Castro hosting Soviet nukes to defend against US aggression. >>



Because its NOT the US. Stick to the subject. We are not comparing situations. We are talking about the US' setps to project itself.

Stick to the point.



<< It's not. Palestinian boys throw stones at armored troops b/c 1) they're dumb 2) their parents are irresponsible and 3) they don't have anything else. I repeat Castro was stupid he admits he was stupid. But after Bay of Pigs and other episodes he had good reason to fear our country. Could he fight an open conflict? Of course not, it's a damn tiny island off the coast of a superpower. Did he invade his neighbors? No. >>



Ah but WHY couldn't he invade his neighbors? Because of the embargo. You are trying to complicate something that really very simple.



<< Did he support like minded insurgents all over the hemisphere? Absolutely. Did leftist kill, rape, and pillage those that disagree with their beliefs? Sometimes. Did US supported regimes kill, rape, and pillage those that disagreed with their beliefs? Sometimes. >>



Once again, I never denied this. We were talking about OPEN war. For the third time, Stick to the subject.



<< Current danger from Cuba. US and world tourist dollars. Crime is still quite low, the climate is great, the people are wonderful. But remember that it is illegal to travel without prior approval from OUR government, pleasure trips are strictly prohibited, and you can only spend $100 per day. OK which country is authoritarian? >>



The one that keeps Castro in power. He's not a good guy Genius. He's a murderer and a dictator and until his government is out, the sanctions stay.



<< Yeah we knee-capped Saddam. Problem is that we should have castrated him. We have prevented him from openly waging war against everyone except those that matter most . . . the revolutionaries within his country that we hoped would topple his regime. Yes we enforce the no fly zones in the north and south but when it mattered most . . . right after the armistice . . . we allowed him to slaughter opponents in both regions. But how much sympathy do you really have for the sovereign non-democratic states in that region? Saddam controlling Gulf oil is a bad idea but oligarchies that suppor international terrorists and educational systems that distort US culture and foreign policy aren't exactly a gem either. >>



Saddam should have been killed and his governement replaced. That was a HUGE mistake.




<< Yes, but their cradle-college support system provides plenty of opportunities to foster respect for the good in America. Some people call it teaching history, past to geopolitical present. My understanding is that the radicals rule the schools and are fostering hate amongst the young. >>



You just explained my point about the schools there.



<< Their are many young worldwide (Iran for instance) that love the US by image and have never set foot in a western school. >>



Newsflash, Iran youth and SA youth are COMPLETELY different with COMPLETELY different governments. Iran's youth left the country to the west for education and returned home to an oppressive governemnt rule. They are on our side.
The SA youth saw a drastic drop in school attendence outside their country and their opposition is to a governemnt that has been a friend to the US. They are not on our side.

How can you possibly even attempt to relate the two?



<< Matriculation at Harvard, UNC, or UC-Irvine isn't even close to being the MAIN reason. They learn their hate at home just like we do. >>



The drop in Western attendence in school is evidence as is the rise in colleges in their own country.

The two are related.



<< The difference is they are far more likely to travel to other countries and see how others live instead of relying on the O'Reilly Report, Rush Limbaugh, www.drugereport.com, or even CNN (which sux in the States but is pretty good international). >>



LOL!!! Spoken like a true liberal. Have you even watched the O'Reilly factor? He is against the death penalty, is for taxing SUVs and his favorite politican of all time is Robert Kennedy. Yep sure sounds like a Republican! LOL

The ignorance you are displaying here is very very sad.



<< Does a government that fails to act in the best interest of the people deserve to hold onto power? Maybe the people should overthrow the monarchy. The radical right (in SA) maybe hostile to the US but if they fail to support international trade it will become apparent to the populous that a crappy self-absorbed monarchy maybe better than elected lunatic fringe. >>



Who said the youth support free trade? The radical right's goal is NO Western involvement of any kind.



<< Nope, never been there even as an adventure traveler I know some places are better left to those that believe in concealed/carry (of semiautomatics). Account comes from UN observers, various human rights groups (primarily AI), political record of Sudharto, and official US policy. >>



And I'll be real money they never addressed how many of the Government's people the Rebels in East Timor have killed.



<< I NEVER put the blame entirely on the US for anything for the same reason we NEVER deserve exclusive credit for good outcomes. Give me even the slightest evidence for your position that the people in East Timor could defend themselves adequately from government troops and aligned militias East Timor. >>



There is the key word, adequately. Adequately to you means well enough to defend what you consider to be their state and drive back the governemt forces. Clearly your bias is only allowing you to see one side.



<< I will cover the rest of your points later . . . >>



I look foreward to it.

 

[Aelus]

If a country gives a certain % of the GNP, it's the same effort as another country which gives the same %.

compare it to a homeless person giving 10$ for a good goal, with bill gates giving that same 10$. It's the same money, but a different effort.

That being said, why did america promise to give 0.7% if it doesn't want to donate that much?

Ofcourse, there could be upcomming efforts to raise that help by a tenfold, feel free to enlighten me.

Aelus

 

[Phokus]

It's nice to see Texmaster step in with his misguided southern redneck sentiments, it really is.

Anyway, i've said it once and i'll say it again: The US should curtail bombing and use more ground forces UNLESS it's really necessary. In this case we have a moral responsibility to limit the number of civilian casualties as possible, considering the military might we have in comparison to our enemies. Remember when we first started our military initiative? I believe even the president said that we were looking for justice and not revenge. Taking 3700+ civilian lives (if it is true) is not only irresponsible, but also criminal.

Now onto my second rant on patriotism. It's one thing to express solidarity as a nation with the victims, the families, the tragedy, etc. and it's another thing to go into a blind rage (i'll admit, i was in this phase for a few days, and it's sad to see so many of you still in it) and believe everything our government does is good without asking for accountability. THAT, my friends, is dangerous and is the very basis of so much human suffering in the history of our world.

Now if you believe what i just said is pro-taliban/anti-american, then so be it, but just remember: dissent is one of the most American of values (i.e. the civil rights movement, anti-vietman war sentiments, etc.) and was the very basis of the establishment of our country (i.e. the pilgrims who escaped religious tyranny and the defiance against british rule).

 

[avedis]

Last time I checked....
People usually die in war.
If Bin Laden never planned the Sept 11 Attacks, then the afgans wouldn't be dying now because of this.

 

[jbod]

True but when much of the world (essentially everyone except the Brits) abandoned the sanctions the US was "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead". I could certainly be mistaken but outside of Britain and the US which countries have sanctions against Iraq that did not exist before the war. Germany, Russia, and France bitched bitterly in the mid-ninties. I won't presume to know your ages but as a college student I remember vividly. Furthermore, now they just openly trade so it doesn't matter if they're vocal or not b/c they're doing their own thing.

Why did they abandon the sanctions? (IMO)Because for their own political motive, the UN supporting nations were/are losing support of a growing majority and that would mean losing credibility among a said growing and prospering Arab alliance that will no doubt in the future have a major role to play in foreign affairs.

There are many reasons sanctions have failed in Iraq and Cuba. But two undeniable facts are 1) Saddam and Castro maintain power through oppression with populist appeal (Iraq more oppressive/Cuba more populous) and 2) most of the world has a very different perspective than we do on these two countries . . . or at the very least disagree that sanctions are the answer.
These two facts have nothing to do with why the sanctions, in your opinion, are failing. I believe they are working. And why did these nations go along with the sanctions in first place? These nations need to put up or shut up. It was a contract. You can?t just support the sanctions for 4 years and then turn on a dime and say, ?I believe it?s in our best interest to scrap the idea of ?oil for food? and instead support what I call ?plutonium for blood.?? (this is the true intent of Iraq?s argument for the ease of sanctions, as soon as they end, ten years down the road, Iraq has the military capacity to destroy a large part of life as we know it) Yes it?s possibly true that Kuwait would not have even been on our buddy list had it not been for the oil. But they and many other Arab states invited us in so that THEIR resources would not be taken by a despotic thug. They knew that a great deal of wealth was at stake and the only ones to help out were the Westerners. (of course if you believe OBL, that?s not true, I?m not going to go there)



<< Sanctions on Cuba are pure poop. >>

(I guess I need to read up on this one.)

Countries like France, Turkey, Russia, and China not only bitch but also continue to trade with Saddam's regime.
Of these countries you mention, France, Turkey, Russia, and China, two are historically enemies, France I question their relationship with the US, and Turkey, well in my opinion, has been a good ally. But even if Turkey is trading with Iraq, they surely aren?t supplying them with much of anything that could do us great harm. Unlike China, Russia, and France that help Iraq with technology that could eventually be detrimental to our well being.

Not exactly sure what tuff get tuff means but let me give you a clear example of US blame in the face of known atrocities and UN response.
Tuff get tuff, means that when some despotic thug, i.e. Iraq, starts invading Kuwait, who do they call? The US Armed Forces! But as soon as the US is no longer in the best interest of the UN, they want to blame us for the sanctions they supported! It?s total crap.

East Timor recently achieved independence from Indonesia after decades of struggle and hundreds of thousands of deaths . . . Sudharto pretty much made it clear to several US administrations that he intended to put down rebellion in East Timor by any means necessary. Where did he get the funding and weapons? Uncle Sam and our tax dollars provided the tools to slaughter revolutionaries fighting for the right to self-determination.
Why didn?t the UN step in sooner? Because they are poop. There are two sides to every story.

Today, much like Afghanistan, US munitions aid the oppression of free thinkers within Indonesia. Not an estimate or a guess, I went to Indonesia in the summer of 2000, met the wife of the Vice President in Yogykarta (central Java), talked with demonstrators protesting government corruption (promptly beat down by thugs with bats and metal rods . . . but the protestors returned later), and then talked with one of the "thugs" (he had a nice T-shirt with three bold letters FBI).
That?s hard to believe the FBI is out there in the streets being thugs with sticks and bats. They have real weapons.

Furthermore, as payback Barak could have accepted international "monitors". What would the monitors do? Move throughout the occupied territories and using intelligence provided by Israel and the Palestinian Authority eradicate militants.
This is pure fantasy. This will/would have never happen/ed.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Taking 3700+ civilian lives (if it is true) is not only irresponsible, but also criminal.

How in the hell do you wage war without inflicting any civilian casualties?

Given the scope of our deployment in Afghanistan, the fact that only 3,700 (+ or -) civilians have died GIVEN that the Taliban has purposely hidden behind the civilian population (stockpiling weapons and placing military objectives inside mosques, for example) is a testament to how careful the US is being in avoiding civilian collateral damage. These numbers from the Taliban - even if accurate - are a testament to how careful the US has been in minimizing civilian casualties.

The indiscriminate killing of civilians would be a criminal act. The U.S. has done nothing of the sort here. The US has even warned civilians with pamphlets to leave areas in Afghanistan. Many civilians heeded these warning and fled. Some did not. Oh well...

Flying planes loaded with passengers and fuel into buildings however is a criminal act - one that would be repeated if OBL and the Taliban that supports him is not brought to justice. The Taliban government, a government recognized by very few nations in the world before evidence of their support for OBL came to light, had the opportunity to turn over OBL and refused.

It is a shame that this had to happen, but it did have to happen.

 

[Nefrodite]

If a country gives a certain % of the GNP, it's the same effort as another country which gives the same %.

compare it to a homeless person giving 10$ for a good goal, with bill gates giving that same 10$. It's the same money, but a different effort.

That being said, why did america promise to give 0.7% if it doesn't want to donate that much?

Ofcourse, there could be upcomming efforts to raise that help by a tenfold, feel free to enlighten me.

Aelus

um but your only including part of the picture. the us does more then just give money, we use our military to do things around the world, small countries like the one that gave 1% dont do such things.

 

[burnedout]

Anyway, i've said it once and i'll say it again: The US should curtail bombing and use more ground forces UNLESS it's really necessary.

I can see your knowledge of strategy in regards to combat operations is sorely lacking. Allow me to enlighten you on some of the intricacies of US doctrine. To begin with, the object of such operations is to close with and destroy the enemy. The second consideration is conservation of forces vis a vis force protection. What you are proposing here is the unnecessary exposure of ground combat troops to hostile fire. Not a good idea. The Pentagon has been commended for the efficiency in the conduct of the operations in Afghanistan. Enough said on that subject. I can go further into detail and present you with professional dissertations and analysis from Generals/Admirals, along with 20 years of my own experience, should you so desire.

In this case we have a moral responsibility to limit the number of civilian casualties as possible, considering the military might we have in comparison to our enemies.

Observe the US record since the Vietnam war. Minimizing civilian deaths in accordance with the Hague and Geneva conventions remains one of the priorities in the conduct of combat operations by US Forces.

Taking 3700+ civilian lives (if it is true) is not only irresponsible, but also criminal.

Agreed. But do you actually put full faith in the report written by an Economics professor in NH? One thing that pissed me off while I was in the service was a damn civilian with NO military experience trying to tell me how to do my job and the results therewith. Bottom line: He was not there. He is going off of press reports, some credible, some not.

Normally, I don't become so aggressive on posts. However, Czar posted this subject before on November 19th. Then he asks for a deletion, just like in this thread. Sorry, but I refuse to stand by while some troll constantly discredits my country. If it isn't about civilian deaths, it deals with either Palestinians, Depleted Uranium munitions or some other horse crap generated by the media in Europe.

And as far as patriotism goes. Yes, I'm patriotic. Damn proud of my country. Oh, by the way, I've been to more than 30 other countries outside of this one. How many have you visited?

<edit>spelling</edit>

 

[JimboTheConquer]

<< Professor Marc Herold at the University of New Hampshire did a very thorough report on how many civilians have died in Afghanistan from October 7th to December 10th. >>



wheres the party at?

-Jimbo

 

[Aelus]

<< um but your only including part of the picture. the us does more then just give money, we use our military to do things around the world, small countries like the one that gave 1% dont do such things. >>



you're partly right, but the biggest use of that military is to protect assets which are valuable to the USA, ie, the military presence in the middle east for oil. There are a couple of exceptions, but the vast majority is to protect the interests of the USA.

I just don't understand why a country would agree to trying to donate a certain %, and then do little efforts to reach it.

Aelus

 

[Texmaster]

<< If a country gives a certain % of the GNP, it's the same effort as another country which gives the same %.

compare it to a homeless person giving 10$ for a good goal, with bill gates giving that same 10$. It's the same money, but a different effort.

That being said, why did america promise to give 0.7% if it doesn't want to donate that much?

Ofcourse, there could be upcomming efforts to raise that help by a tenfold, feel free to enlighten me.

Aelus >>



The amount is all the people care about not what percentage of the country's GNP is being allocated.

America gives the most money and aid, period.