Comments on: Undercounting deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan

By: The Bell

The Bell — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:40:51 +0000

Undercounting means distorting, not to say falsifying baseline casualty data.

If the United States cannot be relied upon to correctly count corpses, maimed and injured parties on both sides- well, there’s yet another reason to declare this war a total wipeout, ineptly waged against poor people who never once attacked this country, their lands invaded by fools to the gross enrichment of relentless knaves and charlatans.

Can’t even properly account for the Dead? Until it ends, the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan is like a hideous malignant cancer growth, slap-bang face and center upon all American pretensions to national, never mind imperial, adequacy.

By: Casper

Casper — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:05:35 +0000

Motives barring, selective ‘interference’ seems to be the operative word here.

By: Casper

Casper — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:46:27 +0000

NATO should retreat unconditionally to its own borders and territorial waters. I don’t think it is worthwhile carrying on in the Middle East, it is imploding on itself in any event. Sovereign countries can then utilise their own forces to rather do environmental protection and form a ‘ring of peace’ (as opposed to a ‘ring of fire’)around themselves and help out elsewhere if they can do so. Those with large water boards, except Australia, will be better off in terms of homeland security, but will have a bigger job in terms of environmental protection.

By: Mufaso

Mufaso — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:29:04 +0000

If America would learn to mind its own business instead of trying to make Americans out of everybody and forcing manifest destiny on countries that want to be left alone we wouldn’t have this problem.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:52:25 +0000

Abe.

America does not have the resources to defeat every repressive regime in the world. It must pick it’s battles in specific regions.

America needs to remain on the good side of the international community. This means that it must respect it’s allies (like Saudi Arabia), and avoid certain racial tinderboxes (like Africa and South America).

Just because America cannot interfere in all nations, does not mean it cannot interfer with single nations if it chooses to do so.

I never said that America was motivated primarily or solely by good intentions. Politics will also play a part.

What I said was that pulling out would cause untold suffering to the Afgani and Iraqi people, and that the peace protestors will have a part in causing that suffering.

Because of this, peace protestors delude themselves when they think they are morally superior to those who accept the necessity of war in certain situations.

By: Abe

Abe — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:52:45 +0000

It is rather naive of “Anon” to assume that the USA is motivated primarily by virtuous intentions such as the avoidance of “untold levels of suffering and misery to those people”.
If that were the case, why has the USA refrained from invading and intervening in the countless oppressive regimes in most African countries (think of Egypt, Zimbabwe,Morocco,Somalia, Ethiopia, Ruwanda, Burundi,etc ), in many other Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. The list of despots and tyrants, not counting those directly supported by the USA, is endless, and nothing material was done by the USA.
Apart from Kossovo (and there have to be exceptions to the rules!), all places where the USA intervened were countries that either were thought to threaten the US (remeber that the US only entered the Second World war after it got attacked by the Japs)and its credos, or Israel.

By: C.D. Walker

C.D. Walker — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:57:25 +0000

The best thing about these “Mercenaries”, my dad told me, was that Most of the “Trainers” and “Leaders” of these Men are Vietnam Vets, who HATE the CULT of communism, so i wouldn’t worry about what SIDE these Veterans are on.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:23:04 +0000

Who is keeping count of the civilians? Isn’t the ultimate goal of any Army or Mercenary to protect the civilian population? Somewhere in this war, the priorities got lost or extremely twisted. Would the Iraqis have wanted Democracy if they had been told in advance of the number of possible civilian casualties or that they would be without water, electricity, and sewage for years? Reporting on a simple statistic such as body count is a slight on the horrors of war that the civilian population is enduring. I would like to see reporting on and from the Iraqi and Afghan people, if that is allowed by the powers that be.

By: Victor M Negrete

Victor M Negrete — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:02:25 +0000

yes they mercenaries,make more money,and meantime take spots from our military and by the way they live better than a soldier,marine,sailor or airmen and they not accountable neither enforced under UMCJ.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:43:13 +0000

It is impossible to win Ideological war with Military. It’s better to open 100 Western type movie theaters then bring 100,000 soldiers. The only way to win this war is to convince young people that the Western live style is better than their Islamic one. And we need to raise a few generations of these people.