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

[infrogmation]

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?

Comments

Re: Next in line.

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

"Talk is cheap. The whole idea is to put these countries on the List, and say "You're not doing enough to wipe out islamic extremism/international terrorism in your country, and it's affecting us, now, to the point that if you don't act, we will." The threat will be plenty in most cases, and just that'll go a long way towards solving the problem."

Hmm. Possibly. Threats in hopes that action won't be necessary may well be part of it. I just think that another part of it is that certain people in the administration & military leadership want war, long term or even perpetual if possible. There are no doubt others in the administration who do not want this. But the warmongers got their hopes up that the terrorists attacks of 11 Sept would give them an excuse to get what they wanted. I fear we may get the perpetual war they want if the public lets them get away with it.

"Pulling out of Israel and Saudi and Nicaragua will not solve the problem. Pulling into the border won't solve the problem."

What problem are you refering to?
I'm really not sure what exactly you're refering to with those three different countries. I'll wait for an explanation before replying.

Re: Next in line.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

But the warmongers got their hopes up that the terrorists attacks of 11 Sept would give them an excuse to get what they wanted. I fear we may get the perpetual war they want if the public lets them get away with it.

You're not the only one with that fear; I refer not to myself but the ones who have been and will be holding the warmongers in check. The fact that you mention the Phillipines is what makes me think it's all a threat. I find it tremendously difficult to think Americans would support bombing on the Phillipines, and even more difficult to think that the Phillipines wouldn't go WAY out of their way to avoid it.

[Israel and Saudi and Nicaragua]
What problem are you refering to?
I'm really not sure what exactly you're refering to with those three different countries.

The reason that was vague is twofold. First, it was 1AM, on a relatively sleepless Sunday. Second, it's difficult to attempt to create a solution to problems that would satisfy the humanitarian progressives (as I generalize your position: saving and improving human lives is the most important thing), non-interventionists, and nationalist sorts such as myself.

Personally I don't think Nicaragua was the travesty Chomsky makes it out to be, thanks in part to US intervention. Thanks to his own reputation--branding, practically-- I can't not think of Chomsky every time I encounter a (what I call) humanitarian progressive such as yourself. So Nicaragua is in the back of my mind. I see it as an example where US intervention enabled a lot of people to do themselves some good. No, the ends don't justify the means. There's no justice in even the most necessary conflicts. But I'm over it.

Israel and Saudi are the two countries in which the US has involved itself, much to the chagrin or rage of each: a great portion of Muslims, of leftists, and of non-interventionists. It has been suggested, both by the left and by Osama Bin Laden (seriously, I'm just saying they have parallel ideas, not suggesting they are parallel in any other way), that if the US were to pull out of Israel and Saudi that terrorism would stop.

I find that completely unbelievable. Not only would terrorism continue as long as Israel exists, but there'd be wars. And I don't see how anyone who believes in preserving human lives (not pointing specifically at you, Froggy, but I've got two fingers pointed at Chomsky) can support a position that would inevitably lead to war: Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Kuwait and SA. And Bahrain, what the hell.

Central America

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

Aaargh.

You might not want to get me started on what the USA gov't got up to in Central America over the past 30 years. I have a hard time thinking of programs that so purely caused unnecessary harm and dammaged their own announced intended goals.

In Nicaragua we had a very rare chance for peacefull democratic change to undo much of the dammage done by decades of support for the Somosa family dictatorship. Instead we went for a policy that left the country in smoldering ruins after years of unnecessary war. I can only assume it was done for some domestic reasons or political posturing, if there was any reason at all.