Here's the quotes:We were told that the Iraqis don’t count. Before the invasion began the head of US central command, General Thomas Franks, boasted “we don’t do bodycounts.” His claim was repeated by Donald Rumsfeld in November 2003 (”we don’t do body counts on other people”) and by the Pentagon in January this year [2005] (”the only thing we keep track of is casualties for U.S. troops and civilians.”)
Monbiot.com » Bringing Out the Dead
And here's today's Wikileak, in the Guardian:More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
[...]The US figures appear to be unreliable in respect of civilian deaths caused by their own military activities. For example, in Falluja, the site of two major urban battles in 2004, no civilian deaths are recorded. Yet Iraq Body Count monitors identified more than 1,200 civilians who died during the fighting.
Phil Shiner, human rights specialist at Public Interest Lawyers, plans to use material from the logs in court to try to force the UK to hold a public inquiry into the unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians. He also plans to sue the British government over its failure to stop the abuse and torture of detainees by Iraqi forces. The coalition's formal policy of not investigating such allegations is "simply not permissible", he says.
Iraq war logs: secret files show how US ignored torture
Why do the Western occupation forces in the Middle East not do bodycounts? Shame combined with a justifiable fear of public opinion, I reckon. It's called propaganda.
Thank you Mr Assange and Wikileaks, the world's a slightly better place this morning.
We don’t do bodycounts
We don’t do bodycounts
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested the whistle-blowing website had blood on its hands in July after it published more than 70,000 secret papers about the war in Afghanistan. - Huge Wikileaks release shows US "ignored Iraq torture"
Rather less than you and your department, Mr Gates. Rather less than you.
Rather less than you and your department, Mr Gates. Rather less than you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
A hangover from the vietnam days when body counts of dead VC were used to measure the success of an operation and it came to be seen as obscene, we killed more of them than they did of us - bit like taking scalps. In the first gulf war Schwartzkopf refused point blank to do it. It hides a lot of sins including the number of civilians that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's part of the obscene illusion you can have a clean war with no causalities. Like bombing cities and claiming you only hit specific targets.
I think in the UK if the number of soldiers being injured as well as "just" killed was publicised the demand to withdrew our troops would reach a point politicians would have to act. same in america for every one killed there are how many with shattered bodies?
I think in the UK if the number of soldiers being injured as well as "just" killed was publicised the demand to withdrew our troops would reach a point politicians would have to act. same in america for every one killed there are how many with shattered bodies?
We don’t do bodycounts
The ratio of dead to sufficiently injured to be evacuated, for Western troops in the Middle East, is around one in ten.
The ratio of occupation forces to foreigners killed in theatre was around one in forty in Vietnam and it's pretty exactly the same in the Middle East today.
The ratio of occupation forces to foreigners killed in theatre was around one in forty in Vietnam and it's pretty exactly the same in the Middle East today.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
Oddly enough I was just looking up a related topic last night. Remembered reading that the US had assigned dollar amounts to dead Iraqi civilians and were paying the families pittances in compensation. I'd read it in 2003.
"The US pays claims for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage," it said. "Payments will only be made for non-combat related activities and instances where soldiers have acted negligently or wrongfully."
Commanders make payments from their discretionary funds, rarely even admitting liability. Payouts average just a few hundred dollars and in some cases families have been asked to sign forms waiving their right to press for further compensation.
Guardian
If that's a reasonable way to deal with wrongful death, why didn't they just write up a bill for Al Qaeda and call it a day? Perhaps they couldn't think of what an American civilian is worth in comparison. (eta: a bill for the Trade tower incident)
"The US pays claims for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage," it said. "Payments will only be made for non-combat related activities and instances where soldiers have acted negligently or wrongfully."
Commanders make payments from their discretionary funds, rarely even admitting liability. Payouts average just a few hundred dollars and in some cases families have been asked to sign forms waiving their right to press for further compensation.
Guardian
If that's a reasonable way to deal with wrongful death, why didn't they just write up a bill for Al Qaeda and call it a day? Perhaps they couldn't think of what an American civilian is worth in comparison. (eta: a bill for the Trade tower incident)
We don’t do bodycounts
Civilization has a ways to go, doesn't it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
We don’t do bodycounts
We were told that the Iraqis don’t count. Before the invasion began the head of US central command, General Thomas Franks, boasted “we don’t do bodycounts. His claim was repeated by Donald Rumsfeld in November 2003 (we don’t do body counts on other people) and by the Pentagon in January this year [2005] (the only thing we keep track of is casualties for U.S. troops and civilians.)
Oh my, how convenient. This is twisted and sickening. I've studied warfare most of my life and believe me, the more I learn the more I think it should be avoided and the perpetrators of it simply punished severely. Unfortunately in order to do that you sometimes have to go to war.
Oh my, how convenient. This is twisted and sickening. I've studied warfare most of my life and believe me, the more I learn the more I think it should be avoided and the perpetrators of it simply punished severely. Unfortunately in order to do that you sometimes have to go to war.
We don’t do bodycounts
I'd like to know how much the American civilians were worth so we can figure out if Iraq has paid off Al Qaeda's debt yet.
We don’t do bodycounts
koan;1340446 wrote: I'd like to know how much the American civilians were worth so we can figure out if Iraq has paid off Al Qaeda's debt yet.I believe the family of a dead American soldier receives $11,000.00 unless the solier pays for additional insurance him/herself.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
We don’t do bodycounts
Ahso!;1340489 wrote: I believe the family of a dead American soldier receives $11,000.00 unless the solier pays for additional insurance him/herself.
Surely that's a debt acquired voluntarily by the US Government through choosing to send the armed forces to occupy a foreign country. We're looking for a price on each 9/11 death, those being one-for-one equivalents to the Iraqi and Afghan civilians who are dead as a direct result of the occupation. I find it hard to understand how the value placed on each of those lives could possibly differ. I'm equally puzzled as to how Iraqi or Afghan civilians can be regarded as fair game in any amoral tit-for-tat killing game.
The statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk" is a total outrage. Who on earth is putting the lives of Iraqi and Afghan citizens at risk in the first place? Where, in all conscience, does the responsibility for this appalling bloodbath lie? Get out, stay out and never go back, woman, where did your idealist credentials for fairness disappear all of a sudden? When did Ms Rodham stop being a constructive critic? Stop siding with the killers in the Pentagon.
And for the Department of Defence reaction to Wikileaks, Friday's press release is at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61395
“It has been a driving force for us, a guiding principle for us over the last seven years of this conflict to do everything in our power -- perhaps more than any other military in the history of the world has ever done -- to minimize civilian casualties,” Morrell said. “We have not always been perfect but we have been far better than anyone else has in the history of warfare,” he added, “and we continue to do everything in our power to prevent innocent civilians from being killed in the war zones. This is an extraordinary disservice to America’s men and women in uniform,” Geoff Morrell said.
The deaths are happening because the occupation happened, it's a direct cause and effect. What I see is an institutional reluctance, to say the least, when it comes to bringing US Servicemen to judicial account for utterly unjustifiable killings.
More than 150,000 forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are already in considerable danger, he said. “That danger is now exponentially multiplied as a result of this leak because it gives our enemies the wherewithal to look for vulnerabilities in how we operate and to exploit those opportunities and potentially kill our forces. That is just shameful.”"exponentially multiplied", Mr Morrell? I wonder whether you'd like to demonstrate that with some figures, it seems meaningless to me. And when did Wikileaks start being a US organization? The people you're discussing may or may not be your enemies but there's no reason to consider them the enemies of the rest of the world. I'd claim they're fighting on our behalf as much as for anyone else. America's deployment of armed forces outside the Homeland is the major problem the world faces at the moment.
Surely that's a debt acquired voluntarily by the US Government through choosing to send the armed forces to occupy a foreign country. We're looking for a price on each 9/11 death, those being one-for-one equivalents to the Iraqi and Afghan civilians who are dead as a direct result of the occupation. I find it hard to understand how the value placed on each of those lives could possibly differ. I'm equally puzzled as to how Iraqi or Afghan civilians can be regarded as fair game in any amoral tit-for-tat killing game.
The statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk" is a total outrage. Who on earth is putting the lives of Iraqi and Afghan citizens at risk in the first place? Where, in all conscience, does the responsibility for this appalling bloodbath lie? Get out, stay out and never go back, woman, where did your idealist credentials for fairness disappear all of a sudden? When did Ms Rodham stop being a constructive critic? Stop siding with the killers in the Pentagon.
And for the Department of Defence reaction to Wikileaks, Friday's press release is at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61395
“It has been a driving force for us, a guiding principle for us over the last seven years of this conflict to do everything in our power -- perhaps more than any other military in the history of the world has ever done -- to minimize civilian casualties,” Morrell said. “We have not always been perfect but we have been far better than anyone else has in the history of warfare,” he added, “and we continue to do everything in our power to prevent innocent civilians from being killed in the war zones. This is an extraordinary disservice to America’s men and women in uniform,” Geoff Morrell said.
The deaths are happening because the occupation happened, it's a direct cause and effect. What I see is an institutional reluctance, to say the least, when it comes to bringing US Servicemen to judicial account for utterly unjustifiable killings.
More than 150,000 forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are already in considerable danger, he said. “That danger is now exponentially multiplied as a result of this leak because it gives our enemies the wherewithal to look for vulnerabilities in how we operate and to exploit those opportunities and potentially kill our forces. That is just shameful.”"exponentially multiplied", Mr Morrell? I wonder whether you'd like to demonstrate that with some figures, it seems meaningless to me. And when did Wikileaks start being a US organization? The people you're discussing may or may not be your enemies but there's no reason to consider them the enemies of the rest of the world. I'd claim they're fighting on our behalf as much as for anyone else. America's deployment of armed forces outside the Homeland is the major problem the world faces at the moment.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
I agree entirely with the notion that American troops should be brought home. They should be on our own borders right now. Let other countries settle their own issues.
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
We don’t do bodycounts
flopstock;1340522 wrote: I agree entirely with the notion that American troops should be brought home. They should be on our own borders right now. Let other countries settle their own issues.
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.Perhaps if you write to your Congressperson it will have a cumulative effect on national policy, flops. The nationalist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are only threatening "us" (which certainly doesn't include the Homeland and never did) because "we" are there armed and loaded. By any reasonable definition they're patriots, just as any American would be in similar circumstances. The current estimate for the number of Al Qaeda associates in both countries is in the low hundreds. Treat those as criminals through international policing and you might actually have a positive result instead of making local heroes out of them.
As for "Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", does it work both ways? If American politicians in America start threatening foreign nationals, are the foreigners equally entitled to "send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", in your opinion? If not, why not? Where's the reciprocity? Or is this yet more American Exceptionalism?
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.Perhaps if you write to your Congressperson it will have a cumulative effect on national policy, flops. The nationalist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are only threatening "us" (which certainly doesn't include the Homeland and never did) because "we" are there armed and loaded. By any reasonable definition they're patriots, just as any American would be in similar circumstances. The current estimate for the number of Al Qaeda associates in both countries is in the low hundreds. Treat those as criminals through international policing and you might actually have a positive result instead of making local heroes out of them.
As for "Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", does it work both ways? If American politicians in America start threatening foreign nationals, are the foreigners equally entitled to "send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", in your opinion? If not, why not? Where's the reciprocity? Or is this yet more American Exceptionalism?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
spot;1340494 wrote: Surely that's a debt acquired voluntarily by the US Government through choosing to send the armed forces to occupy a foreign country. We're looking for a price on each 9/11 death, those being one-for-one equivalents to the Iraqi and Afghan civilians who are dead as a direct result of the occupation. I find it hard to understand how the value placed on each of those lives could possibly differ. I'm equally puzzled as to how Iraqi or Afghan civilians can be regarded as fair game in any amoral tit-for-tat killing game.Is this what you're looking for?
"Dateline: January, 2005
A study released by the RAND Corporation shows that victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — both individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes — have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments.
New York businesses have received 62 percent of the total compensation, reflecting the broad-ranging economic impacts of the attack in and near the World Trade Center. Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.
The 9-11 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,551 civilians and serious injury to another 215. The attacks also killed or seriously injured 460 emergency responders.
“The compensation paid to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania was unprecedented both in its scope and in the mix of programs used to make payments,” said Lloyd Dixon, a RAND senior economist and lead author of the report. “The system has raised many questions about equity and fairness that have no obvious answers. Addressing these issues now will help the nation be better prepared for future terrorist attacks.”
Dixon and co-author Rachel Kaganoff Stern interviewed and gathered evidence from many sources to estimate the amount of compensation paid out by insurance companies, government agencies and charities following the attacks. Their findings include:
# Insurance companies expect to make at least $19.6 billion in payments, comprising 51 percent of the money paid in compensation.
# Government payments total nearly $15.8 billion (42 percent of the total). This includes payments from local, state and federal governments, plus payments from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 that was established by the federal government to compensate those killed or physically injured in the attacks. The total does not include payments to clean up the World Trade Center site or rebuild public infrastructure in New York City.
# Payments by charitable groups comprise just 7 percent of the total, despite the fact that charities distributed an unprecedented $2.7 billion to victims of the attacks.
Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.
RAND researchers found that businesses hurt by the attacks have received most of the compensation that the study was able to quantify. The families of civilians killed and the civilians who were injured received the second-highest payments. The study found that:
# Businesses in New York City, particularly in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, have received $23.3 billion in compensation for property damage, disrupted operations, and economic incentives. About 75 percent of that came from insurance companies. More than $4.9 billion went to revitalize the economy of Lower Manhattan.
# Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.
# About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, or others who suffered emotional trauma or were exposed to environmental hazards.
# Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities."
Link; RAND Report Details 9-11 Victims Compensation
"Dateline: January, 2005
A study released by the RAND Corporation shows that victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — both individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes — have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments.
New York businesses have received 62 percent of the total compensation, reflecting the broad-ranging economic impacts of the attack in and near the World Trade Center. Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.
The 9-11 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,551 civilians and serious injury to another 215. The attacks also killed or seriously injured 460 emergency responders.
“The compensation paid to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania was unprecedented both in its scope and in the mix of programs used to make payments,” said Lloyd Dixon, a RAND senior economist and lead author of the report. “The system has raised many questions about equity and fairness that have no obvious answers. Addressing these issues now will help the nation be better prepared for future terrorist attacks.”
Dixon and co-author Rachel Kaganoff Stern interviewed and gathered evidence from many sources to estimate the amount of compensation paid out by insurance companies, government agencies and charities following the attacks. Their findings include:
# Insurance companies expect to make at least $19.6 billion in payments, comprising 51 percent of the money paid in compensation.
# Government payments total nearly $15.8 billion (42 percent of the total). This includes payments from local, state and federal governments, plus payments from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 that was established by the federal government to compensate those killed or physically injured in the attacks. The total does not include payments to clean up the World Trade Center site or rebuild public infrastructure in New York City.
# Payments by charitable groups comprise just 7 percent of the total, despite the fact that charities distributed an unprecedented $2.7 billion to victims of the attacks.
Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.
RAND researchers found that businesses hurt by the attacks have received most of the compensation that the study was able to quantify. The families of civilians killed and the civilians who were injured received the second-highest payments. The study found that:
# Businesses in New York City, particularly in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, have received $23.3 billion in compensation for property damage, disrupted operations, and economic incentives. About 75 percent of that came from insurance companies. More than $4.9 billion went to revitalize the economy of Lower Manhattan.
# Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.
# About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, or others who suffered emotional trauma or were exposed to environmental hazards.
# Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities."
Link; RAND Report Details 9-11 Victims Compensation
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
We don’t do bodycounts
There we are then - that provides a perfect baseline for reasonable compensation to the families of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who've died as a result of the foreign occupation.
Do you think it will get paid?
Neither do I.
Do you think it will get paid?
Neither do I.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
flopstock;1340522 wrote: I agree entirely with the notion that American troops should be brought home. They should be on our own borders right now. Let other countries settle their own issues.
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.I agree. I think we have to also realize though that part of the problem is that our way of life, namely capitalism, is offensive to many in the way we attempt to spread it throughout the world. I think for as long as we continue to arrogantly inject our way of life into other cultures we will continue to have this issue. I believe American officials and businesses also know this and have made the decision that we might as well just remain on the move and permanently deployed instead of having to continually rev up the engines to get the beast going. I believe America has made the decision that war is now too important to the economy to cease operations. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats, not their armies. Then leave. eventually the message would get out that if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone.I agree. I think we have to also realize though that part of the problem is that our way of life, namely capitalism, is offensive to many in the way we attempt to spread it throughout the world. I think for as long as we continue to arrogantly inject our way of life into other cultures we will continue to have this issue. I believe American officials and businesses also know this and have made the decision that we might as well just remain on the move and permanently deployed instead of having to continually rev up the engines to get the beast going. I believe America has made the decision that war is now too important to the economy to cease operations. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
We don’t do bodycounts
spot;1340525 wrote: Perhaps if you write to your Congressperson it will have a cumulative effect on national policy, flops. The nationalist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are only threatening "us" (which certainly doesn't include the Homeland and never did) because "we" are there armed and loaded. By any reasonable definition they're patriots, just as any American would be in similar circumstances. The current estimate for the number of Al Qaida associates in both countries is in the low hundreds. Treat those as criminals through international policing and you might actually have a positive result instead of making local heroes out of them.
As for "Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", does it work both ways? If American politicians in America start threatening foreign nationals, are the foreigners equally entitled to "send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", in your opinion? If not, why not? Where's the reciprocity? Or is this yet more American Exceptionalism?
The trick here is to get them all home Spot. If me waving a wand got them all home, then yes, me waving a wand would make it clear to all politicians that if they try and take over the world it's open hunting season on them so far as I'm concerned.
As for "Folks start threatening us, send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", does it work both ways? If American politicians in America start threatening foreign nationals, are the foreigners equally entitled to "send in units to take out the folks uttering the threats", in your opinion? If not, why not? Where's the reciprocity? Or is this yet more American Exceptionalism?
The trick here is to get them all home Spot. If me waving a wand got them all home, then yes, me waving a wand would make it clear to all politicians that if they try and take over the world it's open hunting season on them so far as I'm concerned.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
We don’t do bodycounts
flopstock;1340604 wrote: The trick here is to get them all home Spot. If me waving a wand got them all home, then yes, me waving a wand would make it clear to all politicians that if they try and take over the world it's open hunting season on them so far as I'm concerned.
Then your real enemy, flopster, is the Pentagon.
Then your real enemy, flopster, is the Pentagon.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We don’t do bodycounts
spot;1340609 wrote: Then your real enemy, flopster, is the Pentagon. Nope, they can be yours. Mine are the politicians.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
We don’t do bodycounts
flopstock;1340611 wrote: Nope, they can be yours. Mine are the politicians.
My impression is that Pentagon pressure is the only thing stopping a total timely deadlined wind-down of the Middle Eastern bases - they're still building several dozen of them and they'll be extremely reluctant to hand them over to local control for decades. You may feel differently but I'm not sure how you'd explain the bases if you're right.
Would you like a link to read about them?Despite a pledge from the Obama administration to begin its troop drawdowns next July, this ongoing base-construction splurge, when put together with recent signals from the White House, civilians at the Pentagon, and top military commanders, including Afghan war chief General David Petraeus, suggests that the process may be drawn out over many years. During a recent interview with ABC News Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz, for instance, Petraeus affirmed the president’s July 2011 timeline, but added a crucial caveat. “It will be a pace that is determined by conditions,” he said.
Almost a decade into the Afghan War, he claimed, the U.S. military had “finally gotten the inputs right in Afghanistan.” Raddatz then asked if the “counterinsurgency clock” had just restarted -- if, that is, it could be another nine or ten years to achieve success. “Yeah,” replied Petraeus, hastening to add that American soldiers killed there over the previous nine years had not simply died for nothing. “But it is just at this point that we feel that we do have the organizations that we learned in Iraq and from history are necessary for the conduct that this kind of campaign.”
The building boom occurring on U.S. bases across Afghanistan and the contracts for future construction being awarded at the moment seem to confirm that, whatever the White House has in mind, the military is operating on something closer to the Petraeus timeline. The new Special Operations base at Mazar-e-Sharif, to take but one of many examples, may not be completed and fully occupied for at least a year and a half. Other construction contracts, not yet even awarded, are expected to take a year or more to complete. And military timelines suggest that, if the Pentagon gets its way, American troop levels may not dip below the numbers present when Obama took office, approximately 36,000 troops, until 2016 or beyond.
Tomgram: Nick Turse, Base Desires in Afghanistan | TomDispatch
There's your enemy, flops. Not the politicians. The professional military strategists.
My impression is that Pentagon pressure is the only thing stopping a total timely deadlined wind-down of the Middle Eastern bases - they're still building several dozen of them and they'll be extremely reluctant to hand them over to local control for decades. You may feel differently but I'm not sure how you'd explain the bases if you're right.
Would you like a link to read about them?Despite a pledge from the Obama administration to begin its troop drawdowns next July, this ongoing base-construction splurge, when put together with recent signals from the White House, civilians at the Pentagon, and top military commanders, including Afghan war chief General David Petraeus, suggests that the process may be drawn out over many years. During a recent interview with ABC News Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz, for instance, Petraeus affirmed the president’s July 2011 timeline, but added a crucial caveat. “It will be a pace that is determined by conditions,” he said.
Almost a decade into the Afghan War, he claimed, the U.S. military had “finally gotten the inputs right in Afghanistan.” Raddatz then asked if the “counterinsurgency clock” had just restarted -- if, that is, it could be another nine or ten years to achieve success. “Yeah,” replied Petraeus, hastening to add that American soldiers killed there over the previous nine years had not simply died for nothing. “But it is just at this point that we feel that we do have the organizations that we learned in Iraq and from history are necessary for the conduct that this kind of campaign.”
The building boom occurring on U.S. bases across Afghanistan and the contracts for future construction being awarded at the moment seem to confirm that, whatever the White House has in mind, the military is operating on something closer to the Petraeus timeline. The new Special Operations base at Mazar-e-Sharif, to take but one of many examples, may not be completed and fully occupied for at least a year and a half. Other construction contracts, not yet even awarded, are expected to take a year or more to complete. And military timelines suggest that, if the Pentagon gets its way, American troop levels may not dip below the numbers present when Obama took office, approximately 36,000 troops, until 2016 or beyond.
Tomgram: Nick Turse, Base Desires in Afghanistan | TomDispatch
There's your enemy, flops. Not the politicians. The professional military strategists.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.