Civilian Deaths Rise As Afghan Fight Intensifies

[revelarts]

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.
WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.
When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.
Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

[Gaffer]

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.

You mean we should pull out until the taliban have reestablished themselves and al queda resets their camps and go back in again? And do that over and over again? It's a real bad analogy.

WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

But you still have to wash it, over and over again.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.

Then we occupied Japan and rebuilt it and formed a constitutional government and outlawed the Bushido practice. And we still have troops there today. Same with Germany.

When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

That was Panama.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

They have to be eradicated. Wiped out. They are religious fanatics.

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.

We did finish the job in Vietnam. Then we left. The country was secure and the South Vietnamese had relative peace. Our democrat congress here decided to help the north by cutting off all aid to South Vietnam and two years after we left they invaded. The south had no means to defend itself.

Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

I'm guessing you meant sen murtha and not gen. His true title is traitor murtha. Only ted kennedy was lower than that man.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

I'll let Missileman answer that last question.

[revelarts]

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

They have to be eradicated. Wiped out. They are religious fanatics.

Are you serious?

[Gaffer]

Are you serious?

yes

[Missileman]

When I finish washing my car the car is clean. I know it will get dirty agian but I FINISHED for that day and know I'll have to do it again.
WHen I finished paying for the car The bank didn't get another dime from me or anything else from me.

So you think it's better to fight the same war over and over again, half-assed, rather than fight it once to a successful conclusion. I guess we can be glad you aren't in charge of our military.

When we Finished the job in Japan the Japanese surrendered.
When we finished the job in Nicaragua we had Noreaga in custody and a new puppe... I mean El Presidente in power, and we left.

What do you mean by finished in Afghanistan?

Does Alquida or the Taliban have to surrender?
Bin Laden caught?

Gen McChrystal has said it would take 500,000 troops to "secure" Afghanistan. is it worth it?
We had that many in Viet Nam and we didn't finish it but somehow Viet Nam has managed to do without our troops there.
Gen Murtha has said all since 2005 that we should leave.

My question still stands Missile, what does finish the job mean for you?

It means either the total eradication of the Taliban and Al Queda, or their surrender. Anything less than that is an incomplete job.

[revelarts]

If you think that AlQuida Or the Taliban are serious threat to the U.S.. AND to the degree that hey must be Exterminated. I'm Glad that neither of you is in charge of our military. Or a part of any administration Rebpub or Dem.

Frankly the best thing I say about your positions is I think you both have allowed yourselves to be consumed by a war propaganda.

the our former allies the Taliban, AlQuaida and Bin Laden had were and are a minor threat to the U.S.. Every civilian killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fires more hearts and minds against us. We'ved already killed MILLIONS over there. No telling how many of those where real enemies and how many we're friends who believed we where there to help.

and we have over 400,000 wounded men and women from the wars already. There are "free elections" in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But you've change the purpose from liberation to extermination in 1 post. I get the impression extermination is you real goal.

How would you even know if you've got them all fellas? Huh?
It's crazy talk.

The warlords are in control of most of Afghanistan now anyway. What freedom have we brought them?

As far as our former good friends AlQuida having a base.
From the reports I've heard they are in many other countries (Pakistan Sudan etc..) and are supported financially by our good friends the Saudis. And the Coalitions forces protected/neglected drug trade.

And you totally skipped the issed that McCrystal brought up. At least 500,000 troops and 5 more years to "secure" Afghanistan ...maybe. Is it worth it?

As Nice as it would be to have a wonderful democratic republic with nice rich Muslims that all loved us, if we beat them enough, i don't believe we are going to get that.

The IRA is a religious terrorist group, extermination all Catholic sympathizers and bystanders is no way to make the U.K safe.

Guess what there is no way to be completely safe.
We can't even afford to try now. we can't afford the man power or the monetary cost of 500000 men in afghanstan and XXXXXX in Iraq And XXXX in germany and japan and the other 150 plus bases around the world. it's Stupid and wasteful in blood and treasure. And and as Eisenhower warned "a threat to our (OWN) democratic processes.".

[PostmodernProphet]

We'ved already killed MILLIONS over there.

don't know much about you, but I'm curious....are you stupid enough to actually believe that or did you just make it up to make a point?.....

just a bit of simple math would show you that your claim is absurd......if even a million civilians had died since the Iraq war had started we would have seen civilian casualties of 391 per day......and that would still overlook the fact that 90% of civilian casualties were the victims of Al Queda rather than Coalition troops.......

[PostmodernProphet]

And you totally skipped the issed that McCrystal brought up. At least 500,000 troops and 5 more years to "secure" Afghanistan ...maybe. Is it worth it?

McCrystal didn't ask for 500,000 more US troops.....what he really said was

Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009092003140

that's 400,000 Afghans, not 500,000 Americans.......

[revelarts]

Report in 2006,

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNWOj_dFSR4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNWOj_dFSR4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Death rate increase since We've been there. Just in Iraq, I'm talking about in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (who we're not even at war with).

and those babies that have died from birth defects cause by Depleted uranium and then you add in the walking dead dying from cancers and other radiation cause illnesses (including our troops who I'm not counting) and you get over a million and probably Millions. I'll stand by OVER a Million. but it will be Millions by the time the Depleted uranium is done with them.


--FYI a few of the pics in the videos are not for children---
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7eX7pSXtXU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7eX7pSXtXU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iA2LS7xICk8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iA2LS7xICk8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OtYO-WwXOo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OtYO-WwXOo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

McCrystal didn't ask for 500,000 more US troops.....what he really said was


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009092003140

that's 400,000 Afghans, not 500,000 Americans.......

It was a different report that stated he said 500,000 troops -not necessarily all ours but still 500,000. 92,000 is a LONG way from 500,000 who knows how many police the Afghans have. But even the 240,000 HOPED FOR Afghans won't be enough. So are we going to make up the difference, supply 250,000 troops to finish the job there. It's not our country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/63b4122FDgo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/63b4122FDgo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


seems to me
If we want to fight AlQuida the Military strategy is not the the best tool. It's like using a sledge hammer to kill roaches. Where tearing up the house and missing most of the roaches.

[Gaffer]

The simple fact relevart is that we are at war with islam. Not individual countries. The countries we are fighting in have a huge population of radical islamists who get support from those countries. You can't look at it from a humanitarian view, it has to be from a strategic view.

Providing this country survives it's current internal war, 50 years from now we will still be fighting islamics. In a war you take out the enemies supply and ability to make war. But to really win you have to take out the ideology that drives him.

Islam, fascism, Bushido. They are all the same. Combining religion and politics as a means of ruling. And none of those religions cares a hoot about innocent people.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll stand by OVER a Million.

/shrugs....the fact your willing to stand by it makes it no less absurd or any more truthful......it remains a factual impossibility.....it merely means you are willing to state something that obviously is not true.....

[revelarts]

Radical Islam is a problem. But they've been around for over 30 yrs (maybe 100's of years in an older form) and they were our allies against the soviets not long ago. Thing change Graffer. They could change again if we are open to it. But it seems to me we MUST included Humanitarianism in our Strategy if you want to "win". And Still be the country we claim to be. I thought winning meant defeating enough people to enjoy a peace or at least peaceful coexistence. The "slaughter ev'r last injun" mind set is not what we need as a country to win IMO.
there are still German Fascist why not exterminate them as well. What about our homegrown terrorist. There are a couple of over the edge militia groups, though most are sane and civil. There are a few that TALK like many Islamic Radicals and were in support of Tim McVey in Oklahoma. Lets DU and smart bomb a couple of there bases in Montana or Idaho. If we can't be humanitarian about it.

There are estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.
most of them are not Radical. And and unless most convert to Christianity we are going to be living with them, for generations. Humanitarianism has got to a part of the package.

You really might want to rethink the Idea that a religious war MUST go on for generations.
the Catholics and protestants in France where at war for about 30+ years millions (yes millions) died as a result of war and it's consequences but eventually peace was had not to my knowledge because one side changed there religion. We've had peace with Islam for 100's of years we can have it again. But Humanitarianism will play a part. Yes there will be times to take a few radicals out. But Going in an laying waste to countries to kill a few bad apples --- that we trained and armed-- is not a strategy for peace or safety in the long run IMO.






St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
"Painting by François Dubois, a Huguenot painter born circa 1529 in Amiens, who settled in Switzerland. Although Dubois did not witness the massacre, he depicts Coligny's body hanging out of a window at the rear to the right. To the left rear, Catherine de' Medici is shown emerging from the Louvre to inspect a heap of bodies"

We'll be at war with radical Catholicism for Generations they need to be exterminated. We have to think strategically.

[PostmodernProphet]

It was a different report that stated he said 500,000 troops -not necessarily all ours but still 500,000.

you clearly implied that he asked for 500,000 American troops......a dishonest implication.......I reject your comments out of hand.....

[revelarts]

/shrugs....the fact your willing to stand by it makes it no less absurd or any more truthful......it remains a factual impossibility.....it merely means you are willing to state something that obviously is not true.....

Just because the numbers are large does not OUT of HAND make them impossible. What kind of logic is that? the facts make the case here not your incredulity.

Even if you prefer the low ball ball numbers it's in the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS dead. More civilians than combatants to be sure.

To get the full numbers you need to compare the death rate during Sadams and the Taliban's rule and since they've come under US/coalition military occupation. The numbers are higher. Then you count the difference.


"Iraqi troops (insurgents) 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 civilians killed: Based on this study [pdf], published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study's mid-point estimate was 654,965 deaths, and its high estimate was 942,636 deaths, but we have used the study lowest credible estimate, 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.
U.S. authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on "flawed methodology" and "pretty well discredited," but that's simply untrue. The study was conducted by Johns Hopkins University, and used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology — the same methodology 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, and various catastrophes anywhere in the world.
Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and when family members were asked to show a death certificate, about 80% of the deaths they described could be so documented. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, in the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. As stated above, we have used the study's lowest estimate of 392,979 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation. We have then extended this rate of civilian deaths (9,824 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published."

Afghan apx 16000 dead enemies and civilians, Pakistan ???

I'd say we've killed more than enough, It's past time to become more surgical about this IMO.