The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Humbert · 14-10-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

I'd take that with a truckload of salt. How many 'experts' raised questions about WMDs?

Independent journalists. Rather their opinion than armchair conjecture.

Jet Gorgon · 14-10-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panda

Jet, what you been endorsing is the killing of civilians to protect soldiers.
I believe "collateral damage" is the nice, inoffensive term commonly used to describe this murder.

I do not endorse it. I do support backup for the troops tho. And, unfortunately, civilians do die in wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrG

You don't win without winning hearts and minds. You don't do that by killing them.

True, and the US & NATO are helping with building, supplies, funding in A-stan. It's just difficult to know who the enemy is over there; not like they wear special AQ uniforms.

Panda · 14-10-2009, 11:47 AM

[quote=Jet Gorgon;1198204]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrG

It's just difficult to know who the enemy is over there; not like they wear special AQ uniforms.

Yea, I guess it is difficult to single out the bad guys over there, and I suppose thats why the US military chooses to just kill everybody in the area hoping to get the target insurgents. Expendable civilians in the eyes of people like you. Unfortunately for people of your kind, the Afghan people dont see it like that when a foreign army kills their innocent family members, including their wives and children.

You are no better than a terrorist Jet, advocating the slaughter of innocent civilians to achieve a political/military objective.

Panda · 14-10-2009, 11:28 AM

With 32 million people, even a statistically low % of people who want the USA out of Afghanistan can amount to literally millions. And of that group it can relate to possibly hundreds of thousands of actual people prepared to fight for their beliefs.

The thing is that the anti-American, anti-government group are the hard liners, many who are prepared to fight to the death, while vast majority middle group just want to get on with their lives. As support for the US occupation dwindles among the majority middle group, support for the hard line anti-American fighters grows.

USA is fighting a loosing battle for support in Afghanistan. Right now its a stalemate in military terms, but in terms of hearts and minds they are loosing the war.

Right now the US public now longer has heart for the war, and economically its draining the country. So there is little hope of USA increasing the military effort there. The NATO allies are also tiring of a seemingly unwinnable war and their numbers are dwindling. The previous US tactic of going in with a heavy hand has backfired and resulted in increased support for the insurgents. The only option for USA now is to try and regain some Afghan support -- aka winning hearts and minds. And killing Afghan civilians to protect US soldiers is not the way to do that as General McCristal has figured out. However, if there's one thing that makes the US public loose their taste for war faster than anything else its the site of an increased number of body bags coming home.

Probable outcome is that in the lead up to the next US presidential election, still 3 years away yet, the Yanks will try to slide out of the Afghan war arena and leave it up to Pakistan and Afghanistan to clean up their mess.

MrG · 14-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

US & NATO are helping with building, supplies, funding in A-stan. It's just difficult to know who the enemy is over there; not like they wear special AQ uniforms.

Yes, they do very nice things for some people in the community, hell, whole communities, who are lucky enough to be chosen. I see the reports on the nightly TV news. The Good Guys doing Good Deeds, which I think is great and I don't put it down at all, but it doesn't make a war worth it. I don't think the average Afghani...average human being...would weigh military occupiers killing civilians --friends, relatives, neigbors -- against a new compressor or well or school house, and not take a side. I would. And I know what side I'd be on.

Came across this article in The Nation by Robert Scheer, an old liberal if ever there was one. I'm not sure how we leave Afghanistan, but this fact and the logic that follows has got to figure into the calculation.

Quote:

Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president's national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:

"The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best intelligence data available to our government. That means that Al Qaeda, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan--so why are we having a big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate, Al Qaeda will inevitably come back.
Why? It's not like Al Qaeda is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all, US officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and the Afghan mujahedeen, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes.
There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are interested in bringing Al Qaeda back. On the contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has led to their demise.

Whole article at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/scheer

larvidchr · 14-10-2009, 04:00 PM

How many "innocents" have actually been "slaughtered" in Afghanistan compared to killed terrorists/Taliban fighters/Muhjadin ?

Trying to make out that civilians are actual targets is disingenuous, but there are unfortunate collateral damage.

The usual subjective colourful reporting from Journalists with an agenda have you weeping all over this thread, with hand-picked episodes that in reality are difficoult to confirm and to check for Taliban manipulation, the sucesses are not at all so diligently put forward by you, every killed terrorist!, every little Girl who now are allowed to get a rudimentary education!, the vast majority that live daily lives in relative peace and freedom, without fear of religous fanatics terrorising them and randomly dishing out the most cruel punishments.

Name me one war where it has been possible to completely avoid collateral damage and the terrible loss of innocent life's ?

What is the target, to combat terrorists who have infiltrated a whole country, with the region close to the Pakistan border especially bad, they don't wear uniforms, and to some extend they are supported by what you might label as civilians, the resent case as example, where several US troops where in a long fire-fight with terrorists, they saw women and children replenish the terrorists with ammo.? they would be legitimate targets no matter how you want to turn and twist it.

Is the family of a terrorist, harbouring same wanted mass-murderer legitimate targets ?, yes they have put themselves in that position, and they will be acceptable collateral damage even if they had not.

Lots of you go on and on with very strong sentiments about the murdering and the wrongdoing by coalition forces in Afghanistan, what are your solution apart from criticising-

Withdraw from Afghanistan, and leave the terrorists be so they can have a free haven, from where they can expand radical Islam-ism and strike everywhere in the world with impunity ?

And in short order thereafter let the civilians you seem to care so much about with such strong feelings, descend into a medieval Taliban hell with murder and torture and even the most basic of freedom rights taken away ?.

Because you know very well that the present Government in Kabul or any you at present could place in that position would not last long against the Taliban no matter how you tried to support them, in any other than military ways.

So is that the hell your humanity and righteousness's has to offer instead ?

Not to forget that Afghanistan is paramount to the development in nuclear armed Pakistan, if modern development is abandoned in Afghanistan, Pakistan will slowly but surely succumb to more and more radical religious destructive forces, and become yet another place in the world where lunatics with an old book as their only truth will rule, instead of relatively pragmatic politicians. North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are the most dangerous Country's in the World as far as the threat of massive possibly nuclear conflicts are concerned.

I ask you did Nazism get defeated without one single innocent German life lost ? Did Serbian nationalists get defeated without any innocent Serbian life's lost ?
Are the Germans or the Serbs hating us in general today ? NO NO NO they are leading better life's enjoying full individual democratic freedoms, and fancy that, in Serbia's case it was the same evil master that you now criticise so much (Nato) that did what had to be done, no puppet Nato Government has been left there, so the ambitions to create a democratic Serbia turned out to be, wait for it-..... Genuine and true!!!!, and not a sneaky lie designed to cover up more sinister Nato plans or any other fantasies you dream up.

Now we are fighting another kind of fascism the religious Muslim fanatics, who enjoy much much more world wide public support amongst "ordinary" Muslims than you care to admit, it is a rapidly spreading cancer that we have to eradicate at all cost, so all peoples of the world can enjoy personal freedom without forced constraints and constant fear.

This can not be done entirely without the unfortunate and horrible bloodshed of innocent civilians, does that mean that we are barbaric massmurderes, No- the saying "for the greater good" does wholly applie here no matter how much it sounds like an old chliche.

It will take an Iron stomach of all the world's true democracy's to see this through, and to dismiss all the wailing and whining from the do good brigade, that only knows when to cry foul but never are a part of the solution, unfortunately I think the latter in the end will win, with dire consequences for us all, because the final showdown will come.

AntRobertson · 14-10-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Name me one war where it has been possible to completely avoid collateral damage and the terrible loss of innocent life's ?

That all war involves the loss of civilian life may be a fundamental truism but what is less well known is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties has been on the rise since WW2.

This despite the advent of so-called 'smart-bombs', laser-guided ordinance and all that marlarkcy.

larvidchr · 14-10-2009, 04:24 PM

I would dispute that strongly Ant, 50-70 million dead in WW2, how many civilian deaths to the point of surrender in Iraq compared to the conquest of a similar sized nation/population mass in WW2, how many on the Falklands ? How many in Serbia after the final Nato attack before Serbia gave in.

The big difference is that there nowadays are no terror bombings of big urban centres to the point of total destruction in modern warfare Ant, look at Dresden look at Berlin, look at Stalingrad, did as many civilians die in Baghdad, no way!! And soldiers are not used as simple canon fodder in their hundred of thousands by modern warfaring Nations.

So all in all causalities are significant down in modern warfare.

Genocides is an entirely different matter.

I don't know where you got those facts from but "is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties" is a clever way of making modern war sound worse than it is compared to earlier wars, war is bad enough without having to use numbers this way to prove a point.

Dan · 14-10-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

How many "innocents" have actually been "slaughtered" in Afghanistan compared to killed terrorists/Taliban fighters/Muhjadin ?

It's difficult to be sure because the occupation forces make a pretty determined effort not to keep or release figures for civilian deaths (PR lesson one) but they claim 22,000 dead taliban. On the best interpretation, occupation forces are killing a civilian for every two dead insurgents, on interpretations less generous to the occupiers but more realistic, the figures are probably reversed.

With regard to the rest of your post, it would be nice to have something to back it all up because it just sounds like more pro-war propaganda from the institutional right-wing media. Look at this, for instance:

Quote:

every little Girl who now are allowed to get a rudimentary education!, the vast majority that live daily lives in relative peace and freedom, without fear of religous fanatics terrorising them and randomly dishing out the most cruel punishments.

It would be lovely if it were true, but sadly it's not.

Quote:

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Thursday urged the Afghan Government to rescind a new law, reportedly signed by President Karzai earlier this month, saying it would seriously undermine women's rights in Afghanistan and contravene the Afghanistan constitution as well as universal human rights standards.

The new law, which has not yet been published, was passed by the two houses of Afghanistan's parliament before proceeding for signature by the President. It regulates the personal status of Afghanistan's minority Shi'a community members, including relations between women and men, divorce and property rights.
"This is another clear indication that the human rights situation in Afghanistan is getting worse not better," Pillay said. "Respect for women's rights – and human rights in general – is of paramount importance to Afghanistan's future security and development. This law is a huge step in the wrong direction."

The new law denies Afghan Shi'a women the right to leave their homes except for "legimitate" purposes; forbids women from working or receiving education without their husbands' express permission; explicitly permits marital rape; diminishes the right of mothers to be their children's guardians in the event of a divorce; and makes it impossible for wives to inherit houses and land from their husbands – even though husbands may inherit immoveable property from their wives. "For a new law in 2009 to target women in this way is extraordinary, reprehensible and reminiscent of the decrees made by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 1990s," Pillay said.

Afghanistan's Shi'a community, composed mainly but not exclusively of the Hazara minority, represents around 10 per cent of Afghanistan's population, and the new law has the active support of some of the Hazaras' male leadership, although it has been strongly opposed by other Hazaras and Afghan human rights campaigners throughout the country. There are concerns the law will establish precedents that will adversely affect all Afghan women.

The High Commissioner cited a number of other human rights set-backs in Afghanistan that have been undermining efforts to build the rule of law in the country.

"Freedom of expression by media and civil society activists has come under increasing assault," Pillay said. "There has been no progress in ensuring justice or accountability for past war crimes and crimes against humanity, which have characterized decades of warfare and lawlessness. Impunity is widespread, deeply entrenched, and an impediment to ending the pervasive and ongoing violation of human rights. And, after a moratorium of some years, the Government has recently reactivated the death penalty despite a deeply flawed judicial system."

The Karzai government is corrupt from top to bottom (as well as being illegitimate), it's remarkably unfavourable to the women of Afghanistan (look as well at my link on the previous page), and the people of Afghanistan don't want the occupiers there. They have to leave.

AntRobertson · 14-10-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

I would dispute that strongly Ant, 50-70 million dead in WW2, how many civilian deaths to the point of surrender in Iraq compared to the conquest of a similar sized nation/population mass in WW2, how many on the Falklands ? How many in Serbia after the final Nato attack before Serbia gave in.

The big difference is that there nowadays are no terror bombings of big urban centres to the point of total destruction in modern warfare Ant, look at Dresden look at Berlin, look at Stalingrad, did as many civilians die in Baghdad, no way!! And soldiers are not used as simple canon fodder in their hundred of thousands by modern warfaring Nations.

So all in all causalities are significant down in modern warfare.

Genocides is an entirely different matter.

I don't know where you got those facts from but "is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties" is a clever way of making modern war sound worse than it is compared to earlier wars, war is bad enough without having to use numbers this way to prove a point.

It's not about what war is 'worse' larvs, that's almost impossible to quantify and is mostly subjective. And don't forget we're talking proportionate civilian casualties here, not total - i.e. 100 civilian deaths of 1000 total in war A is proportionately higher than 5,000 from 100,000 in war B.

And it is a fact however unfortunately I don't have any readily citeable sources for it, however you can check out 'War Made Easy' (the film or book) if you get the chance which fully and comprehensively documents it.

larvidchr · 14-10-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

I would dispute that strongly Ant, 50-70 million dead in WW2, how many civilian deaths to the point of surrender in Iraq compared to the conquest of a similar sized nation/population mass in WW2, how many on the Falklands ? How many in Serbia after the final Nato attack before Serbia gave in.

The big difference is that there nowadays are no terror bombings of big urban centres to the point of total destruction in modern warfare Ant, look at Dresden look at Berlin, look at Stalingrad, did as many civilians die in Baghdad, no way!! And soldiers are not used as simple canon fodder in their hundred of thousands by modern warfaring Nations.

So all in all causalities are significant down in modern warfare.

Genocides is an entirely different matter.

I don't know where you got those facts from but "is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties" is a clever way of making modern war sound worse than it is compared to earlier wars, war is bad enough without having to use numbers this way to prove a point.

It's not about what war is 'worse' larvs, that's almost impossible to quantify and is mostly subjective. And don't forget we're talking proportionate civilian casualties here, not total - i.e. 100 civilian deaths of 1000 total in war A is proportionately higher than 5,000 from 100,000 in war B.

And it is a fact however unfortunately I don't have any readily citeable sources for it, however you can check out 'War Made Easy' (the film or book) if you get the chance which fully and comprehensively documents it.

I agree, but I thought that was what you where attempting with your first post Ant

Quote your self :
"but what is less well known is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties has been on the rise since WW2.

This despite the advent of so-called 'smart-bombs', laser-guided ordinance and all that marlarkcy."

larvidchr · 14-10-2009, 05:37 PM

^^^ yes it is true Dan Girls have been going to school, but since Obama, you and all the other liberal voices have given the reactionary forces in Afghanistan more wind in their sails by all the cultural acceptance blabber and anti coalition propaganda, they are now trying to claw back lost ground as they see it, and that is why we have to stand firm else everything will be back in the dark ages again.

So in effect your post just confirms the need as I expressed it to stand fast, and take the bad with the good, having the end goal firmly in our sight, freedom and liberty also for all Afghans.

Panda · 14-10-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

^^^ yes it is true Dan Girls have been going to school, but since Obama, you and all the other liberal voices have given the reactionary forces in Afghanistan more wind in their sails by all the cultural acceptance blabber and anti coalition propaganda, they are now trying to claw back lost ground as they see it, and that is why we have to stand firm else everything will be back in the dark ages again.

So in effect your post just confirms the need as I expressed it to stand fast, and take the bad with the good, having the end goal firmly in our sight, freedom and liberty also for all Afghans.

The US military didn't invade Afghanistan just so girls would be free to go to school there Larv. It was to avenge 9/11 and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. Most people seem to have forgotten that now. Just like they sem to have forgotten the WMDs in Iraq.

raycarey · 14-10-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

My new question is: How long will the US be there, and What will be the result? Looking back in 5 or 10 years.

IMO....

a heavy active military presence for at least the next five years--i expect lots of screaming from the republicans and hand wringing from the dems...and then in what will hopefully be his second term, obama will try to get out, but will inevitably get sucked into a germany/japan situation for probably a decade longer.

unfortunately, i see the end result being the same as if they left tomorrow...an unstable central govt. that is overrun with corruption, and the outlying areas controlled by warlords.

what a mess.

Dan · 14-10-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

yes it is true Dan Girls have been going to school, but since Obama, you and all the other liberal voices have given the reactionary forces in Afghanistan more wind in their sails by all the cultural acceptance blabber and anti coalition propaganda, they are now trying to claw back lost ground as they see it, and that is why we have to stand firm else everything will be back in the dark ages again.

Meaningless nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

take the bad with the good,

What bad is it that you're taking? Are your children getting killed? I don't think so.

Dan · 14-10-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

and this is why I am questioning why the US is there (gas pipeline)?

I think now an awful lot of it is face. Empires can't afford to be beaten, especially by ragtag peasants with nothing more than a few AK47s and an RPG or two. Not again.

raycarey · 14-10-2009, 05:45 PM

i read recently that US intelligence agencies estimate that there are currently 100 AQ members in afghanistan.

100.

get out now...stop wasting lives and treasure on something that was screwed up beyond repair back in 2004.

larvidchr · 14-10-2009, 06:01 PM

You cant effectively win all hearts and minds while you are killing people, just how many hearts and minds do you think where won over in Germany at the time of the surrender, this is something you mainly do after the war is won.

And getting out now will be just like after the CIA helped the Afghan freedomfighters win over the Russians, all aid was stopped and all efforts dropped while the chance still where there to influence things.

This is not about being afraid to loose for the US, we all know that Afghanistan could be left like a smouldering pile of rubble if that was the objective, but you very well know it's not, but if we give up now "we all loose" the Afghan people the most.

Your humanity is misguided and without any kind of light in the near future for the people you pretend to champion, all you really want is what you in your minds would perceive as a US loss, which is your only true agenda, and then you really don't give a rat's arse for the Afghan's or the fight against world radicalism.

And that in the words of Forrest Gump is "all I have to say about that" the backslapping and group reinforcement session can continue.

Panda · 14-10-2009, 06:08 PM

Saying that civilian casualties are just a matter of course in war is just one big cop out in the debate over weather Afghan civilian lives should be sacrificed to protect US soldiers in battle. Let us not loose sight of the core subject of debate here.

Certainly there will be unavoidable civilian deaths in any war. What we are talking about here is AVOIDABLE civilian deaths. Weather it is justified or not to knowingly and willfully kill civilians as a means of protecting US soldiers and attacking the enemy.

Very easy to dehumanize those civilian lives into just raw numbers when one is sitting back in the comfort of their armchair in a safe country.

Soldiers do sign a contract which requires them to kill and possibly be killed in battle. Civilians, which includes mothers and little kids, dont sign those kinds of contracts with the US government. There can be no justification in knowingly and willingly killing innocent women and kids to protect professional soldiers in battle.

If it means holding off on air strikes in areas populated by civilians with the resultant escape of the enemy or loss of life for US soldiers, then so be it.

General McCristal is at least showing some moral fortitude in placing some value on civilian lives. But I suspect it is not out of compassion or some sense of humanity, but rather the realization that when a foreign army invades and starts killing civilians they loose the support of the people and create an even greater enemy. I quote a paragraph from your post #82 there Larvidchr,---

"What is the target, to combat terrorists who have infiltrated a whole country, with the region close to the Pakistan border especially bad, they don't wear uniforms, and to some extend they are supported by what you might label as civilians, the resent case as example, where several US troops where in a long fire-fight with terrorists, they saw women and children replenish the terrorists with ammo.? they would be legitimate targets no matter how you want to turn and twist it."

Dan · 14-10-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

You cant effectively win all hearts and minds while you are killing people, just how many hearts and minds do you think where won over in Germany at the time of the surrender, this is something you mainly do after the war is won.

It's not a war. It's an occupation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

This is not about being afraid to loose for the US, we all know that Afghanistan could be left like a smouldering pile of rubble if that was the objective, but you very well know it's not, but if we give up now "we all loose" the Afghan people the most.

You can't win an occupation by destroying what you occupy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Your humanity is misguided and without any kind of light in the near future for the people you pretend to champion, all you really want is what you in your minds would perceive as a US loss, which is your only true agenda, and then you really don't give a rat's arse for the Afghan's or the fight against world radicalism.

You can tell that from my posts, can you? What are you, fucking telepathic? Any more groundless assumptions you'd like to make or is that it for today?

How about listening to what Afghans - apart from Karzai and his circle - say. Look at the polls on the previous page. Look at what people like Malalai Joya are saying. Why is it that when you watch the news, it's western politicians and the western military who are saying "stay the course"? Why don't we see Afghan peasants saying "Yea, sure, kill a few more wedding parties. It's all in the name of freedom and democracy"?

14-10-2009, 04:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
larvidchr In transit to Valhalla Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chonburi Posts: 1,820	How many "innocents" have actually been "slaughtered" in Afghanistan compared to killed terrorists/Taliban fighters/Muhjadin ? Trying to make out that civilians are actual targets is disingenuous, but there are unfortunate collateral damage. The usual subjective colourful reporting from Journalists with an agenda have you weeping all over this thread, with hand-picked episodes that in reality are difficoult to confirm and to check for Taliban manipulation, the sucesses are not at all so diligently put forward by you, every killed terrorist!, every little Girl who now are allowed to get a rudimentary education!, the vast majority that live daily lives in relative peace and freedom, without fear of religous fanatics terrorising them and randomly dishing out the most cruel punishments. Name me one war where it has been possible to completely avoid collateral damage and the terrible loss of innocent life's ? What is the target, to combat terrorists who have infiltrated a whole country, with the region close to the Pakistan border especially bad, they don't wear uniforms, and to some extend they are supported by what you might label as civilians, the resent case as example, where several US troops where in a long fire-fight with terrorists, they saw women and children replenish the terrorists with ammo.? they would be legitimate targets no matter how you want to turn and twist it. Is the family of a terrorist, harbouring same wanted mass-murderer legitimate targets ?, yes they have put themselves in that position, and they will be acceptable collateral damage even if they had not. Lots of you go on and on with very strong sentiments about the murdering and the wrongdoing by coalition forces in Afghanistan, what are your solution apart from criticising- Withdraw from Afghanistan, and leave the terrorists be so they can have a free haven, from where they can expand radical Islam-ism and strike everywhere in the world with impunity ? And in short order thereafter let the civilians you seem to care so much about with such strong feelings, descend into a medieval Taliban hell with murder and torture and even the most basic of freedom rights taken away ?. Because you know very well that the present Government in Kabul or any you at present could place in that position would not last long against the Taliban no matter how you tried to support them, in any other than military ways. So is that the hell your humanity and righteousness's has to offer instead ? Not to forget that Afghanistan is paramount to the development in nuclear armed Pakistan, if modern development is abandoned in Afghanistan, Pakistan will slowly but surely succumb to more and more radical religious destructive forces, and become yet another place in the world where lunatics with an old book as their only truth will rule, instead of relatively pragmatic politicians. North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are the most dangerous Country's in the World as far as the threat of massive possibly nuclear conflicts are concerned. I ask you did Nazism get defeated without one single innocent German life lost ? Did Serbian nationalists get defeated without any innocent Serbian life's lost ? Are the Germans or the Serbs hating us in general today ? NO NO NO they are leading better life's enjoying full individual democratic freedoms, and fancy that, in Serbia's case it was the same evil master that you now criticise so much (Nato) that did what had to be done, no puppet Nato Government has been left there, so the ambitions to create a democratic Serbia turned out to be, wait for it-..... Genuine and true!!!!, and not a sneaky lie designed to cover up more sinister Nato plans or any other fantasies you dream up. Now we are fighting another kind of fascism the religious Muslim fanatics, who enjoy much much more world wide public support amongst "ordinary" Muslims than you care to admit, it is a rapidly spreading cancer that we have to eradicate at all cost, so all peoples of the world can enjoy personal freedom without forced constraints and constant fear. This can not be done entirely without the unfortunate and horrible bloodshed of innocent civilians, does that mean that we are barbaric massmurderes, No- the saying "for the greater good" does wholly applie here no matter how much it sounds like an old chliche. It will take an Iron stomach of all the world's true democracy's to see this through, and to dismiss all the wailing and whining from the do good brigade, that only knows when to cry foul but never are a part of the solution, unfortunately I think the latter in the end will win, with dire consequences for us all, because the final showdown will come. __________________ I still pillage........................................... .................my fridge at night.

14-10-2009, 04:24 PM	#8 (permalink)
larvidchr In transit to Valhalla Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chonburi Posts: 1,820	I would dispute that strongly Ant, 50-70 million dead in WW2, how many civilian deaths to the point of surrender in Iraq compared to the conquest of a similar sized nation/population mass in WW2, how many on the Falklands ? How many in Serbia after the final Nato attack before Serbia gave in. The big difference is that there nowadays are no terror bombings of big urban centres to the point of total destruction in modern warfare Ant, look at Dresden look at Berlin, look at Stalingrad, did as many civilians die in Baghdad, no way!! And soldiers are not used as simple canon fodder in their hundred of thousands by modern warfaring Nations. So all in all causalities are significant down in modern warfare. Genocides is an entirely different matter. I don't know where you got those facts from but "is that civilian deaths/injury ('collateral damage') as a proportion of all casualties" is a clever way of making modern war sound worse than it is compared to earlier wars, war is bad enough without having to use numbers this way to prove a point. Last edited by larvidchr : 14-10-2009 at 04:32 PM.

14-10-2009, 06:01 PM	#18 (permalink)
larvidchr In transit to Valhalla Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chonburi Posts: 1,820	You cant effectively win all hearts and minds while you are killing people, just how many hearts and minds do you think where won over in Germany at the time of the surrender, this is something you mainly do after the war is won. And getting out now will be just like after the CIA helped the Afghan freedomfighters win over the Russians, all aid was stopped and all efforts dropped while the chance still where there to influence things. This is not about being afraid to loose for the US, we all know that Afghanistan could be left like a smouldering pile of rubble if that was the objective, but you very well know it's not, but if we give up now "we all loose" the Afghan people the most. Your humanity is misguided and without any kind of light in the near future for the people you pretend to champion, all you really want is what you in your minds would perceive as a US loss, which is your only true agenda, and then you really don't give a rat's arse for the Afghan's or the fight against world radicalism. And that in the words of Forrest Gump is "all I have to say about that" the backslapping and group reinforcement session can continue. Last edited by larvidchr : 14-10-2009 at 06:06 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-10-2009, 11:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
Panda Thailand Travel Forum Last Online: Today 04:44 PM Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 5,004	With 32 million people, even a statistically low % of people who want the USA out of Afghanistan can amount to literally millions. And of that group it can relate to possibly hundreds of thousands of actual people prepared to fight for their beliefs. The thing is that the anti-American, anti-government group are the hard liners, many who are prepared to fight to the death, while vast majority middle group just want to get on with their lives. As support for the US occupation dwindles among the majority middle group, support for the hard line anti-American fighters grows. USA is fighting a loosing battle for support in Afghanistan. Right now its a stalemate in military terms, but in terms of hearts and minds they are loosing the war. Right now the US public now longer has heart for the war, and economically its draining the country. So there is little hope of USA increasing the military effort there. The NATO allies are also tiring of a seemingly unwinnable war and their numbers are dwindling. The previous US tactic of going in with a heavy hand has backfired and resulted in increased support for the insurgents. The only option for USA now is to try and regain some Afghan support -- aka winning hearts and minds. And killing Afghan civilians to protect US soldiers is not the way to do that as General McCristal has figured out. However, if there's one thing that makes the US public loose their taste for war faster than anything else its the site of an increased number of body bags coming home. Probable outcome is that in the lead up to the next US presidential election, still 3 years away yet, the Yanks will try to slide out of the Afghan war arena and leave it up to Pakistan and Afghanistan to clean up their mess.

14-10-2009, 05:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
larvidchr In transit to Valhalla Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chonburi Posts: 1,820	^^^ yes it is true Dan Girls have been going to school, but since Obama, you and all the other liberal voices have given the reactionary forces in Afghanistan more wind in their sails by all the cultural acceptance blabber and anti coalition propaganda, they are now trying to claw back lost ground as they see it, and that is why we have to stand firm else everything will be back in the dark ages again. So in effect your post just confirms the need as I expressed it to stand fast, and take the bad with the good, having the end goal firmly in our sight, freedom and liberty also for all Afghans.

14-10-2009, 05:45 PM	#17 (permalink)
raycarey ........ Last Online: Today 04:09 PM Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: deleting posts in issues Posts: 6,675	i read recently that US intelligence agencies estimate that there are currently 100 AQ members in afghanistan. 100. get out now...stop wasting lives and treasure on something that was screwed up beyond repair back in 2004.

14-10-2009, 06:08 PM	#19 (permalink)
Panda Thailand Travel Forum Last Online: Today 04:44 PM Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 5,004	Saying that civilian casualties are just a matter of course in war is just one big cop out in the debate over weather Afghan civilian lives should be sacrificed to protect US soldiers in battle. Let us not loose sight of the core subject of debate here. Certainly there will be unavoidable civilian deaths in any war. What we are talking about here is AVOIDABLE civilian deaths. Weather it is justified or not to knowingly and willfully kill civilians as a means of protecting US soldiers and attacking the enemy. Very easy to dehumanize those civilian lives into just raw numbers when one is sitting back in the comfort of their armchair in a safe country. Soldiers do sign a contract which requires them to kill and possibly be killed in battle. Civilians, which includes mothers and little kids, dont sign those kinds of contracts with the US government. There can be no justification in knowingly and willingly killing innocent women and kids to protect professional soldiers in battle. If it means holding off on air strikes in areas populated by civilians with the resultant escape of the enemy or loss of life for US soldiers, then so be it. General McCristal is at least showing some moral fortitude in placing some value on civilian lives. But I suspect it is not out of compassion or some sense of humanity, but rather the realization that when a foreign army invades and starts killing civilians they loose the support of the people and create an even greater enemy. I quote a paragraph from your post #82 there Larvidchr,--- "What is the target, to combat terrorists who have infiltrated a whole country, with the region close to the Pakistan border especially bad, they don't wear uniforms, and to some extend they are supported by what you might label as civilians, the resent case as example, where several US troops where in a long fire-fight with terrorists, they saw women and children replenish the terrorists with ammo.? they would be legitimate targets no matter how you want to turn and twist it."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)