Afghan civilian deaths up 6%

[nick1985]

In their defense, I was following Bush's lead until 2006. A bit late to vote against him on 04. I wonder if they'll learn any faster. I very much doubt it.

Yep. I 'believed' in the Afghanistan mission up until a few months ago. We have been banging our heads against the wall there for several years. Its just ridiculous now.

Its like running into a brick wall, getting up, and running it into again x infinity. HELLOOOOOOOOOOo its not working!!!


We can achieve similar results with hardly any troops on the ground. Drone/Cruise missiles are more than enough to keep AQ and the Taliban dispersed. And we would have little to no US casualties and very minimal Afghan civilian casualties to boot. Seems like everyone would win.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I disagree there. Iraq is still unstable, but it is much better than what it was. Their security forces will soon be able to take over from us completely according to reports. There are still bombings here and there, but not like it was a few years ago before the surge.

I disagree and I'll put up links which I have several times before when posters have said things in Iraq are getting better. But for some reason they always get ignored and people go on saying things are better. Wonder what its going to be like after you leave?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Analysis+exiting+bleeding+country/3371465/story.html

Oh hell.. click away

http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=iraq%20worst
( I tried to link to my search in google = Iraq worst, but it keeps posting only an Iraq search)

*More civilians are being killed in Iraq than Afghanistan: 535 last month alone, according to the Iraqi government the worst figure for two years*

p.s. - all the surge really was, was erecting concrete walls around each neighborhood. It does help with violence, but makes for a real shitty view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Wall

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&&sa=X&e...ad+concrete+walls&spell=1&fp=e152ff60f580dc26

Its kind of like some ghettos during WW2

 

[Modelworks]

The only way you can change Afghanistan is if you can put a soldier every 100 yds for the entire country and have them never leave. The civilians made it plain why what we are doing will not work. You cannot expect the people there to fight the Taliban or corruption or anything else because the civilians have nothing. They have no money, no weapons, no means to fight back. We can put all the soldiers there, kill the Taliban , and destroy corruption, but the second we leave the area it will return to what it was.

They did a documentary where they went around showing maps to people and they don't think of their own country as a country .The people living there don't even recognize Afghanistan on a map. To them it is a bunch of small tribes and lands, each with their own rules and life, similar to the USA and states but not united and the states are not official but change depending on who has the most.

 

[nick1985]

The only way you can change Afghanistan is if you can put a soldier every 100 yds for the entire country and have them never leave. The civilians made it plain why what we are doing will not work. You cannot expect the people there to fight the Taliban or corruption or anything else because the civilians have nothing. They have no money, no weapons, no means to fight back. We can put all the soldiers there, kill the Taliban , and destroy corruption, but the second we leave the area it will return to what it was.

They did a documentary where they went around showing maps to people and they don't think of their own country as a country .The people living there don't even recognize Afghanistan on a map. To them it is a bunch of small tribes and lands, each with their own rules and life, similar to the USA and states but not united and the states are not official but change depending on who has the most.

Yup. Time to leave

 

[Sinsear]

I suppose... but you got to agree with me too then eh, Iraq is still worse off then ever and one day America will just leave, your calling for leaving Afghanistan and of course there was Vietnam. There is a pattern there.

If we were allowed to do what needed to be done, it would be over, and rather quickly at that.

 

[Jaskalas]

If we were allowed to do what needed to be done, it would be over, and rather quickly at that.

This post seems fitting then.

 

[Moonbeam]

How can you be 6 percent more dead?

 

[Orignal Earl]

If we were allowed to do what needed to be done, it would be over, and rather quickly at that.

I'm going to guess your another one of the nuke em all types. Kind of destroys alot of your excuses for invading countries. So really all America needs for a military is a couple of guys with their fingers on some buttons and some peeps maintaining the nukes.
I don't know, guess I see things as a little more complicated then that.
But I suppose the world would be a better place if you just sat at home and only attacked if a *real* threat came along.

 

[Lemon law]

If we were allowed to do what needed to be done, it would be over, and rather quickly at that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with saying if we were allowed to do something, is in defining what that somethings is. Which Sinsear seemingly forgot to do.

But let me guess, is that something going into Pakistan and cleaning out Al-Quida and the Taliban?

If so, why should that do anything to correct the mess we have already made in Afghanistan? And in fact it could be a big blunder that just widens the war and spreads Nato even thinner than it is now.

After all most of Al-Quida and the Taliban are light years less technologically adept as Nato, but they are every bit as intelligent as Nato and are mostly far advanced of Nato in knowing the local culture and politics. And the Afghan insurgency has learned much since they were cornered at Tora Bora, they are unlikely to commit that blunder again.

Somewhat the fantasy goes, the combined forces of Nato and the Afghan army should go chase the Taliban and Al-Quida on through Pakistan until they finally reached some edge where they can retreat no more, and have to stand and fight the set piece battle Nato is excellent at, and then presto, the Taliban and Al-Quida problem is solved and thereafter its nirvana.

Its a nice fantasy, but it will never work, first of all there are other escape routes into the Stans to the North, second, as Nato marches ever forward into the distant horizon,
the Taliban and Al-Quida will simple sneak back around Nato, and while Nato forces march off into the distance, they can go back home to Afghanistan and find even fewer Nato troops.

The other thing to say is that is the military thinking, but that is not what is needed because Afghanistan is a military occupation, and the thinking and methods are different.

 

[palehorse]

But the main point is, the average Afghan civilian is now more likely to die due to the insurgency forces, rather than anti insurgency forces.

This is not a new development. The Taliban and AQ have always been responsible for an exponentially higher number of civilian deaths than NATO or U.S. forces.

Each year, there are also thousands of Taliban murders that go unreported.