GabonX wrote: The insurgency demonstrates that even the strongest army can be opposed with basic conventional weapons.
Or does it simply show that guerilla tactics used at home by people who have no regard for "collateral damage"/ innocent lives can make serious dents in a much larger force constrained by limits?
GabonX wrote: The insurgency demonstrates that even the strongest army can be opposed with basic conventional weapons.
Or does it simply show that guerilla tactics used at home by people who have no regard for "collateral damage"/ innocent lives can make serious dents in a much larger force constrained by limits?
It's indicative of both really. Frankly you're missing the point...
Just how are we constrained by collateral damage? We have murdered over a million civilians in Iraq alone. We routinely kill civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
No we have not murdered over a million civilians in Iraq alone.
Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq are from Iraqi insurgents or foreign insurgents in Iraq, not US troops.
If we wanted to, we could eliminate the civilian presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would be much cheaper and more affective than what we are currently doing. The grace that we do not do this is the restraint which was mentioned.
In order to fully understand "restraint" one must first consider what can be done and then compare it to what is being done.
And that is not counting the 500,000 children who died from lack of basic medical and nutritional care as a result of our sanctions under the Clinton administration.
mpjh wrote:Just how are we constrained by collateral damage? We have murdered over a million civilians in Iraq alone. We routinely kill civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I am not justifying our actions in Iraq or Bush's policies (Obama is to new to really judge yet).
but come on... yes, we do kill civilians, but we don't send out suicide bombers or randomly place IEDs, etc. We may be over aggressive, use too big of bombs for relatively small targets, but at least we have more specific targets, not simply "cause as much destruction as possible" as seems to be the policy of many insurgants.
No we don't send out suicide bomber, we don't have to. We have remote pilots in Las Vegas, NV who satellite control drones that do the bombing for us. They go home to their loving families each night. Ain't it sweet?
And that is not counting the 500,000 children who died from lack of basic medical and nutritional care as a result of our sanctions under the Clinton administration.
The 500,000.. yes, though the reports I have read (and hardly right-wing dominated sources) say more like 200-300,000. (bad enough, anyway).
The million ... again, that is far more than I remember from NPR coverage talking about differences between various estimates given. (they talked about maybe half that, which was roughly double the official estimate) Do you have a source?
Not even the most extreme sources claim that US forces have killed 1,000,000 civilians, and most of the civilians which have been killed were not killed by coalition forces.
You can't just make a claim like that without backing it up. It's completely un-credible, where is your source?
mpjh wrote:No we don't send out suicide bomber, we don't have to. We have remote pilots in Las Vegas, NV who satellite control drones that do the bombing for us. They go home to their loving families each night. Ain't it sweet?
I don't like drones, certainly don't like our occupation, but I still say the US military is acting under constraints, far more constraints than the insurgeants. (heaven help us if they weren't!)
However, it looks like this is just something about which we will disagree.
GabonX wrote:Not even the most extreme sources claim that US forces have killed 1,000,000 civilians, and most of the civilians which have been killed were not killed by coalition forces.
You can't just make a claim like that without backing it up. It's completely un-credible, where is your source?
I do feel those figures are high. However, its important to note that many official numbers are considered wrong by most people with real on-the-ground knowledge for some specific reasons that have less to do with any kind of coverup and more to do with arrogance/bias in data collection. Essentially, for a death to be counted it has to be observed and counted by the US. Casualties that might be transported to hospitals before they are seen and people who are injured and then die are often not counted. Reports by doctors, etc are all discounted for the official totals.
mpjh wrote:No they are statistics compiled by main stream American doctors.
I would still like to see your sources. Because, as I said, even what I heard on Alternative Radio.. a VERY anti-war radio program, gave far lower numbers.
Just Foreign Policy created an online and ongoing estimate that extrapolates from the Lancet study using the trend implied by the Iraq Body Count tally of deaths reported in the Western media. Our counter today stands at 1,044,607.
Just foreign Policy Lancet (yes the medical journal) Iraq Body Count
Just Foreign Policy created an online and ongoing estimate that extrapolates from the Lancet study using the trend implied by the Iraq Body Count tally of deaths reported in the Western media. Our counter today stands at 1,044,607.
Just foreign Policy Lancet (yes the medical journal) Iraq Body Count
Posting a huge database without a specified link to show where you are getting the information hardly qualifies.
Iraq Body Count claims that the documented civilian deaths from violence from 2003-2009 are 91,466 – 99,861, and that doesn't even exclude the civilians who were not killed by Americans. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
mpjh wrote:The data from IBC is only the newspaper reported deaths. It is put together with the Lancet data by Just Foreign Policy to ge the total.
It all has bee confirmed with recent British studies.
And yet I have been listening to BBC, not one word of these "1,000,000" deaths thus far. And since BBC is one of the largest and most well known news stations, one would have expected such numbers from them.
I have researched this extensively. Nothing I've seen from even the most extreme sources claims that Americans have killed anywhere near that many people.
There are 3 people here, one of them who is more in line with your ideology than mine, who have asked you for a source to substantiate your claim.
Actually, if you cannot find the Lancet study, and the subsequent confirmations in all that has been written about it, you do not have basic internet search skills. I'd work on that if I were you.
mpjh wrote:The data from IBC is only the newspaper reported deaths. It is put together with the Lancet data by Just Foreign Policy to ge the total.
It all has bee confirmed with recent British studies.
And yet I have been listening to BBC, not one word of these "1,000,000" deaths thus far. And since BBC is one of the largest and most well known news stations, one would have expected such numbers from them.
