"How 775,000 U.S. troops fought in one war:..." Topic
37 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 13 Sep 2019 10:19 p.m. PST |
… Afghanistan military deployments by the numbers. "Wednesday marks the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, which led to a long legacy of war. That was thrown into sharp relief this week when President Trump abruptly announced Saturday that he was canceling months of negotiations with the Taliban, even as he aims to fulfill a promise of ending America's "endless wars." The U.S. war in Afghanistan has led to the deaths of about 2,400 American service members, including 16 in combat action this year. Some 20,000 more have been wounded, many grievously…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Uparmored | 14 Sep 2019 4:34 a.m. PST |
Can't negotiate with people who keep killing and can't even commit to a limited ceasefire |
Andrew Walters | 14 Sep 2019 7:38 a.m. PST |
The various pronouncements the Taliban made caused me to wonder what exactly people hoped for in the negotiations. It sounded, roughly, like "If you leave we will stop attacking you but we will keep attacking the Afghan government and doing whatever else we want." Which feels like what they would do if we didn't have an agreement. There needs to be a plan. Just sticking around because all the alternatives are unpleasant is unpleasant itself. Just because there are no good choices doesn't mean indecision is a good thing. Turns out there are even US Coast Guard members in Afghanistan. What a mess. |
HMS Exeter | 14 Sep 2019 9:38 a.m. PST |
We will never "win" in Afghanistan, but that's not the point. America has almost always fought finite wars. We go to war, we find out how to defeat our enemy, then we set about doing it. But that sort of linear warfighting doesn't work fighting an asymmetrical opponent. Napoleon couldn't figure out how to subdue Spain. George III couldn't figure out how to beat the the rebellious colonies. Nobody could figure out how to beat Vietnam. These were infinite wars. You don't win by winning, you win by not losing. You win by staying on the field and accepting that you're prepared to stay there indefinitely. Russia lost the cold war because they finally lost the ability to continue. That's how Russia lost in Afghanistan, too. That's how we lost in Vietnam. Fighting this kind of war isn't rewarding, or redeeming. It's an exercise in bloody, grinding, mind numbing exasperation. Afghanistan will inexorably adapt to life in the wider world. They won't like it. Theyll rebel against it. But, slowly, gradually, the Afghans will tire of this whole business. It will likely take generations. It might take centuries. But it's better to fight these joker's in Helmand than Manhattan. Relax guys. We're doing fine. |
Tango01 | 14 Sep 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
Sadly true…. Amicalement Armand
|
Andrew Walters | 14 Sep 2019 12:39 p.m. PST |
Counterinsurgency warfare is not a complete mystery, not an impossibility. Several countries have done it successfully. It's very unpleasant. We know what works and what doesn't. From Northern Ireland to The Philippines to Viet Nam to Algeria there are common principles. Unfortunately, sometimes military practice is constrained by politics and the public will to pay the price and do the things that win. I don't think Afghanistan, which is unique, certainly, is going to defy all preceding history. If someone is willing to do what it takes they can defeat the Taliban. If they're willing to pay what it costs you could build a functioning state there. But I guess there's not particular reason anyone should be willing to do and pay. That doesn't mean it's impossible. I just means it's not worth it for the people who could do it. That is not good news if you live in Afghanistan. The US government had to cancel a training program for Afghan Air Force pilots that was hosted here in the states because the students all kept disappearing. They quit the program and became illegal immigrants, because apparently that's better that going back to Afghanistan. I haven't finished this book but I like it so far… link |
Uparmored | 14 Sep 2019 4:44 p.m. PST |
Andrew Walters, it's not widely reported by the Trump hating press but part of the agreement in exchange for NATO leaving would have been for the Taliban to publicly and explicitly renounce their association with Al Qaeda and terrorism. This sounds pretty good to me. |
Old Glory | 14 Sep 2019 9:09 p.m. PST |
Ya, we can trust them to hold to that promise for sure ????? |
Col Durnford | 15 Sep 2019 9:39 a.m. PST |
They are not trustworthy and they are not worth the effort. As I said in another thread, if the British could not bring civilization to the Afghans there is not reason to believe we can. |
HMS Exeter | 15 Sep 2019 11:46 a.m. PST |
The Afghans have a civilization. It just not one we particularly like. Durable, but not very warm and fuzzy. What we need is a Harley Davidson dealership in Kabul. Get them guys off them scooters and onto real hogs. They'll get their heads right. |
Ruchel | 15 Sep 2019 12:58 p.m. PST |
British colonialism did not bring "civilization" to anybody. British colonialism brought economic explotaition, cultural destruction, plundering, the killing of thousands of people and, nowadays, as a consequence, underdevelopment and economic dependence. American new colonialism is doing exactly the same in Irak and Afghanistan. US troops are invaders and occupation forces. So, please, leave those countries. USA is fighting for its own strategic and economic interests, not for "freedom and democracy". Open your eyes and avoid believing in fairy tales. International terrorism is a complex phenomenon. The Taliban have little influence on it. They are mainly interested in ruling Afghanistan following their "ideology". And the Taliban government will not last long due to the traditional conflicts between factions. It is their nature. The Afghans have no real interest in international projection, and never did. It is an isolationist and introverted culture. The Taliban only provided refuge to Bin Laden. They lacked, and lack today, the necessary means to carry out international terrorist attacks such as September 11. If you want to find the real terrorist sources (brains and money), you should look for them in Saudi Arabia and in other "allied" countries around the world. |
Tango01 | 15 Sep 2019 9:23 p.m. PST |
Interesting points my friend… apart from Saudi Arabia… who else are you thinking…? Amicalement Armand
|
Walking Sailor | 15 Sep 2019 11:59 p.m. PST |
USA is fighting for its own strategic and economic interests Correct, and that is because rebuilding skyscrapers and a funny cornered office building in CONUS is not in our "economic interest". The biggest failure is that we are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. We should be bombing them back to pre-stone age where they live, not where they fight. |
Ruchel | 16 Sep 2019 7:16 a.m. PST |
USA real interests in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with fighting international terrorism. It is a fallacy. USA real interests in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with "protecting" skyscrapers and buildings. It is an emotional fallacy. Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorist attacks such as September 11. If you want to know where international terrorists came from, you should look for them in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen (ally of Saudi Arabia at that time), many Western countries, and even in your country. International terrorism is a complex phenomenon which is spread worldwide. Making us believe that US troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against international terrorism is a fallacy and a childish statement. Those two countries have never had the necessary means (brains and money), or the real intention, to carry out international terrorist attacks such as September 11. So, the real American interests were and are strategic and economic ones: natural resources, other kind of economic resources and military/political control of areas of great strategic importance (the strategic situation of Iraq and Afghanistan). You should not bomb or invade anything. Those actions are atrocities and they cause the killing of thousands of civilians, poverty and destruction, as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is immoral and criminal, especially in the name of despicable economic and strategic interests. So, please, leave those countries. |
HMS Exeter | 16 Sep 2019 7:40 a.m. PST |
Friend Ruchel, would it be too presumptuous to ask in which nation state you reside? |
Choctaw | 16 Sep 2019 8:03 a.m. PST |
What makes me giddy is we kill the terrorists overseas and not in our own streets. That is victory for the United States. All countries put their self-interests first. So yeah, when we're attacked we are going to respond and kill the bad guys dead. |
Ghostrunner | 16 Sep 2019 9:53 a.m. PST |
You should not bomb or invade anything. Those actions are atrocities and they cause the killing of thousands of civilians, poverty and destruction, as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is immoral and criminal, especially in the name of despicable economic and strategic interests. Yes, it's know as 'war'. It's horrible and should be avoided at all costs. A good first step is not bombing street cafes in neighboring countries or killing 3000 civilians one morning as a political statement. |
Ruchel | 16 Sep 2019 12:06 p.m. PST |
Choctaw, Well, US bombings and invasions have killed many more civilians than terrorists. It is the typical consequence of criminal colonialist invasions. In fact, those bombings and invasions had nothing to do with terrorism. It was an excuse, a despicable justification, a fallacy. The only real United States' victory consists in: plundering, war crimes, killing of thousands of civilians, poverty, cultural destruction, misrule, social disorganization, emergence of new terrorist groups, and so on. Yes, a great victory. Congratulations. Yes, USA always have put its interests first, like any other country around the world. And those interests are despicable as a result of its colonialist and imperialist policies. But do not worry, Russia, China, UK, France and many others are not better. But you prefer to believe in American propaganda. It is the result of a fanatical nationalist education. And you have many bad guys in your streets, and in your government. Ghostrunner,
No, it is not war. It is a new colonial policy, and it consists in bombing and invading other countries in the name of economic and strategic interests. In the name of world hegemony and economic domination. The excuses and justifications are: fighting for "freedom and democracy" and fighting against international terrorism. Propaganda and a bunch of criminal fallacies. I repeat again: Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with international terrorist attacks such as September 11. You should look for the real terrorists in "allied" countries. But you prefer to make up fake enemies and invade them mercilessly. So, please, leave those countries. |
Ghostrunner | 16 Sep 2019 12:23 p.m. PST |
|
HMS Exeter | 16 Sep 2019 12:38 p.m. PST |
#Tango01 I think that "allied" is some sort of code for Israel. #Ruchel I have no idea where to begin. It's OK if you don't want to disclose your home country, but for my edification, what are your preferred sources for news and information? |
HMS Exeter | 18 Sep 2019 7:05 a.m. PST |
|
Uparmored | 18 Sep 2019 1:58 p.m. PST |
I guess Ruchel comes from Pakistan because apparantly according to him terrorists come from every country in the region, except Pakistan. And Ruchel, I am very sure American bombing has objectively killed a lot more terrorists than civilians. |
Ruchel | 19 Sep 2019 6:46 a.m. PST |
I am European, from European ancestors. And yes, there are terrorists in Pakistan too. There are terrorist groups and state terrorism in many countries around the world, including the US. Many people believe blindly in American propaganda. It is the consequence of brainwashing as a result of a fanatical nationalist education. No, American bombing has NOT "objectively" killed a lot more terrorists than civilians. It is a fallacy. Many more civilians have been killed. The difference is abysmal. It is easy to find reliable data and statistics from many international organizations and institutions. Many of them are available on the Internet. Even a child can find that information. But you prefer to believe in the fallacies established by immoral politicians, nationalist journalists and tabloids. Maybe a handful of terrorists, many of them "supposed terrorists" and not the real international terrorists, has been killed, but the reality is that thousands of civilians have been killed in those countries as a consequence of American bombings and invasions. And there are many other "collateral" effects which can be "objectively" confirmed: plundering, misrule, chaos, cultural destruction, poverty, emergence of new terrorist groups, social violence and disorganization, and so on. All those immoral atrocities have been caused by those US invasions and bombings. A disaster, a mess, committed in the name of the most immoral economic and strategic interests, typical of a hegemonic colonialist power. So, no, you cannot deceive us with fairy tales and propaganda fallacies about fighting for "freedom and democracy" against international terrorism. Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with international terrorist attacks such as September 11. It is easy to understand. US bombings and invasions are criminal actions carried out in the name of despicable interests. Those actions have caused war crimes, the killing of thousands of civilians and destruction. It is undeniable. So, please, leave those countries. |
HMS Exeter | 19 Sep 2019 9:22 a.m. PST |
#Ruchel Lemme guess,…Switzerland? "Many people believe blindly in American propaganda. It is the consequence of brainwashing as a result of a fanatical nationalist education." If you are suggesting that American's have been brainwashed by this system, I'd point out that most primary schooling in the US is pretty apolitical. Our institutions of higher learning are largely dominated by educators of a fairly liberal bent. Our media has, for many years had a bit of a liberal bias, which some newer outlets have tried to "fairly balance" but which actually resulted in a pretty egregious overcorrection. Americans are actually pretty independent thinkers. That's why half of us can't stand what the other half think. I doubt you are suggesting that foreign education systems have systematically tried to instill a pro American perspective. Is that why the Europeans love us so? Cough! "No, American bombing has NOT "objectively" killed a lot more terrorists than civilians. It is a fallacy. Many more civilians have been killed." Granted. I'm not sure what the imbalance is. I think it's probably 60/40 either way. In truth even one civilian death is inacceptable. That's why the terrorists shelter among civvies. That's why civvies die. We could declare "martyrs" day and invite the terrorists to converge on a "leaving for paradise" target range, but I doubt they'd show up. "And there are many other "collateral" effects which can be "objectively" confirmed: plundering, misrule, chaos, cultural destruction, poverty, emergence of new terrorist groups, social violence and disorganization, and so on." Conflict always brings out the worst. Note tho, that you've also described Syria, that went bad before we weighed in, and Zimbabwe, where we aren't present at all, and Venezuela, and Nigeria, and Libya, and Gaza, and the Tribal Regions of Pakistan, and the southern Philippines, and Central America. Are you going to blame ALL of that on one country? "All those immoral atrocities have been caused by those US invasions and bombings. A disaster, a mess, committed in the name of the most immoral economic and strategic interests, typical of a hegemonic colonialist power." What possible economic interest could any sane human being have in Afghanistan? The US intervened in Afg to root out Al Qaeda who had just visited 9/11 on the US. We're still there to insure that it does not backfill. We intervened in Iraq the first time to liberate Kuwait. (If you're going to suggest we went there for the Kuwaiti oil, check and see what kid of price break the Kuwaiti's gave us after their liberation. That's easy, none.) Our second foray into Iraq was pretty undeniably tainted, but once we broke it, we've tried to do what we could to fix it. The US has never been much of a "Colonial Power." Mostly we are about doing what needs to be done to get people to play nice and leave us alone. Cuba might not be quite the mess it is if we hadn't been so eager to hand over the keys and leave in 1900. "Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with international terrorist attacks such as September 11. It is easy to understand." Iraq's pedigree here is murky. To assert that Afg had nothing to do with 9/11 is inaccurate and frankly pretty offensive. If someone shoots at my house from your upstairs window, don't be surprised when I start shooting at your house. "fighting for "freedom and democracy." Yeah, that's a lot of Bull. It sounds good and it's a great idea, but the Mideast isn't really fertile ground for this. the Arab Spring held great promise that has turned to dust. Syria is gone. Egypt has retreated back prior to Nasser, Libya is a failed state. Jordan and Algeria are hanging on by a thread. Israel is about 15 minutes away from cashiering it's status as a democracy in favor of insuring it's being a Jewish State. None of this is evil. It's all just tragic. Your resort to such loaded adjectives as "propaganda (3 times), brainwashing, fanatical, nationalist, immoral (3 times), tabloids, atrocities and hegemonic colonialist," suggests that you have been availing yourself of informational sources that are less impartial than one might hope. Choose what sources you like, but you might want to consider broadening the scope to some that are a bit less skewed. It's an American idiom, so it may not translate across the water, but "I think you've had enough Kool-Aid." Nation states must choose how they wish to interact with their neighbors. Some are isolationists. It's as valid a choice as any, and for some countries it works. We've tried it a few times, but it never really worked out. It must be convenient from your chair to berate other countries for their failings. It is in the American nature to try to interfere for good. It is in the American nature to defend ourselves. This has lately expanded to pre-emptive action, as it is no longer state actors who most imperil us. We are imperfect. We will get it wrong. That's what comes of being willing or forced to try. If your nation state has a better plan for how to deal with the threats of the world, please,…I GUARANTY you, we are all ears. If all you have to offer is sanctimony, pass. "So, please, leave those countries." Not on your Nelly. |
Bunkermeister | 19 Sep 2019 5:43 p.m. PST |
If there is a terrorist in your house, your wedding party, your funeral procession, you better get him our, or American bombs are going to land on your head and kill more than just the terrorist. and I am okay with that. It is the duty of the American government to keep Americans safe from international enemies, and if that means our neighbors won't clean out their own house, then we will have to do so ourselves. Mike Bunkermeister Creek |
Editor in Chief Bill | 19 Sep 2019 6:12 p.m. PST |
British colonialism did not bring "civilization" to anybody. British colonialism brought economic explotaition, cultural destruction, plundering, the killing of thousands of people and, nowadays, as a consequence, underdevelopment and economic dependence. Did colonialism bring benefits to anyone? Britain was once a colony of Rome… |
Ghostrunner | 19 Sep 2019 6:59 p.m. PST |
If your nation state has a better plan for how to deal with the threats of the world, please,…I GUARANTY you, we are all ears. If all you have to offer is sanctimony, pass. Bingo. One thing the world has in over-abundance is people proclaiming to be the sole voice of morality in the room. |
Ruchel | 20 Sep 2019 11:17 a.m. PST |
The approximate number of civilians killed in Iraq since the American invasion: between 700000 (minimum) and 2 millions of people (maximum). New studies and researching are on the way, and the numbers may be higher. Then, you should add thousands of people dead due to malnutrition and lack of medical care and medicines. Then, there were, and there are, thousands of displaced people and hundred thousands of destroyed homes. All those calamities have been caused by the US invasion. It is obvious and undeniable. The approximate number of civilians killed in Afghanistan since the American invasion: between 100000-500000 (minimum) and 1.2 millions of people (maximum). The exact numbers are difficult to research because of the complex nature of that country. That horrible slaughter is the result of the US invasion. It is obvious and undeniable. So, those invasions, and the consequences until today, have caused massive atrocities. It is an immoral crime, a crime against humanity, true genocide.
you are suggesting that American's have been brainwashed by this system, I'd point out that most primary schooling in the US is pretty apolitical. Our institutions of higher learning are largely dominated by educators of a fairly liberal bent. Our media has, for many years had a bit of a liberal bias, which some newer outlets have tried to "fairly balance" but which actually resulted in a pretty egregious overcorrection.Americans are actually pretty independent thinkers. That's why half of us can't stand what the other half think. The information about the massive killing of civilians, atrocities, plundering, destruction and so on is the truth. For more than fifteen years, American society as a whole has not shown any concern for those massive atrocities. Most American people only have shown any concern for American casualties and military spending. They have been totally blind to the immense suffering of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, American society as a whole believed blindly in the fake reasons and motives given by US government in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. All those justifications were a bunch of fallacies, a handful of lies. But American people obeyed and believed in that despicable and childish propaganda. It was childish because the reasons and "proofs" offered by US government were childish and an absolute nonsense. Any student with a basic knowledge about international terrorism knew very well that Al Qaeda and Wahabism had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and his Baath party. In fact, they were enemies. Everyone around the world knew that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Regarding Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban did not take part in that terrorist attack (September 11) and they were not international terrorists either. In fact, there are no justifications for the invasion, especially taking into consideration that, in reality, Bin Laden was been protected by the Pakistani Taliban. The American justifications were absurd and only an excuse to invade Afghanistan. Countries are no invaded and destroyed just for a terrorist leader who, in this case, is not an Afghan, and whose final destination was Pakistan. So, yes, most American people believe blindly in American propaganda made by their governments. Most American people supported, accepted or tolerated those criminal invasions. And they keep on justifying them nowadays. It is a fact. There is a total lack of critical thinking. Granted. I'm not sure what the imbalance is. I think it's probably 60/40 either way. In truth even one civilian death is inacceptable. That's why the terrorists shelter among civvies. That's why civvies die. We could declare "martyrs" day and invite the terrorists to converge on a "leaving for paradise" target range, but I doubt they'd show up. In your opinion, all civilian casualties have been caused by the "terrorists". The typical fallacy: the "terrorist" shelter among civilians. It is the typical and cynical attempt to displace responsibility. No, the cause of those conflicts and combats are the American invasions. It is simple and easy to understand: The US invasions caused all the combats and destruction. If there are no invasions, there are no massacres caused directly or indirectly by them. Right? And many civilian casualties have not been caused by the fighting against supposed terrorists, but by other causes: poverty, indiscriminate bombings, "mistakes", war crimes, torture, malnutrition, social conflicts, lack of medical care, displacements, etc. All these calamities were caused by the US invasions. It is undeniable. Conflict always brings out the worst. Note tho, that you've also described Syria, that went bad before we weighed in, and Zimbabwe, where we aren't present at all, and Venezuela, and Nigeria, and Libya, and Gaza, and the Tribal Regions of Pakistan, and the southern Philippines, and Central America. Are you going to blame ALL of that on one country? I blame the US for those actions which they are responsible for. Every country is responsible for the atrocities they have committed. Regarding Syria, I blame many countries which are playing a chess game with the aim of obtaining strategic and economic positions, supporting many criminal groups and killing thousands of civilians. It is a typical conflict fought by several new colonialist powers, and minor allies, in order to maintain their own spheres of interest and influence: Russia, USA, France, UK, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran,… What possible economic interest could any sane human being have in Afghanistan? The US intervened in Afg to root out Al Qaeda who had just visited 9/11 on the US. We're still there to insure that it does not backfill. We intervened in Iraq the first time to liberate Kuwait. (If you're going to suggest we went there for the Kuwaiti oil, check and see what kid of price break the Kuwaiti's gave us after their liberation. That's easy, none.) Our second foray into Iraq was pretty undeniably tainted, but once we broke it, we've tried to do what we could to fix it.The US has never been much of a "Colonial Power." Mostly we are about doing what needs to be done to get people to play nice and leave us alone. Cuba might not be quite the mess it is if we hadn't been so eager to hand over the keys and leave in 1900. USA is a new colonial power (concept of Neo-colonialism). And due to its military and economic power, the US is fighting for world hegemony, achieving the control of every strategic area and creating economic dependency. It is a fact. Iraq and Afghanistan are situated in important strategic areas. Both countries have economic relevance (we know the resources in Iraq, and Afghanistan has large mineral reserves) and strategic one too. Any specialist or expert in Geostrategy and Geopolitics may explain you that relevance. You should ask them. You should look for information. I am a teacher (professor), but I am on holidays now. Iraq's pedigree here is murky. To assert that Afg had nothing to do with 9/11 is inaccurate and frankly pretty offensive. If someone shoots at my house from your upstairs window, don't be surprised when I start shooting at your house. I repeat it: Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 or with Al Qaeda. It was evident then. In fact, there was no good relationship between Iraq rulers and Al Qaeda leaders. They were religious and political enemies. Afghanistan had nothing to do with September 11. Afghan Taliban had not the necessary means to carry out international terrorist attacks (brains and money) and they had not the intention either. They were interested in domestic problems. There were no Iraqis or Afghans, related to their governments, involved in the planning and implementation of September 11. Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan, as states and countries, cannot be blamed for that terrorist attack, and the invasions are not justified, in no way. It is a proven and undeniable fact. The real international terrorists who planned and implemented that horrible attack came from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait and other countries (maybe Pakistan and Egypt, but not their governments) and including Western people from Western countries (necessary collaborators, consciously or unconsciously). It sounds good and it's a great idea, but the Mideast isn't really fertile ground for this. the Arab Spring held great promise that has turned to dust. Syria is gone. Egypt has retreated back prior to Nasser, Libya is a failed state. Jordan and Algeria are hanging on by a thread. Israel is about 15 minutes away from cashiering it's status as a democracy in favor of insuring it's being a Jewish State. None of this is evil. It's all just tragic. The US has never been interested in fighting for "freedom and democracy", whatever these vague concepts mean. The US has used that sentence as propaganda in order to justify its actions, crimes included. And the concept of "Arab spring" was an artificial creation made by Western journalists. All those countries are economically dependent and most of them have been ruled by puppet governments supported by Western powers. Those "Arab" countries have never had the chance of developing their own political system: after colonialism, they suffered economic dependency, then dictators or fake liberal democracies without any relation with their own culture. Your resort to such loaded adjectives as "propaganda (3 times), brainwashing, fanatical, nationalist, immoral (3 times), tabloids, atrocities and hegemonic colonialist," suggests that you have been availing yourself of informational sources that are less impartial than one might hope. Choose what sources you like, but you might want to consider broadening the scope to some that are a bit less skewed. It's an American idiom, so it may not translate across the water, but "I think you've had enough Kool-Aid." An atrocity is an atrocity. You cannot change the word or the meaning even if you look for other "informational sources". Unjustified invasions which caused the killing of hundred thousands of civilians, plundering, poverty and destruction cannot be hidden or disguised using "other informational sources". Today, those criminal invasions continue to be justified by politicians, journalists and most people, using the same old fallacies. So, words such as propaganda, brainwashing, fanatical, nationalist, immoral, tabloids, atrocities and hegemonic colonialist, are correct and necessary because they describe an undeniable reality. it is in the American nature to try to interfere for good. It is in the American nature to defend ourselves. This has lately expanded to pre-emptive action, as it is no longer state actors who most imperil us. "It is in American nature to try to interfere for good": again, another American fairy tale, and an example of the effects of nationalist education and propaganda. "It is in American nature to try to defend ourselves": well, it is in most countries' nature. It is obvious.
if your nation state has a better plan for how to deal with the threats of the world, please,…I GUARANTY you, we are all ears. If all you have to offer is sanctimony, pass. Well, "the threats of the world" are not solved by invading countries which have nothing to do with those "threats", or by killing thousands of civilians, plundering, destroying and so on. Atrocities, massacres, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, plundering, and ravages are not solutions, especially if the US is not interested in solving anything. The US is interested in achieving its strategic and economical aims, using every available method, including immoral and criminal ones. The terrorism is a fake excuse. So, I cannot offer a solution. I cannot fight against the criminal and predatory behaviour shown by a warmonger superpower. Regrettably, soon or later other country will be attacked, invaded and destroyed by that colonial superpower. And we will read the same propaganda and the same absurd reasons and justifications. If there is a terrorist in your house, your wedding party, your funeral procession, you better get him our, or American bombs are going to land on your head and kill more than just the terrorist. and I am okay with that.It is the duty of the American government to keep Americans safe from international enemies, and if that means our neighbors won't clean out their own house, then we will have to do so ourselves. Another example of fanatical nationalism. People who support criminals or criminal actions are criminals too. People who justify the killing of thousands of civilians in the name of nationalist absurdities are criminals. Well, you defend indiscriminate bombings and you use poor reasoning. International Laws and moral precepts are irrelevant to you. Now I understand why most American people accept uncritically and defend fanatically all the immoral criminal actions carried out by US governments. You do not have the right to carry out indiscriminate bombings. Yes, the US has the power, the US does not need "the right". But the force is only the power of the beasts. In short, your words sound like the typical American propaganda. One thing the world has in over-abundance is people proclaiming to be the sole voice of morality in the room. Perhaps there is a shortage of voices of morality in your country. In fact, it seems that your country has in over-abundance people who subordinate moral principles to fanatical patriotism. It is the direct effect of fanatical nationalism. Everything is acceptable and justifiable, even the worst crimes, in the name of your "sacred" country. Moral relativism at the service of insane nationalism. Or inexistence of any personal morality: you do not judge by yourself and rely blindly on the good nature of every action carried out by American governments, because America is the "best" country and always fight for "freedom and democracy". And then, you can sing your national anthem and reverence your national flag while your "good guys" are killing thousands of civilians and destroying countries in places thousands of miles away. I recommend the use of critical thinking and respect for moral principles. People who reject moral principles or prefer to subordinate them to fanatical patriotism are worse than beasts and they are insensitive to other people's sufferings. And yes, I will repeat to exhaustion that those invasions were unjustifiable crimes and immoral actions, massacres and destruction of colossal proportions. So, please, leave those countries. |
HMS Exeter | 20 Sep 2019 4:37 p.m. PST |
This is a large and complex business. Let's try to deconstruct it a little at a time. "The approximate number of civilians killed in Iraq since the American invasion: between 700000 (minimum)…" VALID: 2006 study by The Lancet (I think you'll find you'll get farther on TMP, as in academia, with more citations and fewer protestations.) "…and 2 millions of people (maximum)" CONJECTURE: 2018 estimate by "Common Dreams" Common Dreams, leftist, but normally factually reliable, took The Lancet study, added in the results of a research poll (?), adjusted the result by a corrective modifier (??), then applied all that to the numbers of a dodgy data collection group,Iraq Body Count (???), and came up with a 2.4 million dead estimate. IBQ's numbers from 2007-2017 we're about 130k, absurdly low. Lord only knows the actual number. I've already conceded the reasons for the 2nd Iraq Invasion were tainted. The result of Neo-CONservatives, not Neo-COLonialists. I have no crystal ball. I can't guess what Iraq would look like after 16 more years of Saddam Hussein. Another Syria? Your oft stated desire that we please "leave that country" actually came to fruition in 2011. And what came of that? The democratically chosen representatives of the Iraqi people, in their corruption and incompetence, managed to lose all of Sunni Western Iraq to ISIL, and then asked for us to come back. At present, the US has a small presence in Iraq. If we left now, it would make little difference. Maybe Iran can do a better job of nation building than we did. I bet the Sunnis don't think so. The world is a messy, violent, unpleasant place. Demanding that we leave anyplace is no assurance of a better outcome. It'd likely just be a different kind of bad. All too often it ends up being a different kind of worse. At the end of the day, that's the only thing that is "obvious and undeniable." |
Ruchel | 21 Sep 2019 7:12 a.m. PST |
Well, the Lancet Study was published in 2006, and it established the figure of almost 700000 deaths. A colossal massacre. But you have to add the thousands of people killed from 2006 to 2017. A large-scale massacre. Everyone who works in academical institutions (University or College) knows that those kinds of Academic studies or surveys always need to apply corrective modifiers because the data about confirmed deaths are not enough to represent the real numbers. There are many circumstances which may distort the results: missing people (for a long time, without a trace), irrecoverable bodies and remains, people killed in remoted areas not covered by those studies, people killed by indirect causes related to the conflict, wounded people who die later and are not recorded by the researchers, and so on. The corrective modifiers and other similar methods are necessary. So, the interval between 700000 and 2 millions is an acceptable and reliable figure. Usually the middle point may give you a reasonable estimation. But the accuracy of those figures is not the point. The real and undeniable fact is that hundred thousands of people have been massacred due to the US invasions. This is the point, the criminal and unjustifiable American invasions. Your oft stated desire that we please "leave that country" actually came to fruition in 2011. And what came of that?The democratically chosen representatives of the Iraqi people, in their corruption and incompetence, managed to lose all of Sunni Western Iraq to ISIL, and then asked for us to come back. At present, the US has a small presence in Iraq. If we left now, it would make little difference. Maybe Iran can do a better job of nation building than we did. I bet the Sunnis don't think so. The US never left Iraq. That is the intrinsic characteristic of Neo-colonialism. Iraq is economically, military and politically dependent on the US. Iraqi government is a puppet one, and "democracy" is impossible in that country. Iraq is a fractured and fragmented country. A failed state. "Democracy" is not possible in a failed state. The kurds, the Sunnis, the Christians and the Shia function independently from one another, and the "democratically chosen representatives" are not considered real ones but puppets handled by the Americans or by enemy factions. The government is a paralyzed puppet protected by the US military. The world is a messy, violent, unpleasant place. Demanding that we leave anyplace is no assurance of a better outcome. It'd likely just be a different kind of bad. All too often it ends up being a different kind of worse. Yes, the world is a messy, violent, unpleasant place. Especially because the US and other powers invade countries, attack peoples and impose immoral economic sanctions, all in the name of despicable economic and strategic interests, and in order to gain world supremacy. Yes, it is better to demand that countries are not invaded and bombed mercilessly and unjustifiedly. The US cannot decide if a different present or future is better of worse than its criminal actions. The US has no legitimacy to determine the present or the future of other countries, and all the less when they have been unjustifiedly invaded or attacked. You cannot use what-if scenarios or imaginary outcomes in order to justify or support that kind of criminal invasions carried out by the US. We need to be constructive. We must not allow those criminal actions to be repeated. |
Uparmored | 05 Oct 2019 8:00 p.m. PST |
The current democratically elected Iraqi government is a puppet of Iran actually. How many of these civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused by terrorist groups and sectarian violence? Saddam was sympathetic to terrorists. There was a retirement home for terrorists in downtown Baghdad before '03. I'm glad the US, my country and others finally kicked Saddam's ass, it's not our fault if the Iraqi people don't know what to do with their freedom. |
Ruchel | 06 Oct 2019 2:23 p.m. PST |
Firstly, the current Iraq government is not a puppet of Iran. Its organization, composition and structure do not allow that kind of subordination. In fact, Iraq government has maintained a good relationship with the US, but a good relationship with Iran is necessary too. You should understand the relevance of the historical and religious connections between Iraq and Iran, especially regarding the Shia majority. Iran is not considered as an enemy. Secondly, most civilian deaths were caused by the American invasion and occupation. The US was the aggressor, the invader and the occupier. It is a basic example of law of causation. The American invasion caused: the killing of hundred thousands of civilians, plundering, poverty, destruction, misrule, social disorganization and so on. And all those calamities caused by the US invasion led to the emergence of new terrorist groups and sectarian violence. They were the consequences of that criminal invasion. And they added more victims. So the real and true cause was the American invasion, a criminal and horrible massacre carried out in the name of the worst and despicable interests. Thirdly, Saddam and Baath party had nothing to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Wahabism. They were political and religious enemies. They had not a good relationship and they never collaborated with each other. Even a humble student interested in international terrorism knows it. So no, Iraq had nothing to do with attacks such as September 11. It is absolutely proven by real facts and by basic logical evidence. It is amazing how many people believe blindly in the fallacies, fake justifications and propaganda created by the American government. Again, it is the result of fanatical nationalism and irrational patriotism. Finally, your country, the US, and the other puppets did not bring freedom. It is a childish fairy tale. Your country, the US, and the other puppets carried out a criminal invasion in the name of the worst economic and strategic interests. The US and other Western countries enthroned and supported Saddam Hussein for many years, as long as he was useful. He committed horrible crimes and atrocities directly supported by the US. Most Western countries turned a blind eye because those atrocities served their own interests. It was the worst kind of criminal hypocrisy. When Saddam was no longer useful, he was destroyed. Your country, the US, and other puppets did not bring freedom, they brought the killing of hundred thousands of civilians, plundering, destruction, misrule, social disorganization, poverty, social violence, the emergence of new terrorist groups and so on. You put the blame on Iraqi people. It is a shame. It is intolerable and morally unacceptable. The truth is that Iraqi people do not know what to do after suffering a criminal invasion which caused massacres, plundering, destruction, poverty, misrule and many other atrocities. Certain types of comments should not be allowed in this forum, especially those comments which reveal and express cruelty, inhumanity, contempt, immorality, indecency and criminal cynicism. |
Tango01 | 06 Oct 2019 4:18 p.m. PST |
You forget to beg… "So, please, leave those countries…" (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Uparmored | 08 Jan 2020 4:03 a.m. PST |
"Firstly, the current Iraq government is not a puppet of Iran. " hahahahahaha |
arealdeadone | 08 Jan 2020 3:04 p.m. PST |
I agree with Ruchel, Staying in Afghanistan is a waste of time and invading Iraq was an ill thought out mistake as was bombing Libya and pretty much the whole US/western approach to the middle east as well as Ukraine/Georgia and the South China Sea. All major cluster$%^$ that undermine US and western credibility The whole world police experiment has failed badly. The US needs to rethink its strategic objectives and what are its actual national interests and focus on those instead of reacting to events it clearly has no understanding of. The Communist Chinese and the Russians are much better at this right now which is why their stars are ascendant whilst the US and the west struggle. |
Ruchel | 08 Jan 2020 4:47 p.m. PST |
Firstly, the current Iraq government is not a puppet of Iran. "hahahahahaha No, the current Iraq government is not a puppet of Iran, it is an ally of Iran, especially due to the US colonialist and criminal actions. I repeat: Your country, the US, and other puppets did not bring freedom, they brought the killing of hundred thousands of civilians, plundering, destruction, misrule, social disorganization, poverty, social violence, the emergence of new terrorist groups and so on. You put the blame on Iraqi people. It is a shame. It is intolerable and morally unacceptable. The truth is that Iraqi people do not know what to do after suffering a criminal invasion which caused massacres, plundering, destruction, poverty, misrule and many other atrocities. Certain types of comments should not be allowed in this forum, especially those comments which reveal and express cruelty, inhumanity, contempt, immorality, indecency and criminal cynicism. |
arealdeadone | 08 Jan 2020 7:55 p.m. PST |
And let's not forget that the international community has no appetite for meaningful change in the middle east including a Kurdish independent state. Thus the wars and chaos cannot be resolved and American involvement in the region has just antagonised the whole situation. |
|