Afghanistan plans gas pipeline
BBC News | BUSINESS | Afghanistan plans gas pipeline
Afghan pipeline project will start by mid-2003
Afghan pipeline project will start by mid-2003 - News - Afghanistan.org
^ It's a little more then just made up.
What Should American Goals be in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Afghanistan plans gas pipeline
BBC News | BUSINESS | Afghanistan plans gas pipeline
Afghan pipeline project will start by mid-2003
Afghan pipeline project will start by mid-2003 - News - Afghanistan.org
^ It's a little more then just made up.
FALSE.
By then it was already long over and US Combat troops were pretty much gone.
Poor attempt to spin and it doesn't change the fact that you want Canada to run away and lose.
Yep, war is just like an investment account; when things are swirling in the bowl, always invest more in the same stocks! Average down, average down!
But, the tough-talking sideline soldiers always average down with someone else's lives. FaaawwwK!
Oh I know nothing has been done yet.... because the place is still a hell hole and there isn't enough security to build and maintain the pipeline..... go figure.
But that doesn't mean the ideas, plans and objectives were all simply made up for argument's sake...... just like Saddam's WMDs. Just because they never existed doesn't mean they wern't part of the main reason for invasion.
Oh I know nothing has been done yet.... because the place is still a hell hole and there isn't enough security to build and maintain the pipeline..... go figure.
But that doesn't mean the ideas, plans and objectives were all simply made up for argument's sake...... just like Saddam's WMDs. Just because they never existed doesn't mean they wern't part of the main reason for invasion.
My point was that the War in Afghanistan had nothing to do with bolstering the US economy. Afghanistan is a wasteland and the "idea" of a pipeline being an excuse to go to war is crazy. Even if there is a pipeline someday the idea that the US will benefit from it over it's expenditures in the war is not sound at all.
I know it's not sound..... it's not sound one bit..... which follows right along with the rest of Bush's decisions
Canada had nothing to lose (except maybe 100+ lives) as we should have never been there in the first place. So Spade you're right. Once the objective is uncovered as ludicrous, pour more troops and money in to try and make it seem less ludicrous. I can't believe our gov't believes the populace is that naive
There's nothing to lose. It is the American's that are so paranoid about losing. They're stuck in that "shame of Vietnam" mentality and will continue to pour in more and more troops until (once again) the streets of Detroit, LA and New York will be inflamed with protesters
Duh!!! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.... That should be the motto egraved at West Point and Annapolis It will take another 60,000+ KIA or MIA before the USA turns tail and "beats feet" for the bushes...tail tucked firmly between their legs?
"The Vietnam War required us to emphasize the national interest rather than abstract principles. What President Nixon and I tried to do was unnatural. And that is why we didn't make it."
Henry A. Kissinger
Even a common criminal like Nixon could admit he screwed up. Still wait for Dubya admission of guilt....
Henry A. Kissinger
Even a common criminal like Nixon could admit he screwed up. Still wait for Dubya admission of guilt....
Another gem. Why would the US "need" to know what was going on in the war.....
Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
William Westmoreland
Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
William Westmoreland
Short answer, kill Taliban and Al Qeada. Kill'em all and then have a good look around here for their supporters.
Keep telling yourself that Tyr. Maybe it will ease the pain of losing if you get your wish.
Oooo, eee, ahhhh... so paranoid... Vietnam ... hurt me... hurt me.
But it looks like you will be ok with a defeat so don't sweat it!
Please... spare me. The anti-war movement is nill here... non-existent. Not even a shadow of what it was like during Vietnam.
Duh is right. You've been one big DUH since you showed up here.
The casualty count in Afghanistan is 1,053 since 2001. About 131 per year. Now how many years will it take us to get to 60,000?
But go ahead...run away!
ummm. sure. Ok.
Do they have a specific "tatto" or something to tell them apart. I mean we are talking about ohh... somewhere around 8 million people and they have to have some sort of very specific identifier. Maybe a nose ring or a secret handshake?:roll:
Do we go after them in Pakistan??? That'll add one or two million. How about the former soviet republics? Gotta be a million or so there?
Why go to all that effort. 100 nuclear devices could turn the area into molten glass and poof!! Problem solved
Then we could at least start the pipeline without the pesky natives around:?:
I guess the civilian murdes were just collateral damage
Aggregation of estimatesYearCivilians killed as a result of insurgent actionsCivilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actionsCivilians killed as a result of the war2001n/a
- The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign[4], and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes.[5]
- The Los Angeles Times found that in a 5-month period from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 civilian deaths from the bombing campaign reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services.[6]
- A 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion.[7]
- Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated that in the 20-month period between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003, at least 3,100 to 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S.-led forces.[8]
- 2001-2003 direct deaths: at least 3,100 to 3,600
- 2001-2003 indirect deaths: at least 3,200 - 20,000
- 2001-2003 direct & indirect deaths: 6,300 - 23,600
- direct civilian deaths: at least 3,100 to 3,600
- indirect civilian deaths: at least 3,200 - 20,000
- direct & indirect civilian deaths: 6,300 - 23,600
- Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 408-478 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.[9]
- direct civilian deaths: at least 408 to 478
- indirect civilian deaths: n/a
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 699 Afghan civilians were killed by various insurgent forces in 2006.[10]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 230 Afghan civilians were killed by US or NATO attacks in 2006: 116 by airstrikes and 114 by ground fire.[11]
- Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 653-769 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.[9]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict in 2006.[10] In all, they estimated more than 4,400 Afghans (civilians and militants) were killed in conflict-related violence in 2006, twice as many as in 2005.[12]
- An Associated Press tally based on reports from NATO, coalition, and Afghan officials, estimated 4,000 Afghans (civilians and militants) were killed in 2006.[12]
- Indirect civilian deaths: n/a
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 950 Afghan civilians were killed by various insurgent forces in 2007.[10]
- The UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) estimated that 700 Afghan civilians were killed by anti-government elements in 2007.[13]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 434 Afghan civilians were killed by US or NATO attacks in 2007: 321 by airstrikes and 113 by ground fire. Another 57 civilians were killed in crossfire, and 192 died under unclear circumstances.[11]
- The UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) estimated that 629 Afghan civilians were killed by international and Afghan forces in 2007.[13]
- Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 1,010-1,297 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.[9]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict in 2007.[10]
- The UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) estimated that more than 1,500 Afghan civilians died as a direct result of armed conflict in 2007.[13]
- Indirect civilian deaths: n/a
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 367 Afghan civilians were killed by various insurgent forces in the first seven months of 2008.[10]
- An Associated Press tally of figures from Western and Afghan officials, released in August 2008, estimated that 536 civilians had been killed by militants so far in 2008.[14]
- The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported in September 2008 that 800 Afghan civilians had been killed by Taliban and other insurgent forces in the first eight months of 2008 - including 330 in the month of August alone, the highest number of civilians to die from the conflict in a single month since the initial invasion.[15]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 173 Afghan civilians were killed by US or NATO attacks in the first seven months of 2008: 119 by airstrikes and 54 by ground fire. This number did not include the 8/22 airstrikes that, according to the Afghan government and the U.N. killed 90 civilians, the vast majority of which were women and children.[11]
- An Associated Press tally of figures from Western and Afghan officials, released in August 2008, estimated that 158 civilians had been killed by international forces so far in 2008, and that another 11 civilans had died in cross fire. These numbers did not include the 8/22 airstrikes that the U.N. and the Afghan government found killed 60 children and 30 adult civilians.[14]
- The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported in September 2008 that 577 Afghan civilians had been killed by U.S., NATO, and Afghan government forces in the first eight months of 2008.[15]
- Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 573-674 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions in the first eight months of 2008. Another 55 were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions from Sept. 1-19, 2008.[9]
- Human Rights Watch estimated at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict in the first seven months of 2008.[10]
- An Associated Press tally of figures from Western and Afghan officials, released in August 2008, estimated that 705 civilians had been killed so far in 2008.[14]
- The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported in September 2008 that 1,445 Afghan civilians had been killed in the first eight months of 2008.[15]
- Indirect civilian deaths: n/a
- direct deaths: at least 1,766 - 2,449
- direct deaths: at least 4,800 - 6,873
- indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
- direct & indirect deaths: 8,000 - 26,873
- direct deaths: at least 6,069 - 7,607
- indirect deaths: 3,200 - 20,000
- direct & indirect deaths: 9,269 - 27,607
- indirect deaths after initial invasion: n/a
Civilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actions (Total of available estimates, lower - upper)
Civilians killed as a result of the war (Total of available estimates, lower - upper)