Should troops leave Afghanistan

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:49 am

oscar;1068308 wrote: I'm so glad you asked that Bryn as i didn't like to

:yh_bigsmi...

Sorry!...:wah:...

:yh_wink...

:yh_kiss...

:yh_kiss...:yh_giggles...

:yh_giggles...

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:01 am

oscar;1056729 wrote: I'm beiginning to See Afghanistan more and more as a 'Vietnam' or 'Korea'.

I think even our government faces the fact that this a very difficult war to win and the longer it goes on, the more blood is shed either side and waste of our Troops.

If we pull out, ultimately, the Taliban will have their own battle with the Muhajadeen but Herion cultivation and production will change dramatically once the Taliban re-gain control.

I think we could possibly keep troops in there but by far scaled down, as a peace keeping mission while the two rebel forces battle it out in the South. There would have to be talks with the Taliban and agreements drawn up that British forces were no longer the enemy but a kind of over-seer.

I see more and more innocent people killed in Afghanistan nearly every day, yes, i know that's war for you but at the moment, it's all a little pointless.

It is like a Vietnam or Korea, and our troops continue to get killed, let them fight their own battles now .....its been long enough, and it will never get completely solved.

pointless and needless.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:11 am

When was the last time a country asked the US to invade them?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:13 am

do you have any of your own troops there?

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:14 am

Odie;1068620 wrote: do you have any of your own troops there?

In Afghanistan? You don't know?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:33 am

Perhaps everyone will understand why this war should come to an end, now.

It is a far cry from the deaths we just hear about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least 706,899 people have been killed, and

1,354,224 seriously injured in Afghanistan and Iraq

since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

Casualties in Afghanistan Casualties in Iraq

Most recent update: November 9, 2008.

This page is updated monthly.

More than 98 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1995-2003. About 229 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001.

Sources and methodology Notes about varying casualty counts cited elsewhere

# Casualties in Afghanistan:

Afghan troops killed: 8,587 Afghan troops seriously injured: 25,761

Afghan civilians killed: 3,485 Afghan civilians seriously injured: 6,273

U.S. troops killed: 534 U.S. troops seriously injured: 1,602

Other coalition troops killed: 402 Other coalition troops seriously injured: 1,206

Contractors killed: 75 Contractors seriously injured: 2,428

Journalists killed: 6 Journalists seriously injured: unknown

Total killed in Afghanistan: 13,089 Total injured in Afghanistan: 37,270

# Casualties in Iraq:

Iraqi troops killed: 30,000 Iraqi troops seriously injured: 90,000

Iraqi civilians killed: 658,227 Iraqi civilians seriously injured: 1,184,809

U.S. troops killed: 4,193 U.S. troops seriously injured: 30,634

Other coalition troops killed: 314 Other coalition troops seriously injured: 942

Contractors killed: 917 Contractors seriously injured: 10,569

Journalists killed: 159 Journalists seriously injured: unknown

Total killed in Iraq: 693,810 Total injured in Iraq: 1,316,954

# Sources and methodology:

U.S. and coalition authorities rarely provide any public estimates of Afghan or Iraqi troop or civilian casualties or injuries. In this absence of official data, we present the latest and lowest credible estimates we've found. Where a range is estimated (for example, 2,500-4,000), the lower figure is always cited.

• Afghan troops killed: Based on an unpublished November 2003 estimate by Mark Herold, Ph.D at the University of New Hampshire, augmented by Dr. Herold's tracking of media reports since. See Dr. Herold's website for more information.

• Afghan troops seriously injured: Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops during wartime.

• Afghan civilians killed: Based on estimate and tracking by Dr. Herold through May 2003, and augmented from media accounts since then, as listed at Dr Herold's website. Deaths since Dr Herold's latest update (July 2004) are not included.

• Afghan civilians seriously injured: Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 1.8:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for civilians during wartime.

• U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan: US military deaths in Afghanistan are announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tallied at Wikipedia, which notes that "the American figure is for deaths 'In and Around Afghanistan' which, as defined by the U.S. Department of Defense, includes some deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, the death of a DoD civilian employee, and the deaths of four CIA operatives." According to Wikipedia, "As of November 2nd 2008, there have been 936 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)) since the U.S. invasion in 2001. In this total, the American figure is for deaths "In and Around Afghanistan" which, as defined by the U.S. Department of Defense, includes some deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, the death of a DoD civilian employee, and the deaths of four CIA operatives; and the Italian figure includes the death of an intelligence agent. In addition to these deaths in Afghanistan, 62 Spanish soldiers returning from Afghanistan were killed in Turkey on May 26, 2003 when their plane crashed."

• U.S. troops seriously injured in Afghanistan: To the best of our knowledge, this data is not publicly tracked (if you know a reliable source for this information, please let us know). Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops.

• Other coalition troops killed in Afghanistan: Coalition military deaths in Afghanistan are announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tallied at Wikipedia, which notes that "In addition to these deaths in Afghanistan, 62 Spanish soldiers returning from Afghanistan were killed in Turkey on May 26, 2003 when their plane crashed." We have included these 62 dead.

• Other coalition troops seriously injured in Afghanistan: To the best of our knowledge, this data is not publicly tracked (if you know a reliable source for this information, please let us know). Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops.

• Contractors killed in Afghanistan: Based on this July 2007 Reuters article, which cites US Department of Labor statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The article reports that 75 private contractors had been killed in Afghanistan from the beginning of hostilities in 2001 through July 2007.

• Contractors seriously injured in Afghanistan: Based on the same article, 2,428 private contractors had been seriously wounded in Afghanistan from the beginning of hostilities in 2001 through July 2007.

• Journalists killed in Afghanistan: Based on numbers tracked by Wikipedia.

• Journalists seriously injured in Afghanistan: To the best of our knowledge, this data is not publicly tracked (if you know a reliable source for this information, please let us know).

• Iraqi troops killed: Based on an estimate of 30,000 deaths, offered by US Gen. Tommy Franks, cited by the Washington Post on Oct. 23, 2003. No estimate has been made publicly since that time.

• Iraqi troops seriously injured: Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops during wartime.

• Iraqi civilians killed: Based on this study [pdf], published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that at least 392,979 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate, through July 2006. The study's mid-point estimate was 654,965, and its high estimate was 942,636. U.S. authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on "flawed methodology" and "pretty well discredited," but as often happens when Bush speaks, that's simply untrue. The study was conducted by Johns Hopkins University, and used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and family members were able to show a death certificate to document 80% of the deaths they described. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. It's the same method used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the U.S. and U.K. when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, or other situations anywhere in the world. From the study's lowest estimate of 392,979 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation, we have extended this rate of civilian deaths (9,824 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published.

• Iraqi civilians seriously injured: Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 1.8:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for civilians during wartime.

• U.S. troops killed in Iraq: Based on numbers announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

• U.S. troops seriously injured in Iraq: Based on numbers announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. (According to this article by Salon reporter Mark Benjamin, an additional 25,289 service members had been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses, but not included in the official numbers and not included in the numbers presented on this page.)

• Other coalition troops killed in Iraq: Based on numbers announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

• Other coalition troops seriously injured in Iraq: To the best of our knowledge, this data is not publicly tracked (if you know a reliable source for this information, please let us know). Posted number reflects our estimate, using a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops.

• Contractors killed in Iraq: Based on this July 2007 Reuters article, which cites US Department of Labor statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The article reports that 933 private contractors had been killed in Iraq from the beginning of hostilities in 2001 through July 2007.

• Contractors seriously injured in Iraq: Based on the same article, 10,569 private contractors had been seriously wounded in Iraq from the beginning of hostilities in 2001 through July 2007.

• Journalists killed in Iraq: Based on numbers tracked by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

• Journalists seriously injured in Iraq: To the best of our knowledge, this data is not publicly tracked (if you know a reliable source for this information, please let us know).

Iraq Body Count's methodology undoubtedly leaves many dead Iraqis' bodies un-counted. Its number is lower than the estimates we've seen from any other organization, except for the optimistic reports from Iraq's Ministry of Health.

Iraq Body Count's "body count" is just plain false -- they're not counting anywhere near all the bodies..

In a nutshell, some people believe that the toll of American military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan includes only military deaths where the moment of death is in Iraq or Afghanistan -- but that the totals don't include the deaths of American servicemembers injured in Iraq or Afghanistan and evacuated out of country, who subsequently die in military hospitals elsewhere.

First and most pertinent, the US Department of Defense has announced numerous deaths of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at hospitals in Landstuhl, Germany, or at hospitals in Kuwait or in America, from injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'll find numerous other deaths outside Iraq and Afghanistan, included in the count of military casualties.

There could be several, or even several dozen American soldiers who have been killed in these wars but are not on the official DoD tally, due to oversight, errors, secrecy about their missions, or even an official policy that discounts certain American military deaths.

When Americans visit the Vietnam Memorial, they look for their dead uncle's name, their father, their friends, because they knew people who died in that war. If their names weren't there -- as has happened with a small number of overlooked American deaths from the Vietnam war -- the friends and families complain, and the missing names are added.

If thousands of American dead from these Middle East wars had been forgotten, not included in the ongoing tally of grief, there would be loud, angry, headline-making protests from the parents, wives, husbands, siblings, and friends of the dead, demanding that their sacrifice be honored and remembered.

Where are these people, understandably angry that their loved ones' deaths have been ignored? It defies credibility to believe that huge numbers of American dead have been kept off the books, when no American's friends and family have made a ruckus. Until we hear from the neighbors and loved ones of the dead, we don't believe there's a cover-up.

Special thanks to Mark Herold at the University of New Hampshire, for information on Afghan casualties. Thanks also to Cynthia Hills, Al W., Michael, Steven D., AC, and Peter B. for research assistance and error-spotting.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:32 am

K.Snyder;1068469 wrote: So you wholeheartedly agree that no majority should retain the right to define morality.? Ok. Thanks. If, in fact, that's exactly what you're saying of course. :yh_wink...

Sorry, I think "infidelity" was the wrong word to use in that particular set of circumstance.

What I mean, is how can a minority define "morality" if the majority does not precede it?...

I was trying to say that no-one outside the group in question can impose their moral code on the group and insist that their righteous beliefs are the only ones which should be acceptable to that group.

A group or an individual can define a moral code that they aspire to but then fail to achieve - they can define the ultimate without being able to follow it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1068717 wrote: I was trying to say that no-one outside the group in question can impose their moral code on the group and insist that their righteous beliefs are the only ones which should be acceptable to that group.

A group or an individual can define a moral code that they aspire to but then fail to achieve - they can define the ultimate without being able to follow it.

I understand what you're saying.

My emphasis is that "intent" can be justified regardless of whether or not they achieve the moral code their after all the while if such is the case should be condemned for their incompetence to a much higher extent as their moral ideology can be admired. Dictated by the bias associated with to whom has suffered more at the hands of the invaders or domestic threat! :yh_wink...

Obviously if you feel the majority of the world is immoral this is where our logic clashes.

I personally feel that anyone has the right to invade another country to better the society of said country if and only if the majority of that country's population lives below the worldly health standard. So long as the result of the entire outcome renders the majority of said country's people scarce of any suffering promised to them by those invading what would then be defined as the immoral! -- My opinion, and I'm entitled to it!...:wah:...:yh_wink...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:45 pm

spot;1068618 wrote: When was the last time a country asked the US to invade them?

The simple fact of the matter is, if the US had been victorious in either Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, by the standard of their preset initiative, everyone would be fn applauding them! That's the end of it!

What's left is being left to ask if the US 1) pontificates their fortuitous notions behind the desire to enslave or 2) wishes to spread democracy to those they feel are entitled to a better living standard by an overall perspective rendering their intentions justified and their competence left for clarification!

Damn them for their competence, or lack thereof, but don't damn them for their intentions. I couldn't ask for anything more worthwhile.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:40 am

K.Snyder;1069125 wrote: I understand what you're saying.

My emphasis is that "intent" can be justified regardless of whether or not they achieve the moral code their after all the while if such is the case should be condemned for their incompetence to a much higher extent as their moral ideology can be admired. Dictated by the bias associated with to whom has suffered more at the hands of the invaders or domestic threat! :yh_wink...

Obviously if you feel the majority of the world is immoral this is where our logic clashes.

I personally feel that anyone has the right to invade another country to better the society of said country if and only if the majority of that country's population lives below the worldly health standard. So long as the result of the entire outcome renders the majority of said country's people scarce of any suffering promised to them by those invading what would then be defined as the immoral! -- My opinion, and I'm entitled to it!...:wah:...:yh_wink...

That is where we disagree then - and strongly.

As you say, it is you opinion and you are entitled to it but it is not an opinion I share.

I do not believe that the majority of individuals are immoral - I think most try to live moral lives by their own codes, but I do believe that our current administrations are totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:16 am

spot;1056378 wrote: There you go then, we differ entirely on whether or not we regard the Taliban as a law-abiding government acting on behalf of their citizens within their own philosophy.

Absolutely - they are within their rights and in accord with their own philosophy when they throw acid in the faces of little girls who leave their houses to go to school.

I have no comment on whether or not western troops should be there, but I don't think you can consider the Taliban as in anyway nice or noble.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:29 am

Bryn Mawr;1069135 wrote: That is where we disagree then - and strongly.

As you say, it is you opinion and you are entitled to it but it is not an opinion I share.

I do not believe that the majority of individuals are immoral - I think most try to live moral lives by their own codes, but I do believe that our current administrations are totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.

Well, then I suppose one of us needs to see the light!(No implications either I don't feel the need to have to defend myself at 3:25 am EST US local standard time! :wah:) Considering I'm for the betterment of any group of peoples that is divinely more moral than any other group of peoples and that I may be stubborn beyond any mental conservation at times trust me when I say that 'm not biased towards which one of us it is so long as good prevails!

I'm quite confident in my opinion though I have to add!

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:30 am

K.Snyder;1069127 wrote: Damn them for their competence, or lack thereof, but don't damn them for their intentions. I couldn't ask for anything more worthwhile.

On the contrary, you couldn't be more wrong.

World War Two was a consequence of Germany's Drive To The East, an absolute conviction that Europe would be a better place if it were populated throughout by tall heavy blond blue-eyed Nordic Teutons instead of the midget lank-haired greasy obsequious Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other subhuman Untermensch. Their intentions were, by their own viewpoint, unimpeachable.

The filth that the US is trying to spread across the world is uncaring Capitalism. Outside of the USA it's loathed and detested. By all means experiment with it yourselves, starving will cure you of it eventually, but keep it within your own borders. It's the absolute reverse of worthwhile. You call it democracy and what it consists of is subjugation, poverty and death.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:33 am

AussiePam;1069147 wrote: Absolutely - they are within their rights and in accord with their own philosophy when they throw acid in the faces of little girls who leave their houses to go to school.

I have no comment on whether or not western troops should be there, but I don't think you can consider the Taliban as in anyway nice or noble.

We as people can only begin to justify human intervention when we stop defining said people as the labels in which we choose to brand them upon absolutely no illusion that we're all the same!

:-2,..orrrr somden like dat!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:48 am

spot;1069152 wrote: On the contrary, you couldn't be more wrong.

World War Two was a consequence of Germany's Drive To The East, an absolute conviction that Europe would be a better place if it were populated throughout by tall heavy blond blue-eyed Nordic Teutons instead of the midget lank-haired greasy obsequious Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other subhuman Untermensch. Their intentions were, by their own viewpoint, unimpeachable. Their intentions were right but only right in their own minds lest you have grounds for inappropriate jurisprudence throughout any governing body be it moral or immoral and I stand by it!

Insanity can only be defined by the lack of sanity, not ones will to diminish their own insecurities by virtue of atonement! spot;1069152 wrote:

The filth that the US is trying to spread across the world is uncaring Capitalism. Outside of the USA it's loathed and detested. By all means experiment with it yourselves, starving will cure you of it eventually, but keep it within your own borders. It's the absolute reverse of worthwhile. You call it democracy and what it consists of is subjugation, poverty and death. I wouldn't ever define "democracy" as one in the same as "capitalism". Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

...

But for the sake of the conversation I'll speak hypothetically that such is true. The same goes for the fact that a "good" result can never be justified by the divine fact that "bad" was done in order to achieve. What's left is one being oblivious as to the differences between the two, good and bad.

The intentions of a person murdering because they felt "God" told them to in order to

"create a much better world" has to be deemed good by the entire logic pertaining to "moral certainty"! The majority has to come in and decide whether or not the end result was a good thing or a bad thing that gives credence to the definition of "morality" all together.

There you have it!

Morality defined by the majority justifying the intentions to do good. What's left is weighing the bias between the associated worth before any change has taken place among any given prognostication ultimately lying face up at the end result. There's no other way any given end result can be construed as being good or bad otherwise.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:29 am

We seem to be agreeing that the US administration thought it was doing good but from the point of view of those who were invaded they did something entirely undesirable.

People who hear the voice of God telling them to kill and who act on it are technically considered mad and popularly criticized as bad too. What I conclude from that is that "moral certainty" is a disaster waiting to happen. I have no moral certainty and I mistrust those who have it. I have more than enough evidence that people with moral certainty damage their neighbours and do far more harm than good.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:49 pm

AussiePam;1069147 wrote: Absolutely - they are within their rights and in accord with their own philosophy when they throw acid in the faces of little girls who leave their houses to go to school.

I have no comment on whether or not western troops should be there, but I don't think you can consider the Taliban as in anyway nice or noble.

Was that the Taliban government or an individual fanatic unconnected with them?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:23 pm

I expect it was just an isolated incident, Bryn. Women are cherished and treated as full equals to men and are free to come and go, drive cars, work, get an education and not live in fear of domestic violence etc etc in most Middle Eastern muslim countries. It is only a few fringe extremists who oppress them and deny them their normal human rights. The World Press, run naturally by Western devils, has misunderstood, misportrayed, misled etc for its own evil agendas. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and encourages peace and tolerance. Islamic countries always look after all their citizens equally, even the females.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:41 pm

AussiePam;1069775 wrote: I expect it was just an isolated incident, Bryn. Women are cherished and treated as full equals to men and are free to come and go, drive cars, work, get an education and not live in fear of domestic violence etc etc in most Middle Eastern muslim countries. It is only a few fringe extremists who oppress them and deny them their normal human rights. The World Press, run naturally by Western devils, has misunderstood, misportrayed, misled etc for its own evil agendas. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and encourages peace and tolerance. Islamic countries always look after all their citizens equally, even the females.

Given the degree of daemonisation that occurs in the western press it's difficult to tell and, not having lived there, I'm not sure it isn't a little worse than you're portraying it to be.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:01 am

spot;1069163 wrote: We seem to be agreeing that the US administration thought it was doing good but from the point of view of those who were invaded they did something entirely undesirable.

People who hear the voice of God telling them to kill and who act on it are technically considered mad and popularly criticized as bad too. What I conclude from that is that "moral certainty" is a disaster waiting to happen. I have no moral certainty and I mistrust those who have it. I have more than enough evidence that people with moral certainty damage their neighbours and do far more harm than good.

Well I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree!

What's left is deeming specific instances to be purely righteous or purely evil. The intentions of a people to do "good" is considered to be divinely good by and only by those who agree with the entire logic pertaining to the event in question. What I'm after is, why can't the majority decide on what that "good" is? I see absolutely no reason as to why the majority of peoples should be refrained from expressing their beliefs at the expense of what would then be an irrelevant minority. Hypothetically speaking, if the majority of the world is wicked then the Earth as we, as humans, know it is destined for either failure at the expense of those wicked, or my own personal belief that wicked can never prevail over good. Good will always prevail by virtue of logic. Bad can never sustain itself because bad quite simply feeds off of itself and it diminishes! If such wasn't divine truth how else would you come to the conclusion it were "bad"?

Don't know about you but it makes me think

What you'd have left is the world disillusioned into thinking they can never have it worse than they have it, from which I feel negates a peoples morale more than anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My point being that you can never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,..hold the intentions of any given group of peoples who believe they're doing good to be wrong regardless what the majority sees. If you did, you have a very same group of people disillusioned into thinking divine righteousness is "bad" and pure wickedness is "good"! If the majority sees good, then we sing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wah: ...

spot;1068618 wrote: When was the last time a country asked the US to invade them?

Never seen a child continuously whine for a candy bar? ...

Never seen a child continuously whine for a candy bar they've never had?

(And no I would never imply that the countries the US has invaded are children - I'm speaking on points! THEM) ...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:11 am

Bryn Mawr;1069135 wrote: That is where we disagree then - and strongly.

As you say, it is you opinion and you are entitled to it but it is not an opinion I share.

I do not believe that the majority of individuals are immoral - I think most try to live moral lives by their own codes, but I do believe that our current administrations are totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.

May I ask why you wouldn't approve of a country invading a country's government whose peoples are receiving below the average of income the government is withholding, from which is the direct result of that governments peoples dying 15 years earlier than the world average? If in fact you would not be for the invasion to oust the government. Keeping in mind, of course, that the civilian casualties would remain lower than the median death rate between the ages of the remaining %5 within said "expectancy". <----Hope that's correct!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:21 am

K.Snyder;1070283 wrote: May I ask why you wouldn't approve of a country invading a country's government whose peoples are receiving below the average of income the government is withholding, from which is the direct result of that governments peoples dying 15 years earlier than the world average? If in fact you would not be for the invasion to oust the government. Keeping in mind, of course, that the civilian casualties would remain lower than the median death rate between the ages of the remaining %5 within said "elderly".

You'd use war for THAT?

There are far better ways of dealing with problems like that than killing the poor sods.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:29 am

K.Snyder;1070283 wrote: May I ask why you wouldn't approve of a country invading a country's government whose peoples are receiving below the average of income the government is withholding, from which is the direct result of that governments peoples dying 15 years earlier than the world average? If in fact you would not be for the invasion to oust the government. Keeping in mind, of course, that the civilian casualties would remain lower than the median death rate between the ages of the remaining %5 within said "expectancy".

When was the last time a country was invaded and living standards or life expectancy rose as a result? The trouble with your hypotheticals is they have nothing to do with the real world.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:31 am

Bryn Mawr;1070290 wrote: You'd use war for THAT?

There are far better ways of dealing with problems like that than killing the poor sods.

Well, no, not before all avenues of diplomacy were traveled.

After that I'd wage war on the government and bring all of the leaders up on charges of torture and they'd all serve life sentences.

All, I ask is that you don't use previous United States policies to form your own conclusions as to the likes of my own competence.

Iraq being the epitome of what it is I'm talking about. I wouldn't expect myself to be victorious in a country directly surrounded by terrorist organizations both supported by outside investors as well as domestic "entrepreneurs".

If such weren't the case the war would be over faster than I had time to deploy the Marines! Only instead of people starving all the while their leader lives in oh I don't know how many mansions Saddam was living in but I know it was far too many. You see, when there's more than one leader living in numerous mansions all the while "their peoples" starve to death by virtue of vile torture! I can never seem to remember which number exactly represents their repulsiveness! <----And I'm not yelling at you! Unless you lived in a mansion at the expense of a starving mouth!

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:36 am

K.Snyder;1070298 wrote: Well, no, not before all avenues of diplomacy were traveled.

After that I'd wage war on the government and bring all of the leaders up on charges of torture and they'd all serve life sentences.

All, I ask is that you don't use previous United States policies to form your own conclusions as to the likes of my own competence.

Iraq being the epitome of what it is I'm talking about. I wouldn't expect myself to be victorious in a country directly surrounded by terrorist organizations both supported by outside investors as well as domestic "entrepreneurs".

If such weren't the case the war would be over faster than I had time to deploy the Marines! Only instead of people starving all the while their leader lives in oh I don't know how many mansions Saddam was living in but I know it was far too many. You see, when there's more than one leader living in numerous mansions all the while that person's people starve to death by virtue of vile torture! I can never seem to remember which number exactly represents their repulsiveness!

The only starvation in Iraq was a result of US sanctions, you know, it had nothing to do with any internal policy of repression as you seem to be suggesting. President Saddam was a perfectly adequate head of state, given the country he was governing. he had many parallels with Tito in Yugoslavia, which went to the dogs after Tito died for much the same reason Iraq broke apart - US pressure from outside and nationalists jostling inside.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:40 am

spot;1070295 wrote: When was the last time a country was invaded and living standards or life expectancy rose as a result? The trouble with your hypotheticals is they have nothing to do with the real world.

What I'm doing is illustrating what I feel is a moral justifications in the invasion of a country.

I do not claim the US before I haven't claimed all moral peoples.

Having said that, and without taking the risk of sounding like a glory hog, I'd say the Allied forces have done a great job with most of the countries that had been effected by the remnants of WW2. It serves as prelude to all that is possible and demonstrates that not every country has the virtue of subjecting their people to famine.

What you're doing is being presumptuous and assuming I'm justifying the invasion of Afghanistan. I haven't for one minute divulged as to which countries I would personally invade had I the power.

Now, without all of the flags waving, if ya'll'd excuse me Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday and I wish nothing but the best for you all!

Happy Thanksgiving! And good day!

:yh_party...:wah:...

:yh_wink

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:45 am

spot;1070304 wrote: The only starvation in Iraq was a result of US sanctions, you know, it had nothing to do with any internal policy of repression as you seem to be suggesting. President Saddam was a perfectly adequate head of state, given the country he was governing. he had many parallels with Tito in Yugoslavia, which went to the dogs after Tito died for much the same reason Iraq broke apart - US pressure from outside and nationalists jostling inside.

:yh_clap...

Congratulations!...:wah:...You've just figured out the fact that I wouldn't have invaded Iraq!...:wah:...My hypotheticals aren't so bad are they?...

What I've done is give you my logic pertaining to what I consider to be a moral justification in invading another country. You may think that I could have just said that I wouldn't have invaded Iraq and had been done with it but everything I ever say has a meaning and I retain the right to express the fact!

People without opinions are people without influence!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:50 am

K.Snyder;1070319 wrote: You've just figured out the fact that I wouldn't have invaded Iraq!

I should clarify that!

I wouldn't have invaded Iraq at the exact same time in which Iraq had been invaded. I retain the right to declare war on any given country! ...Given by the standards of my own moral certainty of course.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:52 am

K.Snyder;1070298 wrote: Well, no, not before all avenues of diplomacy were traveled.

After that I'd wage war on the government and bring all of the leaders up on charges of torture and they'd all serve life sentences.

All, I ask is that you don't use previous United States policies to form your own conclusions as to the likes of my own competence.

Iraq being the epitome of what it is I'm talking about. I wouldn't expect myself to be victorious in a country directly surrounded by terrorist organizations both supported by outside investors as well as domestic "entrepreneurs".

If such weren't the case the war would be over faster than I had time to deploy the Marines! Only instead of people starving all the while their leader lives in oh I don't know how many mansions Saddam was living in but I know it was far too many. You see, when there's more than one leader living in numerous mansions all the while "their peoples" starve to death by virtue of vile torture! I can never seem to remember which number exactly represents their repulsiveness!

and what's the life expectancy in Iraq now? Over a million dead from a population of less than twenty seven million - Saddam never inflicted that much suffering on the Iraqi people.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:55 am

Bryn Mawr;1070329 wrote: and what's the life expectancy in Iraq now? Over a million dead from a population of less than twenty seven million - Saddam never inflicted that much suffering on the Iraqi people.

I had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq!

But in any case, by my own logic, if those civilians killed were to be outweighed by the increase, above the number of those casualties, of human beings not suffering above the average suffering that had been endured during the reign of Saddam Hussein, the effort would have been well worth it.

*Keeping in mind that the word "suffering" in this instance is not peculiar to all but one country in the entire known universe! THEM!!*

Post by **spot** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:10 am

An interesting comment on the current situation:For the luckless Obama the biggest problem in succeeding a nincompoop is that he has inherited one of the worst economic and national security nightmares of any President in American history. He started out in a huge deficit. In Afghanistan he began in a milieu in which the Pathan Afghans, the alma mater of the Taliban, actually see the Americans as invaders and occupiers. Not only that, while Obama finds America encumbered with some NATO allies that are increasingly indisposed to continue as members of the war party, the Taliban on the other hand, rather than diminishing, are actually multiplying in numbers. Long cues of applicants are lining up to join the ‘Jihad against the infidels’. So empowering is their ideology that they are willing to take up primitive arms and fight against the most powerful military in history knowing well the odds against them. Add to this the increasing radicalization that the Afghan and Iraq jaunts have sprung upon the Muslim world and the consequent insecurity of the American people that has no parallel in history, and one begins to form up a picture of America’s problems in Afghanistan. That certain other stake holders, i.e. China and Russia, too are slowly beginning to look at the fracas next door as their legitimate concern is only the icing on the cake.

But that is not all. The Afghan army and police remain the fantasy that was long suspected by the locals of the region. The few of them that can be called somewhat regular troops or police are not willing to die for the thoroughly crooked and inept government of Hamid Karzai. It is no wonder thus that the Americans are finally fed up with having to either go into battle alone or to watch over their shoulders to see if the Afghan officials with them are going to desert them or shoot them in the back. That can be a really draining exercise. Plus, fatigued by the constant ‘war on terra’ harangue of the previous administration, many American soldiers have now begun to ask how many of them should die for the government of Hamid Karzai?

Perhaps a hushed realization seems to have finally sunk in that the Americans cannot make an Afghan think like an American, want like an American and live like an American. Many after all remember that at the peak of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, there were 140,000 Russian troops, 300, 000 Afghan troops with tanks, helicopters and weapons to boot and tens of thousands of civilian advisers in the country who spoke all the native languages. And the Russians just did not kill only as the popular propaganda would have us believe. They built hundreds of clinics, schools, factories, roads and bridges. But in the end they lost. They lost for the single overriding reason that the Soviets failed to make the Afghan people want what the Soviets wanted them to want. Before them the British too had had similar experiences. As a matter of fact, every foreign intruder in the past couple of centuries has lost out in Afghanistan. Why the Americans should be an exception, they ask. You cannot, after all, build a nation out of unwilling disparate tribes and give them institutions they do not want. Period.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs