Death at a Distance: The Secret U.S. Air War in Afghanistan and Iraq

Death at a Distance: The Secret U.S. Air War in Afghanistan and Iraq

www.alternet.org

The result of the stepped up air war, according to the London-based organization Iraq Body Count, is an increase in civilian casualties. A Lancet study of "excess deaths" caused by the Iraq war found that air attacks were responsible for 13% of the deaths -- 76,000 as of June 2006 -- and that 50% of the deaths of children under 15 were caused by air strikes.

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan from air strikes has created a rift between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the UN

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.iraqbodycount.org
www.truthout.org
deoxy.org
www.atimes.com

Collateral casualties caused by increased use of air strikes and missiles is the main focus of this article, and it also states that the US is in breach of Articles 48 and 50 of the Geneva Convention.

It seems strange that this should surface at a time when Bush has been talking about pulling out US troops - is the focus now going to be inflicting damage by other means on insurgents, without regard to the civilian populations of the 2 countries?
Judging by recent news, it does appear that way, and this could lead to an escalation of anti US feelings throughout the middle east.

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why put forces on the ground when you can just kill the whole area from the air? We have the laziest military force in the history of the planet.

It's too difficult to avoid when waging war. What does the world expect when someone invades a country?

The insurgents have done specific attacks on civilians inside Iraq killing thousands. On 9/11 the attack was directed towards civilians specifically. Yet, the focus is on what where the US drops bombs are in an area that has pre warning being designated as a war zone.

If you are around guys with guns who are not the US or Iraqi government troops, you will be targeted and killed. It’s as simple as that
No other military in the world has attempted an invasion that puts an emphasis on preventing collateral damage as much as the US has in the history of mankind, yet its is scrutinized for it.

If the rest of the world wants to stop collateral damage cause by the US, then more international forces should step up to the plate and come into Iraq to help stabilize it. Until then everyone should feel lucky the US didn’t carpet bomb and genocide the whole country.

In my opinion the US tried to be too nice with these wars, and it's backfiring on them now. They should have been ruthless from the beginning so it would be over with by now.

reply to post by psperos




are you serious???
The US shouldn't be there in the first place!
Iraq has never been about 9/11 - it's always been about OIL and the greed of Bush and his cronies.
The article is about blanket bombing - that is what the US is doing, in order to avoid losing more troops in an illegal invasion of a sovereign country that they invaded for money.
Try looking past what Bush tells you

Just shows why an occupation like this is impossible to carry out effectively. We're looking at a large-scale rebellion of the Iraqi people - complete with tactics similar to those the forefathers of our (if you're American) nation used. I wasn't sure in the past, but now, after reading reports and whatnot, there is almost no doubt in my mind that there is nothing short of a massive revolt. Not as unified as the American Revolution, as they were never really a unified people anyway (different sects that should have never been part of the same country - thanks, Britain).

We defeated Saddam Hussein, we installed a new government. Our mission was accomplished. Now that the people have resorted to violence in an attempt to gain some sovereignty, it's time to get out and go home. It was an idiotic move to invade Iraq in the first place, and every second we spend there is just more waste of money, morality, and human life.

Originally posted by budski
The article is about blanket bombing - that is what the US is doing, in order to avoid losing more troops in an illegal invasion of a sovereign country that they invaded for money.
Try looking past what Bush tells you

If we were blanket bombing, then there be nothing left alive in either country eh? What did the article said 13% of all the casualties from the bombings? Why not 100%?

reply to post by deltaboy


Perhaps I should have been clearer and said the start of blanket bombing - which is what is happening in Afghanistan. And as far as that country goes, maybe there's a reason for being there.
But Iraq? No - as the level of civilian casualties rises, so the rest of the middle east will become involved more at a diplomatic level, and on a propoganda level, until the whole region is ready to explode against the US.
If you think it's bad now, wait until the civilian body count becomes higher - old dubya may release the beast yet, and that will be his legacy.

reply to post by budski


If you invent a bomb that can discriminate between civilians and military that be great. Otherwise you will see this in any war that is fought in urban areas. After all we don't choose the battlefields.

reply to post by deltaboy


Thats the whole point - the US shouldn't be there, and neither should we.
If the country wasn't illegally occupied, then none of this would be an issue.
Bombing urban area's is tantamount to murder.

Originally posted by budski
Bombing urban area's is tantamount to murder.

So was firebombing Tokyo during WW2 but nobody was complaining.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by budski
Bombing urban area's is tantamount to murder.

So was firebombing Tokyo during WW2 but nobody was complaining.

Well I think it was more acceptable back then because the Japanese were seen as the evil yellow peril less than human. Maybe that is the tactic the US should have taken when protraying Iraqi's.

however what the article is really stating is how these cowardly insurgents are causing the death of civilians by hiding amongst them hoping that the US will be hamstrung by its humanity enoough that they will be safe. Sometimes the US does what has to be done ( a bomb ), unfortunately if they dod what had to be done all the time, there would be alot less insurgents around and their families.

reply to post by deltaboy


A completely different scenario - what did the iraqi's ever do to us? and if you say about al'qaeda I'll know your just ignorant.

This was an unjustified invasion of a country that had done nothing to the US or UK - and now we're murdering civilians, all in the name of oil.

Originally posted by budski
This was an unjustified invasion of a country that had done nothing to the US or UK - and now we're murdering civilians, all in the name of oil.

You know in hindsight, Saddam should have been left in power rearmed and kicked Iran's ass. I fail to see how everyone always shouts oil when talking about Iraq, the US has spent far far more in Iraq than they can ever retrieve from the oile there. Also if they wanted oil it would hvae been very easy to make a deal with Saddam, almost too easy.

Originally posted by budski

A completely different scenario - what did the iraqi's ever do to us? and if you say about al'qaeda I'll know your just ignorant.

This was an unjustified invasion of a country that had done nothing to the US or UK - and now we're murdering civilians, all in the name of oil.

People say the same thing for Afghanistan. Guess because Al Qaeda is not a nation we tend to do things the same when we fight our enemies head on instead of individuals. After all the people who attacked us used airliner planes and not fighter bombers.

reply to post by deltaboy


Now I KNOW you have to be joking - show me evidence that iraq and it's people had anything at all to do with 911 - what's that? you can't?

You know you're trying to justify that which has no justification - the fact is that your president is a warmongerer who wanted to finish the job for his dad.

reply to post by mad scientist


Who said oil for the nation?
This is about bush's blind ambition and greed - nothing else - you think he cares anything for the american people? He cares only about his own enrichment.

reply to post by budski


Let me ask you this...do you support the invasion of Afghanistan? Why or why not.

reply to post by deltaboy


When you have the decency to answer my question then I'll answer yours.
Until such time as you can back up your argument and answer the questions posed instead of making a series of beligerrent soundbites I see no need to answer any of your questions.

Originally posted by budski

Who said oil for the nation?
This is about bush's blind ambition and greed - nothing else - you think he cares anything for the american people? He cares only about his own enrichment.

And how is he getting rich ? Have you thought about any of this or are you easily led by headlines and highly subjective and speculative articles ?