American soliders kill innocents? (split thread)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Oh the irony. American soliders kill innocents and all of a sudden you guys are MIA, lost in Vietnam or something. But when innocents are killed by muslims you want everybody jumping up and down. It doesnt work like that. We are more disheartened then you are because these jerks use our religion as their tool of implementation and then we get busted on in the west for sharing the same religion.

Its like saying the germans are still responsible for the Holocaust. Or that Russians should pay for the crimes of Stalin. But it happens to us anyway.

2

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Oh the irony. American soliders kill innocents and all of a sudden you guys are MIA, lost in Vietnam or something. But when innocents are killed by muslims you want everybody jumping up and down. It doesnt work like that. We are more disheartened then you are because these jerks use our religion as their tool of implementation and then we get busted on in the west for sharing the same religion.

Its like saying the germans are still responsible for the Holocaust. Or that Russians should pay for the crimes of Stalin. But it happens to us anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I'd settle for not making excuses just as Americans are expected to do when US kills innocents. Jumping up and down would be an added bonus. But to compare CURRENT events with HISTORICAL events is not a valid argument. No one is asking anyone to forgive past crimes, it is what is going on today that is relevant.

3

CM,

I think the ingredient that "you guys" miss sometimes that really yanks us is "intent". Do we hate it when a US soldier misbehaves? Absolutely yes. Abuse of Iraqi prisoners should land the guy in Leavenworth for a very long time. I think the examples of this are pretty slim. And this is pretty much the worst of it, because it was preventable and intentional.

Soldiers who accidentally kill people when shot at in illegal arms markets, or confrontations at checkpoints are awful too. But they are not intentional, and possibly preventable, but possibly not. Soldiers are human. They want to live, and have the right to defend themselves, and there are very really threats.

Four explosions in a week, killing a hundred and injuring thousands are a whole different creature (Never mind Riyadad the week before). They intentionally murder people who have nothing do do with any political conflict, they are simply available targets who are only tangentally related to to a global conflict. Nobody is blaming you personally for these events. But the "root causes" discussions that attempt to explain away why ANY method is acceptable is simply not worthy.

Why make a big deal out of it? I suspect that we are entering into a decade where any group with a beef will start blowing things up. If indeed this becomes the globally acceptable means to fighting a war, then we are all in very big trouble. Four bombs per week, we could be talking about four per day, spread all over the world where any splinter group has the resources and a death wish. We are well along our way to this, and I fear it will be much much worse before it gets better.

War has been with us for a very long time, and will stay with us for a very long time. The random slaughter of innocents for political reasons is a huge step backward in humanity.

4

i completely agree with you OG. killing innocent, unconnected lives is absolutely reprehensible, and I dont know why/if there is debate about it's reprehensibility over here. i highly doubt there is.

what you should concede though is the numbers killed in iraq, in afghanistan. by magnitudes greater civilians have been killed/continue to be killed in both countries than, say, september 11.

many, many more civilians have died in both wars at the hands of deliberate, targetted bombing/firing than because of mistaken shots. 10,000-40,000.

dont tell me these deaths are incidental to the US's goal, because that is the argument al-qaeda uses.

5

Ravage,

I have engaged in many (MANY) threads discussing civilian deaths. I have found a huge tendency to exagerate deaths as a matter of inflammatory propaganda. I will concede that there have certainly been many civilaian deaths as a result of the Wars in Afghanistan. Absolutley.

I am equally convinced that every reasonable precaution was taken by the US military to minimize civilian deaths. Every civilian death works against the US and it's policies. The Madeline Albright question of the day is "Is it worth it?".

In the case of the Taliban, and Afghanistan I refer you to the four explosions in Turkey. OBL declared war through a Fatwa years ago. The US basically ignored it, and did not realize the enormity of the threat. Afgahnistan was a belated reaction. Frankly there really isn't anyway to appease these people even if we were so inclined. Who would you meet with to negociate a compromise? Terrorism simply must be confronted and outlasted.

Iraq is far different. I never subscribed to the WMD theories. But I did carefully research the evidence of Saddams slaughters of his own people, particularly the Kurds. It was clear to me that Saddam, or his sons if left in power, would feel even more emboldened if they survived sanctions. How many genocides does one get? Why now? He was weakened militarily, and civilain lives were saved by a swift decisive action.

I am completely mysitified why Muslims were not appalled and outraged by Saddams murder of hundreds of thousands of brother Muslims. Muslims, of all people, should have been LEADING the charge in calling for his head. Worrying about civilian casualties now ignores the absolute genocide that had occured.

I am completely befuddled by the lack of concern in the Muslim world for Muslim on Muslim violence, but over the top outrage when a Muslim dies by Western hands. The sense of proportionality is just way out of whack. To then say "you made Saddam, you are responsible" is factually thready, but even more, the failure to CHANGE our minds would have furthered the neglect.

(pardon the spelling on this one, in a hurry)

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ravage,

I have engaged in many (MANY) threads discussing civilian deaths. I have found a huge tendency to exagerate deaths as a matter of inflammatory propaganda. I will concede that there have certainly been many civilaian deaths as a result of the Wars in Afghanistan. Absolutley.

[/QUOTE]

I assure you, I am very careful about my figures. 10,000-40,000 is a safe guess, and there is very little chance of the numbers being below that mark. Its probably closer to the mean.

[QUOTE]

I am equally convinced that every reasonable precaution was taken by the US military to minimize civilian deaths.

[/QUOTE]

define reasonable. How many deaths finally become unreasonable?

[QUOTE]

Every civilian death works against the US and it's policies.

[/QUOTE]

not if it is a "reasonable" death.

[QUOTE]

In the case of the Taliban, and Afghanistan I refer you to the four explosions in Turkey. OBL declared war through a Fatwa years ago. The US basically ignored it, and did not realize the enormity of the threat. Afgahnistan was a belated reaction. Frankly there really isn't anyway to appease these people even if we were so inclined. Who would you meet with to negociate a compromise?

Terrorism simply must be confronted and outlasted.

[/QUOTE]

do you see the general tone of posters on gupshup? I live and breathe amongst people like these, and have seen them turn into who they are now. I assure you you have created many more recruits for Al-Qaeda than what you've killed. many, many more. This is not a war that you can win, unless you plan on blowing away one fifth of the planet. You need to negotiate. You need to understand. You need to work with us.

[QUOTE]

Iraq is far different. I never subscribed to the WMD theories. But I did carefully research the evidence of Saddams slaughters of his own people, particularly the Kurds. It was clear to me that Saddam, or his sons if left in power, would feel even more emboldened if they survived sanctions. How many genocides does one get? Why now? He was weakened militarily, and civilain lives were saved by a swift decisive action.

[/QUOTE]

absolutely. I'm pretty sure you wouldnt have had as much brouhaha had you not invaded when you did, had you acted when the genocide actually happened, not ten years after it. Now, it just leads people to believe that this is a selfish action geared at whatever they theorise to be, oil, israel, islam, and it very well might be any one of this because simply put: never have your country's wars, or any other country's actions for that matter, been so altruistic. please dont pretend that now.

I ask you this: Iraq, however dishevelled it is right now, is in a MUCH better state than Afghanistan, where from the get-go you werent "into nation building". Why? Why are you persisting in Iraq, when all you did in Afghanistan was give karzai control of Kabul and scram?

[QUOTE]

I am completely mysitified why Muslims were not appalled and outraged by Saddams murder of hundreds of thousands of brother Muslims. Muslims, of all people, should have been LEADING the charge in calling for his head. Worrying about civilian casualties now ignores the absolute genocide that had occured.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that the Muslim world needs a great deal of shaking up. From within. Fact of the matter is that a lot of the Muslim world is only beginning to have access to a lot of the information/education resources you've had for decades. you keep asking for more moderate muslims. bombs wont create them. time and education will.

[QUOTE]

I am completely befuddled by the lack of concern in the Muslim world for Muslim on Muslim violence, but over the top outrage when a Muslim dies by Western hands. The sense of proportionality is just way out of whack.

[/QUOTE]

i agree.

i wish you people also agreed that 3000 people in the WTC were as precious as the many fold numbers killed at your hands. you may say you minimise casualties, im sure if you read what they say in their media, they would claim nobility of action too.

it doesnt make the dead any less dead.

7

Ravage,

In retrospect Saddam should have been taken out after the invasion of Kuwait. A war with Iran, the Invasion of Kuwait, genocides that became apparent in '88, that would have been the best time, but there was no world wide support for that either!

I have seen estimates of 9k for civilain deaths in Iraq, and 3 to 5K in Afghanistan. Open a new thread and we will discuss it. But ask yourself this politically incorrect question: How many deaths are now NOT happening in Afghanistan since a very large civil war has stopped? And, what was the average number of Iraqi's that Saddam killed per week? I am more than willing to discuss what we can see, but not without considering waht history has taught us to expect had circumstances not changed.

I am certain that the Muslim world is more radicalized based on US actions. The Muslim world has become more radicalized since Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979 and the radicalization was even worse in Afghanistan before that! The US may be a rallying cry, but it is not the reason. Radicalization of the Muslim world is all about power and recognition of 1.2billion people. The methods chosen may guarantee failure, not insure success.

Lastly why is Iraq to be so remarkably reconstructed? History. Iraq, prior to the Iran-Iraq war, was one of the gems of the Middle East. Cultured and sophisticated people, scientists, engineers, and of course, oil. Will Afghanistan ever abandon it's war lords? I think not. The promise of the people and culture of Iraq is much greater.

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ravage,

In retrospect Saddam should have been taken out after the invasion of Kuwait. A war with Iran, the Invasion of Kuwait, genocides that became apparent in '88, that would have been the best time, but there was no world wide support for that either!

[/QUOTE]

you couldnt be more wrong. i used to live in Pakistan and we used to watch this on tv, and used to be disgusted beyond words.

Furthermore, how about the massacres of the rebellers after the first gulf war. thats when a lot of the mass graves were made and it was all over the press. Why didnt you invade then?

[QUOTE]

I have seen estimates of 9k for civilain deaths in Iraq, and 3 to 5K in Afghanistan. Open a new thread and we will discuss it. But ask yourself this politically incorrect question: How many deaths are now NOT happening in Afghanistan since a very large civil war has stopped? And, what was the average number of Iraqi's that Saddam killed per week? I am more than willing to discuss what we can see, but not without considering waht history has taught us to expect had circumstances not changed.

[/QUOTE]

you delude yourself. Afghanistan continues to remain in its state of turmoil. Previously, during the taleban phase there was much greater stability, and from a friends father who used to be head of UN there (now in cairo), who is by no means an extremist, they were the lesser evil. please not that I am not advocating a return to taleban, Im saying that you came, you messed things up pretty bad, you left killing atleast as many unrelated civilians as in WTC, leaving Afghanistan equally unstable. Perhaps you are unaware of what Dostum and his cohorts have been doing.

[QUOTE]

I am certain that the Muslim world is more radicalized based on US actions. The Muslim world has become more radicalized since Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979 and the radicalization was even worse in Afghanistan before that! The US may be a rallying cry, but it is not the reason. Radicalization of the Muslim world is all about power and recognition of 1.2billion people. The methods chosen may guarantee failure, not insure success.

[/QUOTE]

That might be your take on it. But Khomeni has been around since 79. The Taleban were created by Pakistan to a large extent. Take a look at the polls in Pakistan. Tell me a single election in our history where religious parties gained enough seats to become leaders of the opposition. Whereas they used to be the Green Party of Pakistan, in terms of votes.

You mislead yourself vastly if you think that this radicalisation would've happened anyway.

[QUOTE]

Lastly why is Iraq to be so remarkably reconstructed? History. Iraq, prior to the Iran-Iraq war, was one of the gems of the Middle East. Cultured and sophisticated people, scientists, engineers, and of course, oil. Will Afghanistan ever abandon it's war lords? I think not. The promise of the people and culture of Iraq is much greater.
[/QUOTE]

I am very surprised that anyone would buy that argument. South Africe is one of the shining gems in africa. progressive, educated, forward looking, peaceful. The need a fraction of the amount you're spending in iraq (well not a fraction..but a fraction would make a great impact) to deal with something that is going to kill millions. Guaranteed. You dont need to invade anything, there wont be any loss of life. Yet you balk at spending even that fraction there?

Inplausible how you're so altruistic in just that one instance.

Nobody buys your argument of a benevolent war this side of the planet. Even if you're not guilty of ill intentions, you're guilty of making your intentions appear ill, at the very least. You should do something about that.

Invading every which way is not a start.

9

"Furthermore, how about the massacres of the rebellers after the first gulf war. thats when a lot of the mass graves were made and it was all over the press. Why didnt you invade then?"

We should have! Except the UN had not authorized it, and the other Middle East Countries were counseling that a collapse of Iraq cound lead to a greatly expanded Iran. Multilateralism prevented Saddam from being removed as he should have been.

"they were the lesser evil. please not that I am not advocating a return to taleban, Im saying that you came, you messed things up pretty bad, you left killing atleast as many unrelated civilians as in WTC, leaving Afghanistan equally unstable. Perhaps you are unaware of what Dostum and his cohorts have been doing."

The lesser Evil? Funny for years thats how we ended up with Saddam and the Shah. They were the lesser evils compared to the other possibilities. Frankly it was like saying that Muslim people are incapable of ruling themselves. Bordering on a pat on the head, and saying that Muslim people need a "strong man", or a Taliban-like structure to avoid murdering each other. Think about it....

"South Africe is one of the shining gems in africa." Certainly. If you did not hear a huge commitment to fighting AIDS, then you were not listening. AIDS is so bad that there is now starvation, because so many farmers sick with AIDS that they cannot tend crops. The US committed what 10 or 15Billion to this effort? If AIDS is not dealt with the whole continent is in jeopardy.

"Nobody buys your argument of a benevolent war this side of the planet. Even if you're not guilty of ill intentions, you're guilty of making your intentions appear ill, at the very least. You should do something about that.

Invading every which way is not a start."

Fine. But it's over and done with. Now comes the big question. Do you care more about the people of Iraq, and bringing some stabiltiy and relief to that country (which appeared to be SO important while protesting sanctions), or is it more important to wish and hope that the US fails, Iraq falls into chaos, and more Iraqi's suffer. To listen to the Anti-Sanctions crowd, you would have thought that the suffering of the Iraqi people was the foremost thought on their minds. Where are they now? When I see 10,000 Muslim troops go into Baghdad to help their brothers, I will be impressed. THAT would do more to build the respect and cohesion of the Muslim world than anything else I can think of.....Until then there are more Iraqi's dying, and other than attending street festivals in London, no Muslim country is lifting a finger to help....

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
We should have! Except the UN had not authorized it, and the other Middle East Countries were counseling that a collapse of Iraq cound lead to a greatly expanded Iran. Multilateralism prevented Saddam from being removed as he should have been.
[/QUOTE]

Really, since when did US start listening to UN. Does it only listen to UN when they are on the same page? Why did US not listen to UN and other Middle east countries when they said that invading Iraq this time is not a good thing?

[QUOTE]
The lesser Evil? Funny for years thats how we ended up with Saddam and the Shah. They were the lesser evils compared to the other possibilities. Frankly it was like saying that Muslim people are incapable of ruling themselves. Bordering on a pat on the head, and saying that Muslim people need a "strong man", or a Taliban-like structure to avoid murdering each other. Think about it.... .
[/QUOTE]

Yes it is funny becasue the reason behind both of those lesser evils was none other than US and UK...specifically BP (British Petroleum) in case of Shah. Muslims are capable of ruling themselves, alas there are weaks who always get bought out and stab their nations in the back. Please see your own example of Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein.

[QUOTE]
Certainly. If you did not hear a huge commitment to fighting AIDS, then you were not listening. AIDS is so bad that there is now starvation, because so many farmers sick with AIDS that they cannot tend crops. The US committed what 10 or 15Billion to this effort? If AIDS is not dealt with the whole continent is in jeopardy.
[/QUOTE]

Please refresh our memories regarding this issue. What exactly is the huge committment, other than lip service?

[QUOTE]
Fine. But it's over and done with. Now comes the big question. Do you care more about the people of Iraq, and bringing some stabiltiy and relief to that country (which appeared to be SO important while protesting sanctions), or is it more important to wish and hope that the US fails, Iraq falls into chaos, and more Iraqi's suffer. To listen to the Anti-Sanctions crowd, you would have thought that the suffering of the Iraqi people was the foremost thought on their minds. Where are they now? When I see 10,000 Muslim troops go into Baghdad to help their brothers, I will be impressed. THAT would do more to build the respect and cohesion of the Muslim world than anything else I can think of.....Until then there are more Iraqi's dying, and other than attending street festivals in London, no Muslim country is lifting a finger to help....
[/QUOTE]

Muslim countries tried to stop you from invading Iraq, you did not listen. You created this mess and now you want others to help you with more killing? Nice try, US told UN that it wanted to keep control of the leadership even if troops form other countries are sent? why is that? Why not let UN take over and help out so more countries will be willing to help. No one is trying to impress you here OG, you are beyong impression, you have your blinders on and are not willing to see the other side. ravage just tried to tell you how US is viewed in other countries and your (typical) response is Help us rebuild Iraq? Why did US attack Iraq? Threat to US security...Where are the WMDs? Have they found them yet....oh wait we are not supposed to talk about that, lets focus on the present...right.

11

OG, maybe you need another refresher in history, we will get to that momentarily. Will you like to look up and tell me how much of that pledged money has been sent over to Africa? Has this money even been set aside to be sent over?
On to the history lesson, I do care about the Iraqi lives, that is why I am saying that US has no business in being there. Where were your crocodile tears when millionsof Iraqi children were dying due to the inhumane sanctions imposed by US...that is right US not UN. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. UN is useless, we followed UN rules...make up your mind which is it? US caused the killing of those people when it left the insurgents defenseless in 91 and then with the sanctions and now again with their weapons. That is the truth, you want to help Iraqi people, give the control to them as soon as possible and get out.

12

Give control to who? The ones blowing up hotels or the ones assasinating new Iraqi officials? Maybe to the shias so they can fight the Sunnis or the Sunnis so they can fight the Kurds? The UN with its great track record of peace keeping and government building? If the US were to pull out now, all hell would break loose and everyone knows it. The only thing it would accomplish is that gupshup posters would have plenty to gripe about for months on how the US abandoned the Iraqi people. The Iraqis have never had control over their own country, it's not something that can happen overnight. The truth is if anyone wants to help, Muslim or otherwise, they could do something NOW instead of waiting for the US to fail just so everyone can waller in a US failure.

13

Probably upto 55,000 Iraqi people have been killed in this war - upto 45,000 Iraqi soldiers and close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians. So says the global health organisation Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) .

http://www.medact.org/tbx/pages/sub.cfm?id=775

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
We should have! Except the UN had not authorized it, and the other Middle East Countries were counseling that a collapse of Iraq cound lead to a greatly expanded Iran. Multilateralism prevented Saddam from being removed as he should have been.

[/QUOTE]

so how come multilateralism failed this time? Why did Saddam become an imminent, urgent threat, twelve years after he committed his butchery? 12 years after multilateralism failed to prevent the butchery from happening?

Dont give me the WTC argument, I hope you know its crap. The one connection you have is a discredited by your own president. Beyond that, theres nothing.

[QUOTE]

The lesser Evil? Funny for years thats how we ended up with Saddam and the Shah. They were the lesser evils compared to the other possibilities. Frankly it was like saying that Muslim people are incapable of ruling themselves. Bordering on a pat on the head, and saying that Muslim people need a "strong man", or a Taliban-like structure to avoid murdering each other. Think about it....

[/QUOTE]

So you replaced a great evil with a significantly greater evil? I know Afghanistan has slipped under the radar as far as american press goes, but you really should check that out sometime.

[QUOTE]

"South Africe is one of the shining gems in africa." Certainly. If you did not hear a huge commitment to fighting AIDS, then you were not listening. AIDS is so bad that there is now starvation, because so many farmers sick with AIDS that they cannot tend crops. The US committed what 10 or 15Billion to this effort? If AIDS is not dealt with the whole continent is in jeopardy.

[/QUOTE]

The figure was much lower, and was only comitted then taken back then recomitted. Unless you can point me to a reference where its actually sanctioned or allocated, Im afraid words only buy squat.

[QUOTE]

Fine. But it's over and done with. Now comes the big question. Do you care more about the people of Iraq, and bringing some stabiltiy and relief to that country (which appeared to be SO important while protesting sanctions), or is it more important to wish and hope that the US fails, Iraq falls into chaos, and more Iraqi's suffer. To listen to the Anti-Sanctions crowd, you would have thought that the suffering of the Iraqi people was the foremost thought on their minds. Where are they now? When I see 10,000 Muslim troops go into Baghdad to help their brothers, I will be impressed. THAT would do more to build the respect and cohesion of the Muslim world than anything else I can think of.....Until then there are more Iraqi's dying, and other than attending street festivals in London, no Muslim country is lifting a finger to help....
[/QUOTE]

The OIC offer to send in troops if the US withdraws stands. We'll manage very well thank you. Why was it so much easier in Afghanistan's case? You made a pseudo democratic leader and fled the scene.

Did the 'resistance' begin immediately after saddam was overthrown? No, its growing with the growing sentiment that the US is here for selfish reasons, the US is here for its own benefit. Dont expect sympathy for that cause.

People in general do have a tendency to sniff out good intentions. How do you explain that 90 percent poll? The figure used to be much better in the first poll.. no?

Heres some food for thought for you: if you hold democratic elections in Iraq right now, since democracy is the harbinger of freedom, and this war really is about freedom, do you think the elected, representative government of Iraq will be friendly towards the United States?

You "want" democracy in the Gulf. I assure you, once that comes you'll have a much tougher time in the ME.