two eyes for an eye

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by wu-tang beez, Jun 24, 2003.

  1. wu-tang beez

    wu-tang beez New Member

    Apr 19, 2002
    Irving, TX

    “Thus, the president, setting out to "bring to justice" those who had aided or harbored the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, has succeeded in adding the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans to the toll of those killed by the hijackers in 2001. U.S. officials have consistently shrugged off these deaths; when they admit causing them at all, they designate them unintended "collateral damage" and therefore of no great significance. A morally clear- eyed view must regard them as gross injustices that only augment the initial crimes the president ostensibly sought to avenge.
    The killings of innocent Afghans, however, now pale in comparison with the number of innocent people killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country whose leaders were never shown to have had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. On June 11, the Associated Press announced the results of its own survey, which is based on the records of 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals as well as interviews with hospital officials. It covers the period from March 20 to April 20, the time of the heaviest fighting.
    Besides not surveying all of the country's hospitals, the AP found that death records were far from complete, in part because many of those killed were never taken to hospitals and were buried quickly by their families, and in part because some victims were buried under debris or obliterated by explosions. Still, the surveyors confirmed the deaths of at least 3,240 civilians. Other investigators have arrived at much greater figures. Douglas W.
    Cassel Jr., in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin of May 29, reports that "human rights and humanitarian groups suggest a civilian death toll of somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000." Again, the range is plausible; no one will ever know the exact number”

    How much collateral blood will flow b4 regular Americans decree enough is enough?
  2. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000
    That sucks that so many people have died. But Every iraqi group on the planet still supports the war. I've heard quotes saying that the people who've died did so for a good cause. I can get you links if you want to debate this, but simply put I find it odd that so many people are concerned about the innocent Iraqi's when the Iraqi's themselves widely welcomed the war.

    In Iran last week during the student protest there was a sign that read "MESSAGE TO AMERICA: IRAN IS NEXT PLEASE". Someone here already posted a story in the Guardian where several young Iranians were hoping the US got rid of thier Government next.
  3. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Wait, the war in Afghanistan was both popular and necessary. Just because the administration half-assed it...okay, 1/64th-assed it...doesn't mean that the US didn't have absolutely every right to declare war against the regime which supported Osama and AQ.

    This was so clear, even those weasels the French and Germans sent troops to help. Unless I'm badly mistaken, they're still there.

    So as far as Afghan civilian casualties go - it was as sad and as tragic as civilian casualties in any just war. But the Taliban was a regime that had, at the very, very least, acted as an accessory to 9/11, and was more than likely to continue to act against us. They really were the imminent threat and the risk to America that Bush claimed Iraq was.

    It also wasn't a liberation of the people of Afghanistan, as much as a protection and retaliation for an attack on the United States. Just like we weren't out to liberate the people of Japan from Tojo. Ironically, our invasion had to have been more popular among the people of Afghanistan than the people of Iraq - even now, we could probably do some real good for Afghanistan, if we wanted to. And we should want to, otherwise we're just letting the Taliban - and AQ - rebuild until they can hit us again.

    Iraq was a crime, start to finish, though.

    EDIT: Ted, you're nuts. We're losing a soldier a day there, with no end in sight. Even Chalabi said we're screwing up there. Yeah, you can link to whatever anti-Saddam front group operating from some Michigan post office box you feel like - but the people of Iraq, they've got a damned funny way of showing how welcome we are.
  4. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000
    Whatever the rights or wrongs of the war....and whatever we are doing wrong now is not what Wu Tang was getting at. He is saying people die, so Bush is wrong. And it isn't your average Baghdad resident who is still shooting at US troops.

    IF, and maybe this is a big if, Iraq is a working democracy in 5 years i'm sure most of Iraq will agree the war was a good thing and the deaths justified.

    If not, then they will hate the US more than they already do. But to claim victory for either argument is a bit premature now. Iraqi's wanted a civil war for a long time. People die in civil wars. It's tragic but sometimes necassary. Was it necassary this time? No one knows at this point (from an Iraqi point of view)
  5. wu-tang beez

    wu-tang beez New Member

    Apr 19, 2002
    Irving, TX
    I think you should avoid trying to interpret my intentions.
  6. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000

    then what does this mean?

    and why an article about the number of deaths in Iraq? Wee you posting the death toll numbers as a way to express your disatisfaction over Bush's fiscal policy?
  7. wu-tang beez

    wu-tang beez New Member

    Apr 19, 2002
    Irving, TX
    because war in itself has human cost and Americans are either ignorant or uncaring about the extent of carnage that is extolled when our political leadership calls our forces to bear upon a perceived threat to strategic interest.

    considering the pathetic sh!t hole afghanistan became after mujahadin began fighting 'occupying' soviet troops, it's hard to imagine that any stable force (regardless of it's level of repression), wouldn't be better than 30yrs of civil war. Afghanistan is hardly a beacon for reformed progess. Day to day life has improved, but the situation remains dire.

    Iraq was a war of political/economic/idealistic opportunity whereby Dubya would adopt the pentagon paper scenario of riding political popularity to the polls by sustaining a war, the neocons and their 11yr lust for reshaping the mideast could cast the first stone & Dubya's energy friends could win billion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. If these people were 'liberated' it was of an unintended consequence. The US has never affected regime change for the persuit of democratization and never will.

    killing innocent women & children yet failing to capture and bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11 is at it's core, a betrayal of the approx 3K souls lost on that day, esp when threat assessments given to the admin were dismissed and prior sanctions undercut by providing them millions to fight drugs.

    Despite revisionist history, Vietnam remained popular by most Americans until the Tet Offensive exposed our vulnerability. If we have killed some 7-10k noncombatants and have yet to accomplish our objectives then we have failed on a grand scale.

    finally, I posted the link because i wanted to hear other's thoughts on the humanitarian crisis, not to criticize the Admin. if you read my post, i've been consistent in supporting an aggressive and active foreign policy based on strategic and diplomatic ties that favor american interest w/ our overwhelming military might to protect them. I do not, however, find killing tasteful. But experience tells me that it is sometimes necessary, like in Afghanistan & Vietnam.

    the war w/ Iraq more closely resembles the Spanish American War of the 19th Century.

Share This Page