MilitantDogOwner Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 The study by King’s College London, published in PLoS Medicine, provides the most detailed assessment so far of civilian deaths in the course of the conflict." So just as in Afghanistan, while there have been unfortunate residual casualties of war, the majority of deaths, once again, can be laid at the feet of the bad guys. Whichever way you choose to spin it, much of the culpability for the mass casualties and fatalities rests on the western governments and their respective militaries. Both 'wars' were rushed, suffered from lack of planning, with many senior military and politician figures cajoled into supporting it. IMO a country is wholly responsible for the humanitarian situation a conflict it chooses to start creates. Had they taken the time to plan the aftermath and focus on securing the country rather than defeating an ill-equipped enemy, then these insurgency factions would not have gained the traction that they have. "Whichever way you choose to spin it, much of the culpability for the mass casualties and fatalities rests" with the people killing their own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 ...your own government spending billions slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians... Ah, now I see where your confusion is coming from. The British government isn't sending anyone anywhere to "Slaughter" anyone. And certainly not in the "hundreds of thousands" as been clearly illustrated to you. You're welcome. In the same way that the Manx government isn't sending anyone anywhere to slaughter anyone with the TT. Just rather more effectively that the British government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 IMO a country is wholly responsible for the humanitarian situation a conflict it chooses to start creates. Had they taken the time to plan the aftermath and focus on securing the country rather than defeating an ill-equipped enemy, then these insurgency factions would not have gained the traction that they have. But in the case of the Afghanistan war, it was never initially fought for the purpose of staying in the country and not about removing Taliban. Yes, we are responsible and so are the Americans. But were you to bring that fact to a politician, they would agree with you. But what does matter is whether the Afghan people want us there. Have they been asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 "Whichever way you choose to spin it, much of the culpability for the mass casualties and fatalities rests" with the people killing their own people.What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 The sad thing is that countries like Afghanistan are a complete mess, nobody can agree on who should govern and they seem to have no respect for the lives of their own citizens. How on earth we thought that we could ever sort the place out is beyond me! We failed in the past, as did the Russians. The fact is that they seem able to muster countless forces to effectively combat the best equipped armies on earth, how do they do this and why do people take up arms against each others countrymen? Why do they turn down the offers of economic assistance? Without actually sitting down with the insurgents. discussing and making compramises, thousands more lives and billions of pounds will be wasted to no effect. War is not the answer, try something else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 The question of who should govern is a matter for the Afghan people to decide. Nobody else should choose . And no western government went into Afghanistan to 'sort out the place' for the betterment of their own people or the Afghan people. It was initially simply to get Bin Laden. Then they made the mistake of going after the Taliban. Comparisons with what Britain and Russians did are not useful. They were fought for very different reasons. Afghanistan isn't producing countless forces. It is just difficult to find and kill the Taliban. They are on the move and sometimes difficult to identify. They also have a considerable degree of support, whether through coercion or not, from the civilians. Who turned down economic assistance and what are you asking about taking up arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.