h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apparition, what other threads? Substance, if you please.

I've never disputed that the US military has done more to protect its own troops lives than those of Afghan civilians. What I dispute is your claim that no regard for civilian lives has been shown. I don't need to churn out reams of evidence to substantiate it because it's a virtual truism. If the US wasn't in any way concerned about civilian casualties they could have simply carpet-bombed the entire country without risk to their own forces. That they didn't shows they had at least some concern for civilians. Is that really too complex for you to understand?

"I don't need to churn out reams of evidence to substantiate it because it's a virtual truism." - why is it a 'virtual truism'?

That they didn't... More likely shows that it didn't fit with objectives, ie, what would have been to point of wiping out the country?
I remember that the war was costing Billions a day and spending had to be increased just to cover it - there's another reason not to wipe out the whole country.

-------

"I don't need to churn out reams of evidence to substantiate it" you haven't even supplied a scrap, not even anicdotal.

It's a virtual truism because the counter-argument (ie your position) is a virtual impossibility. You may have supplied evidence, but it's not evidence that supports your case. As I have said before, you can certainly make a good argument for saying that the US didn't put a high enough priority on minimizing civilian casualties, and I don't dispute that the US military values the lives of its troops above those of Afghan civilians, but you haven't made any case at all for saying civilian casualties weren't even a consideration.

As for wiping out the country, the point would be to destroy the Taliban and all members of Al Qaeda in it. Why go to the trouble of taking the time to pick and choose your targets, giving enemies the chance to break for the border, when you can just kill everyone, thereby categorically guaranteeing success?

If what you say is true, why would Donald Rumsfeld say "the determination to avoid scenes like these of civilians apparently killed by American bombs makes the terrorist hunt more difficult"? Why would the US use a lower ratio of cheaper unguided munitions than in any previous conflict? Why didn't they just cluster-bomb every overground target? Why would they bother supplying both airborne and ground-based troops with judge advocate generals to apply rules of engagement?

Even if you argue that concern for civilians is feigned merely for PR purposes, that awareness of wider opinion would still translate into an actual, albeit minimal, concern for civilians or else they wouldn't bother with the PR in the first place.

Have you actually been to all the links I provided? I quoted from one which also said they had no reguard.

It's time for me to go home, so I'll be brief and pick on one thing.

"Even if you argue that concern for civilians is feigned merely for PR purposes, that awareness of wider opinion would still translate into an actual, albeit minimal, concern for civilians or else they wouldn't bother with the PR in the first place."

You seem to contradicting yourself here. How would a concern for PR translate into a concern for civilians? You make the statement as though it should stand on it's own accord.

I can't find the phrase "no regard" in any of the links you've posted. Can you quote the relevant bit?

As for the PR thing, if the US government is concerned about its image (and it must be otherwise there wouldn't be a PR machine), it's in the government's interest to not to look bad in the eyes of whoever it's PR effort is directed at. Given that the US does not have powers of censorship over the world's media, and that heaps of dead civilians make it look bad, ergo it must curb its genocidal tendencies even if it doesn't really want to.

It's worth noting that despite many examples of, at the very least, ineptitude, the number of civilian casualties was low for a war of this sort. Someone may correct me on this, but I'm not aware of any invasion of a state comparable to Afghanistan in either size or population that has resulted in so few deaths, even if you assume that the figures thus far quoted are on the conservative side. Certainly compared to recent Afghan wars, the US comes out looking pretty good: most estimates I've seen for civilian deaths during the Soviet occupation are around the million mark, and the civil war that followed reportedly claimed around 250,000 lives.

So far the only reason I can see for your intransigence is a belief that the US was cowardly because it relied primarily on bombing rather than sending troops in. Is that the main reason or are there others?

Apparition, your whole position seems to stem from what you *want* to believe about the United States rather than what is the, rather more mundane and less black and white truth.

The Russian's war against Chechnya took little consideration about civilian casualties, they obliterated cities block-by-block. The American's didn't do that in Afghanistan.

"It's worth noting that despite many examples of, at the very least, ineptitude, the number of civilian casualties was low for a war of this sort. Someone may correct me on this, but I'm not aware of any invasion of a state comparable to Afghanistan in either size or population that has resulted in so few deaths, even if you assume that the figures thus far quoted are on the conservative side. Certainly compared to recent Afghan wars, the US comes out looking pretty good: most estimates I've seen for civilian deaths during the Soviet occupation are around the million mark, and the civil war that followed reportedly claimed around 250,000 lives."


The invasion of Afghanistan is not into an enemy "state". To preceive it as such is missleading: one for the "enemy" and two for the "state". The country was devided (and still is) where the Taliban had marginal control at best. The reason there was so little internal opposition was that the majority of the population did not particularly like the Taliban. It's ironic that the new ally of the US, Pakistan, was largely responsible for keeping the Taliban in power through their continual support.

So there seems to be no argument on the US hold the lives of it's soldiers above all other personnel. There also seems to be no argument that the great PR machine is so keen on presenting "good" news of enemy deaths that the death of civilian in the process is of little importance.

And just because we agree that's the case, it doesn't mean it's right.

I'm not saying anything's right, I'm saying that to maintain the US attached no importance at all to civilian casualties is wrong.

"I'm not saying anything's right, I'm saying that to maintain the US attached no importance at all to civilian casualties is wrong."

You seem to be beating a dead horse mycroft. It is clear that the US attaches some importance to civilian casualties if for no other reason (and I'm not saying it's the *only* reason) then the adverse PR fallout.

ok still going through a bit of backlog but let me at least point this out to you....you are an American troop you are in a place serching it there are armed people out walking around and you cannot tell the friendlys from the non friendlys there is constant fireing of weapons you are not allowed to shoot unless you can prove that the enemy is actuly pointing his weapon at you and fireing it at you and you have got to hope that you or one of your friends doesn't get hit by that direct fire) before you can return fire....Rules of engagment are set up to help limit the number of civilian casulties they are not perfect and they do put the troops at more risk then you would imagine but these type of things...like two pilots have to identify a target before it can be taken out and the such...are there and it does show that the military doesn't have a blatent disregard for civilians...if they did these mesures wouldn't be there...yes there are acedents...and you can point out 10 in the news but it's hard for us to point out in the news hey look at the school house that was only one block away from the last target and didn't get bombed by acident because the second piolt relised that that chimney on the top wasn't the marker they were looking for....it's kinda the same thing when we had debates in school about the seatbelt law the kids on the other side where quick to point out the 1 or 2 times in the news where it was said that because the driver was wearing his seat belt and couldn't get out of it that he died or whatnot but were quick to look over the 57 car accidents in the last month that the driver was wearing a seat belt and it may have (kinda hard to say what may or may not happen) saved the driver from further inguries (sorry about the spelling mistakes)


()

tacsatduck, let me join you in beating the same horse.

I would like to compare the death of civilains to the death penalty statement: it's better that 100 guilty persons are set free then 1 innocent person be put to death.

Personally, I would like the same philosophy to be applied to military conflict: it's better that 100 "possible" targets be left alone, then 1 "innocent" target be destroyed.

Now I know that there is Buckley's of that happenning.

sorry about the dead horse and all

hmmm personaly I would rather see 100 guilty people go with one inocent then to let them free to kill 100 other inocent people but that's just me


()

"hmmm personaly I would rather see 100 guilty people go with one inocent then to let them free to kill 100 other inocent people but that's just me"


Then once you capture them, try them and prove to a jury of their peers that they are in fact guilty, then we can confirm their *guilt*. Until then, you are killing a bunch of suspects and one innocent individual. You need to resolve with your own conscience.

The whole attitude of "do unto others before they do unto me" seems to be rather popular at present. In my opinion, this attitude is responsible for the rather sorry present state of affairs. You don't have to do unto others too many times before they start doing unto you!


Not sure what part of the world you're in, but there's a movie out called "Bowling for Columbine". It's a documentary that in part deals with the whole fear mentality: the fear of people in the US of the US government, the fear of the people towards minorities, the fear of people towards the rest of the world based on what they *may* do. Quite interesting. The comparison between the US and Canada in that movie is really stark.

Neugen Amoeba, the horse may seem dead to you and me, but not everyone agrees. And when I say not everyone, I don't just mean Apparition. Even if he's the only person participating in this thread who disagrees, his view is shared by a very large number of people, particularly in the Arab world. That makes the argument worth taking seriously even if it's not a serious argument.

Mycroft, I think you missed the point: just because the US puts the lives of it's soldiers above those of civilians (and we may all agree with that, including the Arab world you mention), and in doing so kills more civilians, it doesn't mean it is right.

And if bad PR is the only reason why they don't kill more civilians (which is the reason I mention, but do not believe myself), then it makes the situation even worse.

better to beat a dead horse then a live one really
I was talking of your argument with the death penalty....the whole 100 and 1 things boils down to what if we try and convict 101 people sentince them to death and it comes out down the road that that last person was actualy inocent and proven guilty and is now dead that wouldn't it be better if we just let the other 100 out of that sort of punishment so we can save that one innocent

As far as targets go...'targets' is a pretty big term a radar station, a missle silo, an amuntion plant, a school house and a dictator can all be targets...so what you say is instead of bombing lets say an amuntion plant that we should "try them and prove to a jury of their peers that they are in fact guilty" for this type of target the equivlent would be to send people on the ground in to inspect the place make sure it's an amunition plant then destroy it by placeing explosives around the building and evacuating the building kinda thing so no one else gets killed (more or less)...this is an option in a country that isn't in an active type war hence the weapons inspectors in Iraq...that's what they are doing but to do that in a war time situation is a bit diffrent...see if you can put people into a building to inspect it set up explosives evacutae the area and demolish the place in a active war time situation and tell me how much loss of life there would be...you would have the people sent in to defend the building...because they would be sent in, in mass if they thought they could save it...you would have the attacking forces you might even have civis used as a sort of human sheild you would have inspectors killed....plus because this would take many days you would probably have most of the workers at the plant instead of a midnight crew put in the way to...personaly I don't think it would be very appealing thing to do but who knows


()

I haven't had time to read the back posts but I aggree that it is wrong to put the lives of soldiers before those of civilians. Soldiers are doing a paid job unlike civilians. The civilians have no choice in the matter. The soldiers do, in most cases.

If the US attacked Iraq now I can't think of any excuse they could have. There are inspectors being let into the country and so far the Iraqis have co-operated. Maybe I'm a bit naive but I don't think now that they've let the inspectors in that the Iraqis will cause any trouble this time.

"better to beat a dead horse then a live one really
I was talking of your argument with the death penalty....the whole 100 and 1 things boils down to what if we try and convict 101 people sentince them to death and it comes out down the road that that last person was actualy inocent and proven guilty and is now dead that wouldn't it be better if we just let the other 100 out of that sort of punishment so we can save that one innocent"


Pleeease tell me that you are not advocating killing people first and then "down the road" trying to determine their guilt or innocence?

I am dizzy!

Mycroft, it is my contention that the American PR machine is aimed at and for the benefit of *American" civilians, most of whom, in contrast to their older sisters and brothers during the Vietnam era, have been trained not to give a tuppenny tinkers' about civilian bodies!