infrogmation | Today's News: The Figures Are In. The USA Wins.

You're viewing

infrogmation's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Two items from today's news:

From CNN: "The death toll from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center has been revised down to 3,050, the New York Office of Emergency Management said Saturday. "
Source(at bottom of page)

From CommonDreams: "More than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, according to a study to be released December 10 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire. "
Source

So, apparently, we've killed more innocent civilians in a nation with less than 1/10th the population of the USA than the terrorists killed on 11 September.

Do we get to declare victory now?

Will I be forgiven if I decline to wave a flag and shout "USA! USA!" in celebration of this news?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

infrogmation.livejournal.com

" I would appreciate references"

Sure thing. I've posted a number of 'em in various places, like the

antiwar and

nonviolent communities, and I think some on Devi's journal a while back, but I guess not on my own journal.

How Long Is The War Expected To Last?

Colin Powell BBC interview, 23 Sept:
"I think that it [the war] will certainly be years and I think its a campaign that will probably continue for as long as I can imagine."
http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=SS01037052&feed=N

"We may be involved in a war that will take generations" -- General Merrill McPeak, PBS Newshour, Mon 24 Sept

The vice president bluntly said: "It is different than the Gulf War was, in the sense that it may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."
-- Dick Cheney, 20 Oct '01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27452-2001Oct20.html

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "this kind of military action may last indefinitely"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,582386,00.html

Hmmm, I don't seem to have Rumsfield making a similar statement in that folder (just him mentioning "over 60 countries" and refusing to rule out use of nukes).

Here's one I concider particularly interesting though a bit subtle, from President Bush:

"Look, I understand the political consequences of making tough decisions. You mark my words, people are going to get tired of the war on terrorism. And by the way, it may take more than two years. There's a variety of theaters. So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war. And so I've asked -- you said one or two years. I envision something taking longer than that."
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1017-106.html

"So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war." It's not the time frame per say that I find so interesting as the admission that the goal is defense of established governments (rather than, say, citizens).

I look on quotes like these as instances of the administration being a bit more honest than was intended before a more palatable spin can be announced.

From:

holywar.livejournal.com

"How Long Is The War Expected To Last?"

You know, one thing that I've been wondering about that I haven't heard explicity spelled out is what is meant by "War on Terrorism". Right now, obviously, it's war in the traditional sense of the word. But once we finish up what we're doing in Afghanistan, is it going to stay in its same form, or will the "War on Terrorism" become like the "War on Drugs"? Of course, we all know how well the War on Drugs is going...

"Rumsfield...refusing to rule out use of nukes"

Now that one I've GOT to see. There was an article on one of the news sites a few weeks ago where a Senator was suggesting tactical nukes for the caves in Afghanistan (I can try and find it again if you haven't seen it), but I hadn't seen Rumsfeld's statement. It was probably along the same lines, but I'd still like to see it.

Thanks for the references. Should be some interesting reading.

From:

infrogmation.livejournal.com

""Rumsfield...refusing to rule out use of nukes"
Now that one I've GOT to see."

Sure. And a couple others too:

Nukes?

Thomas Woodrow of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said it was "Time to use the nuclear option." (Washington Times, 14 Sept)

Two days later Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield refused to rule out
use of nukes in an interview with Sam Donldson of ABC :
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09162001_t0916sd.html

18 Oct: Rep. Buyer Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/wrtv/20011018/lo/929540_1.html