It wasn't the equipment that made Fallujah a rat-slug. It was the training, tactics, and leadership at low levels. Marine snipers owned the streets - often with bolt-action rifles. The Marines methodically nipped off pieces of the town and slaughtered the insurgents in detail. But think about this: A President with the ruthlessness of FDR would have pulled the Marines back and hit the town with an Arclight strike. FDR couldn't care less about enemy civilian casualties.
At least I don't play deaf and dumb. Here are a couple of excerpts from some articles: As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. http://www.rense.com/general74/hhme.htm Earlier this year, Iraq raised the amount foreign companies can recoup from oil projects from 49 percent to 75 percent. Now we can withdraw from Iraq with dishonor, because the illegal invasion of Iraq has now almost given us over 75% of Iraq's oil, and it only took us six years, hundreds of thousands of damaged or dead Americans and well over another $3 trillion, not on the books, to achieve this war-crime that greatly enhances the Corporatocracy's holdings of other people's resources. I'd bet money that this doesn't make any local news headlines in USA Inc. http://www.rense.com/general85/arro.htm --------------- The US doesn't go to war for nothing. In the mean time they have weakened and destabilized almost the entire ME in order to have unhindered access to the oil and gas.
I think I haven't responded to your post yet...am way behind. But thank you for that lovely picture with the sheep. Wish I could have a couple... Anyway, now we have a new reason to keep on fighting. It is not about the women anymore, now it is for the wealth in the ground. Markus S. was already saying that the Bundeswehr was there for the mineral looting. But why fight? Just offer to help them extract the minerals for half of the loot. That would be a fair deal, wouldn't it?
Pakistan has an army and can defend itself. No worries! Now the field is clear to start digging for those precious metals. Or, if still desired, get the women out of the house and teach them how to sing and dance, while the men are busy in Pakistan.
OK, now I have had a bit much to drink tonight, so I am going to be a bit more crude then I normally am. But you do not know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about! First of all, you are trying to quote from a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) blog. A blog, not a place where you find factual information. And secondly, you just mentioned 3 companies. Yes, Exxon-Mobile is a US Company. BP, in case you are to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid to realize, stands for British Petroleum! Now what in the (*)(*)(*)(*) is "American" with a company that is clearly called "British Petroleum"?" Now fail #2, Shell Oil. Are you or are you not so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ignorant that you do not realize that Shell Oil is a *******ned Dutch Company! So let me get this straight. Your very first mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing claim is that the war was about "US Oil". Then you go right the (*)(*)(*)(*) around and name 3 companies, only 1 of the 3 is actually a US company! Now I have seen a lot of *******ned fail in this site over the years, but this one is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amazing. Legitimately 66.66% fail, no matter what you say. Now please, come back when you can actually reference something from a legitimate source, and take the time to do some real (*)(*)(*)(*)ing research. I do not have time to play with children who simply vomit up nonsense.
Afghanistan War Produces High Civilians-Killed-Per-Bomb-Dropped Ratio Here is a little statistic about the ratio of people killed per tonnage of bombs dropped and lethal range, shrapnel range, crater size and cost per unit: A 1000lb bomb costs $25000!!! http://cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm ------------------ Do the American People know this? They should, because they are paying for it all!
O.k., here comes an article from your blessed CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html ---------------- I'm a Lady and don't care for your effing rhetoric. Once more and you are out!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/565otmps.asp# I've often wondered how all these academics can so accurately determine who is a civilian since no one bothers with the niceties like wearing uniforms.
If you want to know why we invaded Iraq I will tell you. After 9/11 there were about 5 Military Action Plans and believe it or not the LEAST DESTRUCTIVE PLAN of all 5 possible ones on the table was chosen. I did not agree with invading Iraq but Afghanistan was absolutely necessary. Just be THANKFUL the plan used was chosen as the others would have made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like two kids shooting Bottle Rockets at each other. Iraq was invaded because it was decided that a large scale demonstration of U.S. Military Power was required to ward off future funding of Madrassas and Terrorist Groups by Middle Eastern Nations of which Saudi Arabian Royalty was one of the largest donators as the Saudi Royalty was playing both sides in an effort to keep the focus off themselves. Now I personally did not advocate this action but THAT is the reason it happened. AboveAlpha
Do you even understand the difference between an "Article" and an "opinion piece"? If you even bother to take 3 seconds to look at the top of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing page, you will see it is labeled "OPINION". I mean, come on now, really? I am actually going to be nice now and not ask for your comprehension ability. That is not an "article". That is an "opinion piece". Simply a slightly more credible post of what is found on some random blog. Now we go right back around to one of my favorite things, it is called "Vetting your sources"? Do you even know who wrote that OpEd piece you just sourced? Antonia Juhasz. Who? Well, let's start with her Wikipedia page, shall we? Wow, she sounds like she is really a neutral reporter, right? And let's go down a bit more, shall we? Wow, an endorsement from "Mother Jones"! Wow, so reputable! Sorry, feel free to go through her credentials as much as you like, but this is simply more fail. You have regurgitated yet more political crapola from a life-long political hack, and you expect to be taken seriously? Now please come back when you can provide some actual research, ok? Not simply vomiting up more political crap. Because I will simply destroy it once again. And I do not find it amusing to engage in such childish nonsense, it is a waste of my time.
As a bystander in a neighboring country I felt the Americans were too hasty and too brutal right away. If you feel Saddam could have funded someone down the road, that is not a reason to kill him and a million of his countrymen. Why only Saddam and not the Saudis? Any idea? I see the US as a bully, spreading terror, death and confusion. Just picture yourself living in Afghanistan or Iraq... the horror of death and destruction around you and you are helpless! The rape of the Iraqi women! The tortures you started right away in Bagram. Abu Ghraib! The rendition flights into Eastern European countries! Innocent people all of them!! I believe your leaders are possessed by Satan. WHY was the destruction of Afghanistan absolutely necessary? What had they done to you? They asked you to prove that it was Osama who did 9/11. But you chose not to respond because you couldn't prove it! Now, that Osama has died several times, the last time he was somehow murdered and dumped into the sea, instead of placed in front of a court, why are you still in Afghanistan with your deadly drones???
As I stated I did not advocate the invasion of Iraq. However there was a REASON this was done. There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal SOB and his sons were even worse but as far as Nukes...no...Saddam did not have anything close to a viable nuclear program. Chemical Weapons? Yes....Saddam had a LOT of Chemical Weapons and much to our surprise we watched in real time Satellite Feed as a convoy or Iraqi Military trucks loaded up with Chemical Weapons drove from Iraq across the Syrian boarder and this happened right before the U.S. Invasion as Saddam purposely sent these WMD's to his arch enemy the Assad Regime rather than being caught with them and Saddam would not send Chemical Weapons to Iran as Saddam USED Chemical Weapons ON IRAN during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq was really all about a demonstration of American Military Power....and regardless of my or anyone else's opposition to the Invasion it did have the desired effect. As far as Afghanistan we absolutely had to go in and we only had a bit over 200 members of U.S. Special Forces, CIA Teams and Specialized Teams in Afghanistan directing Air Strikes that virtually wiped out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Now as I said...as for the scope of the attack or as you stated the Brutality....just be happy THIS PLAN was enacted as shortly after 9/11 the United States People went into a state of Temporary Insanity. Plan #1 was selected and Plan's #2-#5....were on such a destructive level that what is now the Middle East would barely exist. AboveAlpha
I suppose the Afghan people count their dead. That would be the most accurate figure. Besides, this academic lets you off with only "3,767 civilian deaths in the American air campaign in Afghanistan". He is nice to you. I would have thought there would be far more. Just checked and found the numbers: The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign, and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of war. According to The Guardian, possibly as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion. Read for yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) ------------------------- After 12 1/2 years the killing still continuous! Karma, Guys... karma will get you eventually!!
The numbers of Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan were EXTREMELY LOW. Our strikes in Afghanistan were primarily upon Al-Qaeda and Taliban Troop Concentrations existing in scarcely populated areas. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would spread themselves in areas using boulders and terrain to hide and at first they waited for American Troops that never came as we used everything from Laser Designation and GPS Coordinates to target them as U.S. B-52H and B-1B Bombers would fly well above SAM threat and deliver ordinance. We are talking about Mountains and Fields or Rocks and very few targets were in populated areas. This was WAR...and the United States Military has limited the number of civilian casualties to a lower number than any Military Force in HISTORY. AboveAlpha
Yes, to stop Saddam from selling his oil in Euros, and to get your hands on his oil! SOB? What would you call these American GIs: lots more so see here: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...1265958C8A048F6991B49EF7AD0C&selectedIndex=21 The wonderful USA had supplied him with the chemical weapons to fight Iran. And what was that? Creating "terrorists"? You didn't stop with Iraq. Libya and Syria and Sudan had to follow. What did Gaddafi do to deserve such a horrible death? What is Assad's crime? I already wrote that it was a pretense. Both groups had nothing to do with 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was well planned! I'm very thankful!!! But, wait a moment! You are not yet done with the ME. It is still ongoing. Iran is on top of your destructive agenda. That will probably come when you are done in the Ukraine. Putin might no longer be able to shield his friend, Iran. We have rosy times ahead of us.
Only in your mind. Yes, we all know about the wedding and funeral gatherings that you regularly targeted!! Your pilots suffer from bad eyesight. I'm sure, you did your utmost to avoid killing civilians. The Afghans will thank you one day when the horror is over.
War is where the hegemon in a society decides to rob its subjects to kill the subjects of other hegemons around the world. You steal your neighbor's stuff to kill strangers. Using retaliatory force is often justified, initiating force is never justified. War involves more of the latter than the former. Much more. [hr][/hr] There's a reason why the founders hated the idea of a standing army. The 20th century is the perfect example of why.
Hey...do me a favor...try to just concentrate on one or two issues per post as this early I am not running on all cylinders and I just got back this afternoon. OK....first of all it is idiotic to even imply 9/11 was planned. If something like 9/11 was planned I would KNOW about it and it is NOT amusing to hear people talk about such a massive tragedy that way. As far as creating Terrorists YOUR RIGHT....there are cases and specific programs such as failed mistaken targets of Drone Attacks that have actually INCREASED Terrorists numbers. BUT....we have been able via attrition basically destroy Al-Qaeda's ability to be an effective terrorist group. As far as Iraq at the time Iraq and Iran were fighting a war we were fighting the Cold War and that took precedence. Because of our bungling of supporting the Shah we could not allow Iran to win the war against Iraq so we gave Saddam U.S. Satellite Data detailing where Iranian troop concentrations were....the Chemical Weapons were SOVIET. AboveAlpha.
That does seem to be a problem. Iraqi hospitals counted everyone admitted in civilian clothes as civilians, regardless of whether they were insurgents or not. That's why the estimates of civilian casualties vary so widely.
Not to mention they were involved in trying to save lives, not in trying to determine who injured who. Look at the massive number of deaths by insurgents. Car bombs outside of a mosque, explosives placed inside of a mall, busses blown up taking children to schools. And invariably they lay all of the blame for this upon the United States. Also notice that they completely ignore what the casualty rates were like before the US got involved there. I bet absolutely none realize that there was a bloody civil war going on in Afghanistan in 2001, with the death toll in the tens of thousands. I therefore invite them to check the following for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Afghanistan Most sources place the civilian death toll from 1991-2001 at well over a million. In the last 13 years, the civilian death toll is around 1/10 of that figure. In fact, the civilian death toll by a single massacre outside Kabul exceeds the total death toll of 13 years of "US led war" by over 5,000. http://ambijat.wdfiles.com/local--files/admin:manage/nabich8.pdf Personally, I do not think these people really care for the Afghans, or anybody else. They could be slaughtered by the tens of thousands by religious fanatics, and they would just shrug and say "that's to bad". But let one get killed by the US, and suddenly it is a horrible war crime and must be ended immediately.
The taliban, U.S. Contractors, and corrupt gov officals are making millions off the United States right now in Afganistan. No reason to end the money train as far as lobbyst ran DC is concerned
No doubt, but the question isn't one of Afghan dead but of Afghan CIVILIAN dead. Or do you consider all Afghan dead, civilians by definition since none of them bother with uniforms? Again no doubt, but I saw nothing in the article to indicate that the author had had any contact with anyone actually in Afghanistan. It was just the usual self-referential Western NGO circle jerk. And besides, have you ever heard of the concept of taqiyya?
I agree and it looks like Karzai wants us out too. An interesting question - there are hundreds of million dollar pieces of equipment there that cannot be returned to the USA due to problems transiting Pakistan and other problems. What are we going to do with them? It costs $10k just to decommission an MPRA.
That is true. But unless Karzai breaks their Constitution, he is a lame duck so of no major importance. But the US has been pulling out for years now. And I do not expect to have very much of value left behind. They can strip any useful parts from all bases and equipment left behind, so what is left is not of much use to anybody. And while it is true that there may be "hundreds of million dollar pieces of equipment", you have to realize that is the new price, not the value of the equipment after a decade or more of hard use by the military in a combat zone.
