LMAROOPK (laughing my @ss right out of pundit kitchen)

Nationality is not everything. In fact it’s nothing, because all these Iraqis and Afghans would need is an American passport and all of a sudden the USA would roar in outrage that the government started a war that killed between 100’000 and 200’000 American civilians to avenge the death or avoid the possible killing of 3000 civilians.

If, say, only 20’000 civilians had died in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid another 9/11, I would be able to excuse the USA by saying they were worried to protect themself. But we have somewhere between 100’000 and 200’000 dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians! It’s way too disproportionate, the USA should has looked at the bigger picture.

I also blame the terrorists for hiding near civilians and using them as cover, you can be sure of that. But the USA knew from the start that the Taliban would use civilians to protect themselves.
That’s why I think the USA had a responsibility to avoid this war (or plan it better in order to considerably reduce civilian casualties).

Imagine you are outside of a building with thousands of people locked in there. One of them is a terrorist who just shot a few people in your neighborhood.
He’s all alone in one room, and you have to throw a grenade to take him out. Or you can let him be, he won’t harm anybody in the building but he may come back to your neighborhood in several years and shoot a few other people.
But here is the catch: the terrorist leaked methane gas in the entire building, and your grenade, while it won’t hit innocents directly, will cause the whole building to explode, killing or injuring almost everyone in there.
Do you throw the grenade?

Is this worth starting a war that killed so many people?
If the USA had not started this war and a second, attack happened and another 3000 or 4000 American civilians had died, would it be worse than causing the deaths of 100’000 to 200’000 Middle Eastern civilians?

They are foreigners, and even though I consider all humans equal I understand a country’s desire to protect itself. But that still seems to me like a high price to pay to protect American lives.
Assuming 100’000 Afghani and Iraqi civilians died (in case the 200’000 I found is exaggerated), it’s still a rate of 33 Iraqi/Afghani lives for 1 American life (66/1 if the 200’000 is correct).

Are these people really worth that little just because they don’t have an American passport? They are not different from the people who died in the 9/11 attacks (unless if you knew some of the victims personally) except they were born and live where the terrorists are hiding.

I think we just went too far with treating people of other nationalities differently.

So gas at $4 a gallon proves your point…. how?

Oh, right, it doesn’t

If we wanted to invade somebody for oil, you do realize it would have been Canada, right? Closer, cheaper to extract, and a smaller military to defeat.

Let’s look at the books:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

Begin on page 13, and to make understanding easier for the public, I’ll only use the 2009 data. For U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and ‘other war-related activities’: 154 Billion. Good.

Page 18, Military and Veteran Retirement: 100 Billion.

Next, try page 20. Budget Authority Defense: 695 Billion. Outlays Defense: 657 Billion.

Military Defense spending: 1.6 Trillion dollars. And that’s not including the vague ‘Non defense’ spending involved.

Social Security, listed on page 18, 678 Billion.

678 Billion < 1.6 Trillion.

Let me add to NHSparky's new commendations: RESEARCH FAIL.

BUDGETARY FAIL.

And stop with the “I’m in the military; what did you do today?” propaganda. Or lest I forget that we spend more on our military then on all of our domestic measures combined– So I guess keep trucking on that military-badassness while the homeland crumbles… who needs education and infrastructure? Not U.S.

I like.

But hot???

Male or female, it seems some people have weird, cammouflag-ey fetishes. I don’t find an overdressed, over heated, dusty, androgenous figure “hot”. But maybe that’s just me.

Blame isn’t a black or white thing. Just because wrongs were perpetrated by one side, this does not exonerate retributive, equally evil deeds by the other side.

Further “the free world” is such a furphy. Please be honest and say that you mean “the USA and it’s commercial interests”.

Not since the nuking of Japan in WWII. That moved the goal posts a bit but it was still okay, apparently.

You get 90,000 internets for being perhaps the most rational person I have EVER read on PK!!!! Keep it up.

Thank you.

*quickly does math*

*checks exchange rate*

Ah, there we are. Come to the UK, where it’s only $8.15 a gallon. Much cheaper.

But 100’000 civilians died in Afghanistan because of this war. Whether they were killed by U.S. forces or Taliban, they were killed because of the war the USA started over there.
100’000 civilian deaths are not worth avenging 3000 deaths in my opinion.

Still, tight airport security is not an answer to me. Al Qaeda had to feel someone was after them and was not going to let them sleep peacefully and plot more attacks after that. It’s also important to show every terrorist group in the world that they won’t get away with their crimes.
But again, was that worth 100’000 civilian deaths? I’m not sure. I think this war could had been plotted better so as to reduce civilians deaths considerably.

I think even if reducing civilian deaths had meant losing more troops, then it should had been done. I thought soldiers were supposed to protect the weak and defenseless, regardless of nationality, even if that meant risking their own lives.
I also believed harming civilians was considered a war crime. But it seems to many people it’s now OK to bomb a city and kill 1000 civilians along with the enemy instead of sending in troops and losing a few men. That’s pretty sad.
I’m glad I know some soldiers on the field take the decision on their own to risk their own lives to avoid risking civilian casualties. If it wasn’t for these guys I would had lost all faith in the military already.

Also, considering 200’000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians died because the USA wanted to avenge 3000 civilian deaths, I’m kind of worried the USA tends to overreact. And don’t blame the Taliban: the USA knew starting these wars would cause such a high number of civilian casualties therefore they should had done things differently.

The USA (and more specifically Bush and his administration) have made a huge mistake and have treated these civilians as inferior to Americans. The USA should come to realize this and admit their mistake.
And Bush should face trial in court. I don’t care if he gets away with it or not; for me it’s not about seeing him get punished I just want to see his actions being judged. That would be a great step forward into acknowledging something was wrong.

Anyway my point was not just about oil. There are plenty of useful jobs that make a big contribution to our lives, our comfort, and our future and which are not related to the military.

My anger here is against those people who think the USA are threatened by dozens of foreign countries who dream to invade them and military force is the only answer.
First of all, the threat is real and we need soldiers to protect us against it. But the threat is not as important as those people think, and military force is not the only solution.
Help people in the Middle East go to school and get proper education, and you will divide religious fanatism by 10.

So:
- Protecting society from potential enemies is not the only useful thing that can be done for society.
- Military force is not even the only protection against potential enemies.

Share the glory please.