Afghanistan-14 US dead this month

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Jagger, Aug 23, 2005.

  1. Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    14 US dead killed in Afghanistan this month. Seems as if the one good war may be starting to turn into a real war. Strange that I didn't hear about this from TV news.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-22-voa20.cfm

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    No one wants foreign occupiers in their nation .
    What good war ? No hijackers from 9/11 came from Afghanistan , no evidence has ever linked the taleban with those events of 9/11 . In fact I cannot think of any valid reason why America attacked Afghanistan other than to build Airbases from which to invade other countries namely Iran.
    This is getting old hat , it was the media who gave us all the run down on Iraqs non-existent WMD , Atomic bombs . The Corporate media serves the interest of the plutocratic order which runs our nations . Why would the propaganda media report the TRUTH ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    Did the Taliban support Al Qaeda or not? They allowed Al Quaeda to openly run large training camps within their country. They allowed Osama freedom of operations.

    IMO, the Taliban had to removed to end the only open sanctuary of Al Quaeda.

    So yes, I openly supported the removal of the Taliban to end open sanctuary for Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Even though Afghanistan wasn't a "good" war, it was a necessary war. Although I also believed that Afghanistan needed to be stabilized and rebuilt. Instead Bush headed for Iraq.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, it's obviously not the deaths that bother you ...because there were far more deaths than that in Africa ....some 8,000 per day. So if you're upset about 14 people killed in Afghanistan, then you must be totally devesatated by the killings around the world.

    So, ....if it's not just the deaths, what's your real aggenda?

    Baron Max
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It was believed that the Taliban was providing refuge for Bin Laden. Of course a whole lot of other crap was "believed," so we don't know how much evidence there was for this, but that was the rationale for attacking Afghanistan.

    Part of it was also shame. When the Soviets tried to bring Afghanistan into their sphere of influence, the Northern Alliance was the group of fighters that were recruited to make that happen. The U.S. retaliated by forming a group of its own to keep Soviet influence from spreading south. Our guys won. Unfortunately our guys turned out to be the nucleus from which the Taliban was formed. That would have been just fine as long as the Cold War was on, we have supported some of the world's most abhorrent regimes so long as they kept their countries on our side of the Iron Curtain. Who knew that Perestroika and Glasnost were coming and that the Taliban would suddenly become a big pain for us?

    As for grieving the fourteen dead Americans in Afghanistan in one month. Not to diminish the loss of any human life, but... I have to agree with the Baron that your numeracy and risk analysis are a little shaky. Dude, about twice that many people are gunned down within the city limits of Washington EVERY MONTH! Only about one each week even gets mentioned in the Washington Post. The residents of other cities aren't even told about this because they've got their own murders to contend with.

    It might be risky behavior for an adventurous or brave or politically activist American to go spend time in Afghanistan? She might get killed? Damn, why didn't somebody warn her! People can't be expected to figure stuff like that out by themselves!

    It's just not the same as some beloved grandmother sitting peacefully in her living room watching TV with her family and a stray bullet from an assault weapon in a gang fight comes right through the wall of her house and blows her our of her easy chair.

    If you're looking for a cause to sink your teeth into, help us bring a halt to the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs itself and the second-order violence spawned by the black market it created kill far more innocent Americans and ruin the futures of far more American families than anything going on in Afghanistan. It's Prohibition and Al Capone and tommy guns in the streets all over again, and it's right here in River City.
     
  9. Koyaanisqatsi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    64
    To make a post speaking of a mere 14 deaths when that figure is far outweighed by deaths from more mundane causes in the USA alone, probably even in some little backwater midwestern town, speaks of a mind unable to grasp the insiginificance of those deaths in the greater scheme of things.

    In the United states, vehicle accidents account for some 40-50,000 deaths every year. Where are all the threads lamenting the "precious loss of young American life"?

    Deaths alone mean nothing in the face of a philosphical ideal.
     
  10. Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    I sense an arrogant, condescending and small mind from this little response. I also note an individual with a lazy mind as well as poor reading and comprehension skills.

    Anyone, that reads the initial post of this thread setting the subject and point, will see the post was directed at the increasing level of resistance in Afghanistan. What use to be 1 casualty every one or two months is now 14 casualties a month. The resistance is building up.

    Although to comment on the irrelevant strawman counterarguments, I will say a lot of small minded Neocons are easily swayed by the argument that 14 deaths means nothing as so many individuals are dying every day in the US.

    Simple strawman arguments work well for simple minds and nitwits. Unfortunately the argument doesn't consider that these Afghanistan deaths represent deaths directly initiated by our government rather than by random acts or unbalanced individuals. Those military members very likely would not be dead if it weren't for the actions of our government. Nor does it consider the financial costs represented by an escalating conflict-currently about 6 billion a month. So how much higher and longer will the costs go if Afghanistan expands into a much more fierce opposition? And finally, the increasing dead of an escalating conflict , unlike those dying of a variety of everyday reasons in the US, represent increased likelihood of blowback, retaliation and widening war. Which of course means more dead, more money and more likelihood of retaliation in the US.

    It is not good that more people are dying in Aghanistan.

    I know normal people will understand my response. However Neocons will never understand as the response involves a few layers of thought beyond the simple argument of just kill them. Of course, if they had normal comprehension skills, they wouldn't be wrong on everything and then they would no longer meet the definition of a Neocon.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2005
  11. Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have said small minded Neocon. Small minded is part of the definition of neocon. So I was redundant.
     
  12. Koyaanisqatsi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    64
    Well, arrogant and condescending is correct at any rate.
    I presume you meant "response"?

    Not quite. Look at your responses ( or rather - lack of them) and note how many others correctly understood the intent of your initial post. I'm terribly sorry to appeal to the majority, as usually I find it a lacklustre tactic, but in this case I believe it may be warranted. More accurately though, I'm actually refuting your appeal to majority (which seem to be curiously absent from this thread) so I feel somewhat justified in doing so.

    No. Anyone(,) reading the intial post in this thread will see you complaining about 14 american deaths this month with a link to an article. Perhaps you should have written a more in-depth post to begin with, in order to eliminate these little misunderstandings?

    Hardly "easily swayed". That is more or less precisely how I view it, without the need to others to point it out for me nor explain it. Now we could enter into a long philosphical discussion here regarding the extent to which a certain point of view represents a mind swayed by popular opinion, but I rather think it would be... pointless.

    Which must be why you are now resorting to insulting comments.

    This is supposed to make a difference? A death is a death. Lord knows there are enough people in the world as it is, and as far as I'm concerned a few less can only be of benefit regardless of "how" they died. I have to admit I would personally prefer to have a lot more choice in who kicks the bucket and who does not, but again that would be beside the point. Perhaps you should consider that your "point" has indeed been considered - and discarded.

    Ah - and now we get to the meat. It's about money then?

    As for retaliation and widening war, if the US had gone in properly to begin with, there wouldn't be a war still to fight. It has much to do with the way these "wars" are being fought which opens the USA to retaliation.

    Where would you rather they died?

    Hypocrisy and tunnel vision are an interesting thing to observe. So is the fact that the definition of "normal people" has a tendency to coincide closely with the level to which they agree with you.

    Has it ever occured to you that those "few layers beyond the simple argument" are resulting in the infighting and paralysis which is costing you this "war"?
     
  13. Jagger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    315
    THREAD STARTING POST:

    Fact

    Observation and main point.

    Secondary observation and second point.


    RESPONSE

    Question: How did someone jump so far off the main point which is an escalating conflict which included absolutely no consideration of the morale value of combat deaths vs the daily attrition of mortality within US daily life?

    Answer: Poor reading or comprehension skills. Maybe just a lazy or substandard mind.

    Observation: Reeks of arrogance, condescension and a small mind deserving of a response in kind.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2005
  14. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    Like ive said many times on this forum:

    Over 14,000 people died last year in alcohol related vehicle accidents. Where are the protests? Why isnt Cindy outside protesting Budwieser??

    Simple. Its not about the deaths. Its about political agenda.
     

Share This Page