5 ms·

That's a useful skill, to be able to speak for all the people of Afghanistan like that. I guess you have the objectivity of distance working in your favour.

loewenskind 16y ago
FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?
- rdl 16y ago
  It depends entirely on the context. Obviously, I would be unhappy if someone I liked got killed. However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. It's not like we invaded Canada. Afghanistan and Iraq were fairly horrible places to begin with (especially Afghanistan), and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. The Taliban would kill more than 200 Afghan civilians in a single month. US medical assistance provided to Afghans (not injured by NATO/US), e.g. kids in car accidents, has probably saved more Afghans than have been killed by the US. There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    > There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report ... Very dangerous statement to make. Unless you're citing something, please don't... I'm not saying such report is a lie, but it's a risky thing to say if it wasn't true. There are many stories which need a lot of context to understand properly. There isn't much more that person could do, is there?
    - rdl 16y ago
      There are a lot of examples. Afghan society is generally willing to sacrifice individuals for their tribe, so it's not that hard to understand. Example: Kandahar, Marines under MajGen Mattis, late Dec 2001/Early Jan 2002. ODA 574 enroute from Tarin Kowt, Dec 2001. For a more recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologize-afghan-civilian-deaths-sheep/story?id=10320603 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologiz...
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". What does this example have to do with occupation? Likening an invading military force (especially when there was no reason for the invasion as is the case in Iraq) is pretty insulting to everyone involved except, of course, the invading force. >There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. This might be the case in Afghanistan (I can buy that you might find someone somewhere, but I doubt the average Joe is very happy about it) but you're going to have a hard time finding someone "better off" in Iraq after the invasion. The country is less stable, less safe. There are extremist roaming around kidnapping and killing that were not doing so before. I've met several families that had decent lives in Iraq that had to leave after the invasion. > There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. Were they two such reports? What was the source of this story? Was due diligence done on the story? Sounds too patriotic/"feel good" for me to take it at face value. >and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. In the case of Iraq this is demonstrably not true. In fact the situation is almost exactly the opposite. What do you think Sadam was doing exactly? He was for sure a bad person and not someone who's radar you want to be on but for the average citizen there were definitely worse people to have as a ruler (e.g. Kim Jong-il). >The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. Based on what definition? The one you gave elsewhere about following US military protocol? My definition of civilian death is if a non-American who isn't a terrorist gets killed, regardless if the people who killed him where within their protocols or not. If they hadn't been there the person would likely still be alive. Given that definition your "200 in 10 years" sounds impossibly low. >There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people. This statement could only possibly hold for Afghanistan. Clearly it doesn't apply to Iraq.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  Ignoring your distorted characterisation of the situation in Afghanistan, one can think of many situations where people would tolerate and support the presence of foreign forces in their country, even if inevitably civilians are killed as a result (not a war-crime or 'murder' by the laws of war). All one needs to do is avoid naively modelling the thought processes of brown people in a couple of lines of chomskyscript. Really, give it a try some time.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Don't you find your view a little bit too convenient? "We can still be the good guys even though we're engaging in multiple occupations, because they.. um.. want us there!" EDIT: P.S. It's pretty low for you to pull the race card on me. Thinking like "brown people"? Wtf is that garbage supposed to mean? My view comes from how I would react in their situation (i.e. they are just as smart/capable/etc. as I am). You are the one who seems to suggest that they can't cope without the help of the US.

loewenskind 16y ago

FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?

rdl 16y ago
It depends entirely on the context. Obviously, I would be unhappy if someone I liked got killed. However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. It's not like we invaded Canada. Afghanistan and Iraq were fairly horrible places to begin with (especially Afghanistan), and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. The Taliban would kill more than 200 Afghan civilians in a single month. US medical assistance provided to Afghans (not injured by NATO/US), e.g. kids in car accidents, has probably saved more Afghans than have been killed by the US. There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people.
- viraptor 16y ago
  > There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. There was one report ... Very dangerous statement to make. Unless you're citing something, please don't... I'm not saying such report is a lie, but it's a risky thing to say if it wasn't true. There are many stories which need a lot of context to understand properly. There isn't much more that person could do, is there?
  - rdl 16y ago
    There are a lot of examples. Afghan society is generally willing to sacrifice individuals for their tribe, so it's not that hard to understand. Example: Kandahar, Marines under MajGen Mattis, late Dec 2001/Early Jan 2002. ODA 574 enroute from Tarin Kowt, Dec 2001. For a more recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologize-afghan-civilian-deaths-sheep/story?id=10320603 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/special-forces-apologiz...
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". What does this example have to do with occupation? Likening an invading military force (especially when there was no reason for the invasion as is the case in Iraq) is pretty insulting to everyone involved except, of course, the invading force. >There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. This might be the case in Afghanistan (I can buy that you might find someone somewhere, but I doubt the average Joe is very happy about it) but you're going to have a hard time finding someone "better off" in Iraq after the invasion. The country is less stable, less safe. There are extremist roaming around kidnapping and killing that were not doing so before. I've met several families that had decent lives in Iraq that had to leave after the invasion. > There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. Were they two such reports? What was the source of this story? Was due diligence done on the story? Sounds too patriotic/"feel good" for me to take it at face value. >and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. In the case of Iraq this is demonstrably not true. In fact the situation is almost exactly the opposite. What do you think Sadam was doing exactly? He was for sure a bad person and not someone who's radar you want to be on but for the average citizen there were definitely worse people to have as a ruler (e.g. Kim Jong-il). >The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. Based on what definition? The one you gave elsewhere about following US military protocol? My definition of civilian death is if a non-American who isn't a terrorist gets killed, regardless if the people who killed him where within their protocols or not. If they hadn't been there the person would likely still be alive. Given that definition your "200 in 10 years" sounds impossibly low. >There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people. This statement could only possibly hold for Afghanistan. Clearly it doesn't apply to Iraq.
confuzatron 16y ago
Ignoring your distorted characterisation of the situation in Afghanistan, one can think of many situations where people would tolerate and support the presence of foreign forces in their country, even if inevitably civilians are killed as a result (not a war-crime or 'murder' by the laws of war). All one needs to do is avoid naively modelling the thought processes of brown people in a couple of lines of chomskyscript. Really, give it a try some time.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Don't you find your view a little bit too convenient? "We can still be the good guys even though we're engaging in multiple occupations, because they.. um.. want us there!" EDIT: P.S. It's pretty low for you to pull the race card on me. Thinking like "brown people"? Wtf is that garbage supposed to mean? My view comes from how I would react in their situation (i.e. they are just as smart/capable/etc. as I am). You are the one who seems to suggest that they can't cope without the help of the US.