G4S guard labels hero "baby killer".

reply to post by DaTroof


What does that prove? Just having a quick scan over that page shows me that 100,000 is not a "conservative" estimate, but actually rather higher up the scale. What also stands out is the amount of civilians killed by insurgent activity, not military. Those insurgents would be the hardcore Baathists and the even harder core Islamists fighting each other and the coalition.

You are presenting something as cold, hard evidence of your viewpoint, yet you clearly do not even understand what it is your using to back up your claims.

Now, while you use these figures, it does beg the question just how many people died in Iraq under Saddam? I know how many and it's a fudging lot more than even the most wild of estimates as to the civilian deaths post 2003.

While many of our military might not be branded 'hero', I certainly think they deserve respect. I am appalled that this security guard acted in this way, particularly from that company, an amalgamation of Securicor and Group 4, two of the worst companies in the business, how fitting they should merge!. I wonder if security is his second choice fallback for failing to get in the military? as is the case with many security guards, and don't knock me, I was in the security industry for close on 30 years at many levels and KNOW what many guards are like! often they failed a military medical or couldn't handle basic training but the uniformed life appeals to them! NOT ALL, BUT MANY!

If this guard was showing such hostility towards a soldier, why was this guard on Olympic duty? surely he could have been a weak linmk to any terrorist plan, all they had to do was suduce him with the number of 'baby killers' he would be ridding the world of!
I am disgusted and appalled!

reply to post by stumason


Thanks for that, yourself and a few subsequent posts reminded me to post these

Now these stats are taken from the people by the people
Then reported to the afghan council then handed to ISAF

Ok a few FACTS just to help a few of you

Security

Dec 2009 ana= 105000 (afghan army)
Aug 2011 ana= 171000
Same dates but police
86000 and then 130000
(plan to total 305000 by end 2011)
Ana has grown by 50% since nov 09
19 women graduated afghan mil college in may 2011
Police - 133 women patrolmen 4 nco's 8 officers 

First 6 months of 2011 civil deaths up to 1462 ( in that period ) 
80% to age's ( anti gov agencies )

Civil casualties by age up 28%
By isaf down 9%

Economy 

GDP of afghan 2011 up 8% 
2012 8.5 predicted

Elections 

Sept 10 elections 
2,500 candidates
249 seats 
400 women candidates( up from 328)
5.6 million votes cast (1.3 mil discounted )
Voter turn out was 35% ( 2006 US congressional was  37% ! )
39% were female

92% of 5987 stations were open
30% of seats held by women (69 seats out of 249 in lower house and 23 out of 102 in upper house )

3000 voters in nad Ali compared to 300 in 2009

Counter narcotics 
2009- 2010 48% drop in opium production
However due to prices 
438 mil usd in 2009
604 mil usd in 2010
Global rankings in opium production down from 66% to 63%
( 92% 2007 88% 2009 )

3787 hectares destroyed  by mid may 2011

April 10- march 11 
358% increase in heroine seizures
Arrested 157
77 were insurgents 

Education

Less than 1 mil in school in 2001 
Now 7.3 mil 38% female
9000 new schools totalling 12,500
Over 200000 new teachers
A seven fold demand for education
2001 - 4 teacher colleges
Now 38 and 78 district centres

 Health 
80% now live past age 5
2200 midwives
85% live near Baisicly health care 
Afghan has climbed up the human development index 
2009 ranked 181 out of 182 
2010 - 155 out of 169
Since fall of Taliban GDP tripled 

Other

Ontop of schools and work 

10000 attended a rock concert
75 tv channels 
175 radio stations 
( none under the Taliban )
Generally 59% say country is moving in right direction ( how many Americans can say that !)

Isaf enjoys 83% approval rating 
Taliban under 10%

54% feel they can influence their gov

64% say they are happy with their mp

74% believe elections have improved the country

62% say they are more prosperous than 5 years ago 

reply to post by DaTroof


But what put these people in power? We owe it to the afgan people to destroy them.

I wonder that if through inaction, you too are a 'baby-killer'?

Originally posted by Britrebel
I have to disagree about Iraq. That was a massive mistake. We killed more civilians directly or indirectly in Iraq than sadam ever did, or likely would have.

Rubbish. Human Rights watch put the estimated civilans killed by Saddam (such as Kurds, Shiites, Marsh Arabs etc) at close to 600,000. Add onto that the 500,000 that died during the Iran Iraq war.....

Originally posted by Britrebel
Our only legacy in Iraq is a war torn, 'civil' war-like state.

It isn't actually that bad. Have you been?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by DaTroof

 

What does that prove? Just having a quick scan over that page shows me that 100,000 is not a "conservative" estimate, but actually rather higher up the scale. What also stands out is the amount of civilians killed by insurgent activity, not military. Those insurgents would be the hardcore Baathists and the even harder core Islamists fighting each other and the coalition.

You are presenting something as cold, hard evidence of your viewpoint, yet you clearly do not even understand what it is your using to back up your claims.

Now, while you use these figures, it does beg the question just how many people died in Iraq under Saddam? I know how many and it's a fudging lot more than even the most wild of estimates as to the civilian deaths post 2003.

Well, clearly you can't read. There's more to the article than the first chart.

I don't care how many Iraqis/Kurds/Kuwaitis died under Saddam's rule.That's none of our business.

The ONLY reason Saddam Hussein was being targeted as a villain was because of the slant drilling enacted and Kuwait refused to repay Saddam. Learn some history.

reply to post by Britrebel


I'm sorry, did China help us during the US Revolutionary War? How about Spain? No?

Then how come these supposedly strong-willed people can't handle their own revolutions? Then they don't deserve them.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Well, clearly you can't read. There's more to the article than the first chart.

Indeed, I was far more interested in some of the bits towards the end. I can read quite fast, you know. Never the less, what you presented is highly contentious and there isn't even agreement between anyone as to the actual figure. You presented it as fact, which it isn't and you misrepresented is evidence the military caused those deaths, when they didn't.

Originally posted by DaTroof
I don't care how many Iraqis/Kurds/Kuwaitis died under Saddam's rule.That's none of our business.

Wooah... You should care, these were fellow Human beings and Saddam was a monster. In the case of a good many of them, they rose up hoping for our support after 1991 and we didn't back them up, we owed it to Iraq. I know the whole WMD argument was rubbish, but I would have supported the War if they had just said it was to oust Saddam.

Originally posted by DaTroof
The ONLY reason Saddam Hussein was being targeted as a villain was because of the slant drilling enacted and Kuwait refused to repay Saddam. Learn some history.

Don't presume I don't know "History", I'm fully aware of the slant drilling accusations and Albrights apparent green light to invade Kuwait.. I know about Rumsfeld and his meeting with Saddam, the chemicals and dual use items we sold them to make the WMD in the first place and our support for them in the Iran-Iraq war. If you're going to be a pompous arse and presume things, you'll be brought down a peg or too.

reply to post by stumason


I must confess to get the numbers seriously wrong, for some reason I thought the Iraq body count was at 2 million. Where I got that number from I'll never know???

But still we have left Iraq with a 'sort of war' between Shia and #e. Which seems to be killing civilians on a daily basis.

Originally posted by DaTroof
I'm sorry, did China help us during the US Revolutionary War? How about Spain? No?

No, France did!! Without who's help the revolution would have been squashed. If it wasn't for the fact we were fighting them at home as well as in North America and that they were selling you weapons and other supplies, your rich mans rebellion (which is what it was - it wasn't about "freedom") would have been a footnote in history.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Then how come these supposedly strong-willed people can't handle their own revolutions? Then they don't deserve them.

Very few revolutions will succeed without some sort of outside assistance. The US revolution was no different.

reply to post by Britrebel


I believe those are the more extreme estimates which seem to hold the coalition responsible for all heart attacks, cancer deaths, strokes and car accidents since 2003...

no harm done

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Britrebel

 

I'm sorry, did China help us during the US Revolutionary War? How about Spain? No?

Then how come these supposedly strong-willed people can't handle their own revolutions? Then they don't deserve them.

No but France did!

The people of afganistan to not have the means to destroy the Taliban. Now I'm not naive, I know that is not the main reason we are in afgan but as a bi product is it not worth it?

"we are not the world police" but as the richest nations in the world, is it not our duty to be?

reply to post by DaTroof


Perhaps you should look at what countries DID help ?

Come to think of it Spain did actually help!

reply to post by DaTroof

I don't care how many Iraqis/Kurds/Kuwaitis died under Saddam's rule.That's none of our business.

Hmm - pretty telling.

Iraq was mis-sold to us, of that there is no doubt - and Blair should be prosecuted for that.

But morally, could we sit back and continue to allow Saddam to slaughter innocents at will and with impugnity?

We screwed up in the complete mis-handling of the aftermath and trying to impose a government and system upon the Iraqi people that they didn't want.

What exactly do you care about considering you see fit to excuse and support the actions of this G4S guard who was expressing his disgust at the deaths of what he perceives to be innocents yet 'don't care' about the deaths of well over half a million other innocent people.

Your views seem quite hypocritical and reek of double standards.

reply to post by Freeborn


Allow me to clarify...

If someone in another country is killing his own people, we have ZERO obligation to interfere. ZERO.

If Americans are killing civilians of ANY country, that's deplorable, and the entire military should be disbanded.

reply to post by EvanB


Oh come on. They only do those things so the military can travel with ease and have clean water. They don't do it for the people. If you need evidence of what the military thinks and how they treat the civilians just look at the Daewood Military Hospital scandal.

I would say this soldier has more of a hand in killing innocent civilians than he does being any type of hero.

reply to post by DaTroof


So what if the American government started indiscriminately killing it's civilains and Britian offered to help the populous of the US in their fight back. Would you turn them away?

reply to post by DaTroof


Quite the isolationalist viewpoint used to support your hypocrisy and double standards.

And as this took place in the UK, and it was a UK citizen expressing his opinion, quite disgustingly in my personal opinion, to a UK soldier, then it's totally irrelevant what American policy is - the world does not revolve around the USA.

Personally I think we have a moral and ethical obligation to prevent mass murder whenever possible - now how we go about that is open to debate and doesn't necessarily mean I support military intervention.
What pisses me off just as much is the lies and deceit that our 'leaders' use in vindicating their actions and the total inconsistency in their policies.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Don't compare the US military to the UK...

Just saying, each has it's own way of doing things.

But you are quite wrong they only build stuff so it makes life easy for the Army, so very wrong in fact. The average squaddie comes back looking like death warmed up, having lost loads of weight and living in quite nasty conditions for 6 months. In the meantime, we've been building dams, schools, clinics, roads.... These were for the military, were they? Don't be an arse.