6200 civilians Casualities this month in Afghanistan?

[William Ashley]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=172631016&videoChannel=1&refresh=true

6200 casualties.. 20% increase 6200 civilian casualties

vs

525 or so murders in Canada in a year...

500 (murder victims in Canada) vs 60,000 (civilian combat deaths in Afghanistan)

That is 1 in 5 people in the city I am in dead in a year.. or in Surrey BC, or Halifax Nova Scotia?

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[dre]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=172631016&videoChannel=1&refresh=true

6200 casualties.. 20% increase 6200 civilian casualties

Sweet liberation batman!

[Moonlight Graham]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=172631016&videoChannel=1&refresh=true

6200 casualties.. 20% increase 6200 civilian casualties

vs

525 or so murders in Canada in a year...

The title of this thread is incorrect. The video you posted said "6200 civilian deaths in Afghanistan since January to the end of October".

Not like that still isn't significant.

[William Ashley]

The title of this thread is incorrect. The video you posted said "6200 civilian deaths in Afghanistan since January to the end of October".

Not like that still isn't significant.

End of October to January.

I must concede though this reuters article states what you said. So it seems a factual loosing point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BL1UC20101222

Nato forces only killed 1250 people in 10 months (according to the latest reports.... whether true or not) (although the taliban disagree with the report by the UN - I can only guess they didn't kill the other 5000 -it'd be interesting to hear the taliban's version of events. (still twice as much as all murders in canada in a year)

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/04-1

It is scary when you think about the compensation that is being given for kids lives

Channel 4 News reported that the documents showed $875 (£584) was paid out last year to the family of a nine-year-old girl shot in the head, and $950 (£634) was paid for the death of a 10-year-old boy.

In one case the Ministry of Defence also paid out $300 (£200) for a lost mobile phone, it said.

Three phones for the price of a child's life?

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

6200 casualties.. 20% increase 6200 civilian casualties

The population of Afghanistan is about 30 million. In any given year, about 300,000 Afghans die of natural causes.

I am not excusing these reported 6200 civilian deaths but some perspective is required.

-----

Afghanistan under the Taliban provided sanctuary for al-Qaeda to organize the September 2001 attacks against America. NATO, and the Western civilized world in general, had to respond. This response takes time. We are not westernizing Afghanistan; we are ensuring that Afghanistan and other backward countries never threaten us again. (Afghanis will modernize their own society on their own, in several generations if need be.)

We in the West are doing the right thing and we owe a deep thanks to our volunteer soldiers for what they do on our behalf.

Edited December 31, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

The population of Afghanistan is about 30 million. In any given year, about 300,000 Afghans die of natural causes.

I am not excusing these reported 6200 civilian deaths but some perspective is required.

-----

Afghanistan under the Taliban provided sanctuary for al-Qaeda to organize the September 2001 attacks against America. NATO, and the Western civilized world in general, had to respond. This response takes time. We are not westernizing Afghanistan; we are ensuring that Afghanistan and other backward countries never threaten us again. (Afghanis will modernize their own society on their own, in several generations if need be.)

We in the West are doing the right thing and we owe a deep thanks to our volunteer soldiers for what they do on our behalf.

the September 2001 attacks against America

The population of the US is 300 million. In any given year 10 times many people die in accidents than died in 911.

Im not excusing the civilian deaths but some perspective is required

[William Ashley]

What perspective is that?

You are legitimizing the deaths of millions of people over the acts of 20 or so people.

You are bats*** insane if you think that that is "a rational response" Sorry it isn't, it is insane.

Substantiating millions of deaths because you lack the brain power to communicate isn't reasonable, it is a failure to exist at a level of decency that people in a position of power should be expected to have.

Why the hell should I care about a few thousand peoples deaths, when you are in the business of killing millions of innocent people.

Based on a proportional response to your "perspective" that would be about 1.5 million x 350.. that would be about 500 million innocent people to be killed in response to your 1.5 million innocent deaths.

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[dre]

How are you going about calculating that 300 million, just currious on this one?

I didnt calculating anything. I just remember reading somewhere that the US population was about 300 million.

My point that its no different for August to downplay the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan with those kinds of comparisons as it was for people to do the same about the civilians that died on 911, and I can tell you that Americans got really really pissed off when people tried to do that.

[Moonlight Graham]

Afghanistan under the Taliban provided sanctuary for al-Qaeda to organize the September 2001 attacks against America. NATO, and the Western civilized world in general, had to respond. This response takes time.

Time, indeed. Longest war in Canadian history. Longest war in American history. West defeats Nazi Germany = 6 years, West trying to defeat Taliban/insurgents/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan = 9+ years and counting.

It took the US less time to defeat the freaking British Empire in the American Revolutionary War than to secure Afghanistan (if this is ever done at all).

We are not westernizing Afghanistan; we are ensuring that Afghanistan and other backward countries never threaten us again. (Afghanis will modernize their own society on their own, in several generations if need be.)

Installing a liberal democracy gov in Afghanistan sounds like "westernizing" to me.

[dre]

Time, indeed. Longest war in Canadian history. Longest war in American history. West defeats Nazi Germany = 6 years, West trying to defeat Taliban/insurgents/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan = 9+ years and counting.

It took the US less time to defeat the freaking British Empire in the American Revolutionary War than to secure Afghanistan (if this is ever done at all).

Installing a liberal democracy gov in Afghanistan sounds like "westernizing" to me.

Do you have any idea how much profit is generated by these little adventures? Last thing you want to do is have it end quickly or decisively. If thats what they were after they would have listened to military planners that told civilian leaders they needed two or three times as many troops to get the job done.

The GWOT is designed to be a permanent management strategy. They want to make terrorism the new communism... A big frightening formidable threat that lasts generations. Squashing the taliban in 6 weeks like the US easily could have would be a bad move in that regard. People would think "terrorists" are wimpy and easy to beat, and not an opponent worthy of spending trillions of dollars on.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Do you have any idea how much profit is generated by these little adventures? Last thing you want to do is have it end quickly or decisively. If thats what they were after they would have listened to military planners that told civilian leaders they needed two or three times as many troops to get the job done.

The GWOT is designed to be a permanent management strategy. They want to make terrorism the new communism... A big frightening formidable threat that lasts generations. Squashing the taliban in 6 weeks like the US easily could have would be a bad move in that regard. People would think "terrorists" are wimpy and easy to beat, and not an opponent worthy of spending trillions of dollars on.

You just posted way far into conspiracy theory territory.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

You just pasted way far into conspiracy theory territory.

I dont think so. I think it would be conspiracy theory to suggest that the profiteering I described DOESNT happen, and in fact various insiders along the way have warned about this kind of thing. They knew that the military

Its not conspiracy theory because I dont really think a bunch of conspirators get together and plan some sort of nefarious plot in all cases. I think its more of a cultural paradigm thats the result of people with power acting in their own self interest and in the interest of their friends.

Its tough to not see when you evaluate the various actions undertaken as part of the GWOT that for some reason the decisions made along the way managed to draw things out for as long as possible. And even going back as far as plato philosophers were theorizing on how fear-mongering could be used to to control the population and extract wealth from them. Thats what the "myth of the cave" was all about.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (a general in the military) warned Americans about this very danger...

Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Was Eisenhower a conspiracy theorist too?

Again it isnt conpiracy theory because there need be no "secret plot". In 1936 Daniel Guerin described it as...

an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs

Its really just an aligning of interests. Would you doubt that politicians recieve a lot of money from the military industrial complex? Probably not. Would you doubt that the military industrial complex expects something in return? Probably not. Would you doubt that other interests naturally align? For example, media corporations that have a vested interest in war because their ratings go way up and they can sell more advertising?

See what I mean? There IS no evil conspiracy just a bunch of people acting in their own self interests, and exploiting the fear of populace (just like Plato suggested, and contemporary philosophers like Strauss also talked about).

[Guest TrueMetis]

So creating a fake GWOT and faking the amount of troops needed isn't a conspiracy? Because in order for that to work you would need the influence of a lot of high ups in multiple governments.

ETA and what you describe, a bunch of powerful people working for their own interests, is the basis for pretty much every conspiracy theory ever.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bonam]

Do you have any idea how much profit is generated by these little adventures? Last thing you want to do is have it end quickly or decisively. If thats what they were after they would have listened to military planners that told civilian leaders they needed two or three times as many troops to get the job done.

The war is also costing a lot, and these costs are not escaping notice in the US or other NATO nations. If it could be ended swiftly and easily (in a way that agrees with our Western sensibilities of avoiding civilian casualties, etc), I think it would be.

[dre]

So creating a fake GWOT and faking the amount of troops needed isn't a conspiracy? Because in order for that to work you would need the influence of a lot of high ups in multiple governments.

The GWOT isnt really "fake" per say. And the "faking" of the ammount of troops necessary is actually a matter of public record. Military plans called for way way more troops and resources than were actually allocated. But generals who wanted this were marginalized, and the evidence supporting the war was grossly exxagerated. I guess Id have to ask you exact what it would take for you to smell a rat?

Because in order for that to work you would need the influence of a lot of high ups in multiple governments

Yes but they dont have to conspire. They just have to have aligning interests, and those interests are pretty plain to see in most cases.

If I was you I would try to follow the money... a conservative estimate on the cost of the GWOT would be a trillion dollars and a liberal estimate would be 5 trillion. Its the most expensive project in the history of the human race. If you follow that money my guess is that most of it ended up the pockets of government lobbying corporations. Military contractors, security contractors, oil services contractors. Never mind Entire PLANELOADS full of US dollars dissappeared into thin air. "oops! We 'lost' a billion dollars! Sorry!".

It just seems fishy to me... the way the whole thing played out. Im SUSPICIOUS... call me crazy (oh wait you already did).

[dre]

The war is also costing a lot, and these costs are not escaping notice in the US or other NATO nations. If it could be ended swiftly and easily (in a way that agrees with our Western sensibilities of avoiding civilian casualties, etc), I think it would be.

If it could be ended swiftly and easily (in a way that agrees with our Western sensibilities of avoiding civilian casualties, etc), I think it would be.

I dunno. To me it doesnt look like the whole thing was conducted in any sort of "desperate ALL IN attempt to win". You have civilian leaders ignoring military planners and allocating a fraction of the resources that were recommended, and you have top officials telling the public that a war would take "maybe six months" and cost a "few million dollars". And you have funny stuff going on like what happened in Afganistan where an order seems to have been given to let the enemy escape, and the faith-based initiative to invade Iraq.

Again. Im not talking about any kind of conspiracy really, but more of a natural aligning of interests between various parties that have a whole lot of clout and influence.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It just seems fishy to me... the way the whole thing played out. Im SUSPICIOUS... call me crazy (oh wait you already did).

No I called you a conspiracy theorist, while usually crazy conspiracy theorists are occasionally right. And what you're saying still sounds like a conspiracy.

[dre]

No I called you a conspiracy theorist, while usually crazy conspiracy theorists are occasionally right. And what you're saying still sounds like a conspiracy.

To me that term is usually reserved for wild and crazy outlandish theories. In this case very few people would disagree that war profiteering is a real phenomenon that actually happens. In this case few people would disagree that the same businesses that profit from the war also have a relationship with government thats too cozy. In this case you have insiders like Eisenhower (us president and military general) deciding to devote his final address to the US public to warning them about how cozy the government and military industrial complex were getting. In this case civilian leaders pursued a course of action that was much less likely to be successful than the course of action advocated by military planners.

Like I said... What does it take for you to smell a rat?

Im not a conspiracy theorist. For the most part Im pretty rational and moderate, and I think that if you look back at the totality of interaction between you and I youll agree with that.

But something just aint right here. My spider sense is tingling.

Edited December 31, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

I dunno. To me it doesnt look like the whole thing was conducted in any sort of "desperate ALL IN attempt to win".

Of course not. No Western nation is capable of investing such an effort in a war unless its own existence is fundamentally threatened. Every war the US has fought since WWII, it could have easily and decisively won had it invested the same effort and determination that it did in WWII itself, but it didn't. Where's the 16 million troops in Afghanistan right? The reasons this doesn't happen should be pretty clear, and they have nothing to do with making profits.

Civilian leaders allotted the military resources that they were capable of realistically mustering. When the war in Iraq was looking like disaster, they were able to muster a bit more and do the whole "surge" which seemed to help. When Afghanistan was headed towards defeat, again, Obama was able to send in some more troops. Basically, the political will exists only to commit just enough resources to stave off defeat and perhaps if lucky achieve a slow and grueling victory. No one wants to put the whole nation on a war footing just to stomp down some tribesman in a desert, even though in the long term it actually costs more resources to do it this half-assed way.

Also it should be remembered that crushing the actual organized military resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq was trivially easy. It has been the time after that was hard and has required a lot more from our militaries. The West has gained huge amounts of valuable counter-insurgency experience. Future wars of this type should hopefully be more successful due to this experience.

[Guest TrueMetis]

To me that term is usually reserved for wild and crazy outlandish theories. In this case very few people would disagree that war profiteering is a real phenomenon that actually happens. In this case few people would disagree that the same businesses that profit from the war also have a relationship with government thats too cozy. In this case you have insiders like Eisenhower (us president and military general) deciding to devote his final address to the US public to warning them about how cozy the government and military industrial complex were getting. In this case civilian leaders pursued a course of action that was much less likely to be successful than the course of action advocated by military planners.

Like I said... What does it take for you to smell a rat?

Im not a conspiracy theorist. For the most part Im pretty rational and moderate, and I think that if you look back at the totality of interaction between you and I youll agree with that.

But something just aint right here. My spider sense is tingling.

War profiteering might be a possibility, if it wasn't for all of the money going into Afghanistan that isn't ever coming back.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

War profiteering might be a possibility, if it wasn't for all of the money going into Afghanistan that isn't ever coming back.

War profiteering is an undeniable reality. The question is really just how big of a piece of this puzzle it was. Like I said... we know the relationship between the MIL and the government is increasingly cozy and that theres a lot of back channel communication going on that we dont get to hear about. A CEO that DOESNT try to use this "infrastructure" to push for public policy that would benefit shareholders is an idiot that should be immediately fired. And few would argue that large private companies/industries do not have a lot of influence.

So its really just a matter of not know how big of a factor this was. I dont know... and you dont know. You would get the answer if you did a forensic accounting of the trillions of dollars spent on the GWOT but thats a very hard thing to do.

[bjre]

We in the West are doing the right thing and we owe a deep thanks to our volunteer soldiers for what they do on our behalf.

I don't thank them.

They kill innocent civilians. The effect is same as a Murder in Canada.

They just obey order, the same as a programmed machine, a robot killing machine can replace them.

They are just tool of the evil politicians.

They are the reason that the world is full of conflict.

If western nation save the money that send troops to Afghanistan and send food and clothes there that cost the same amount of money, there will be no war there and the people there would not hate western countries which lead to western country live in fear of terrorists.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't thank them.

They kill innocent civilians. The effect is same as a Murder in Canada.

They just obey order, the same as a programmed machine, a robot killing machine can replace them.

They are just tool of the evil politicians.

They are the reason that the world is full of conflict.

If western nation save the money that send troops to Afghanistan and send food and clothes there that cost the same amount of money, there will be no war there and the people there would not hate western countries which lead to western country live in fear of terrorists.

Yea but your 1) not a westerner and 2) a tool of propaganda so no one cares what you think.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

yea but your 1) not a westerner and 2) a tool of propaganda so no one cares what you think.

Tool of propoganda? I read this somewhere in this thread...

We in the West are doing the right thing and we owe a deep thanks to our volunteer soldiers for what they do on our behalf.

Seems like fighting STUPID with STUPID.

Edited December 31, 2010 by dre

[Saipan]

6200 civilians Casualities this month in Afghanistan? Are the rates that high?

Sounds good. All Taliban terrorists ARE civilians.