The Civilian toll of War

[a_majoor]

Interesting......

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

If he sees these numbers, why not try a little harder to do something about them?

 

[a_majoor]

The reduction of civilian casualties from the 180,000 (plus military casualties from Iraqi agression) during the Saddam era to 30,000 sees to be a huge improvement to me. The drop in Afghanistan from 1,000,000 to 15,000 is pretty remarkable. The United States also reduced the carnage in the Balkans from 200,000 in Bosnia (and God alone knows how many more in Serbia, Croatia, Slovania etc.) to effectively zero.

Since they do not have unlimited resources, they pick and choose (as do we all) efforts which have the most impact on their interests. I think a Bravo Zulu to them is in order.

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

OK, I must have misinterpreted that graph, that is pretty remarkable, I always thought that all this was unnecessary, and just causing even more casualties.

 

[UberCree]

Despite internal interests being involved, I think it is still sad that the two numbers that jump out are / were preventable with propper use of force; Rwanda and Sudan (I have read numbers way higher than 180k for Sudan).  Countries like Canada that supported Sudan for years (Talisman Energy of Calgary Alberta as an example with full support of Loyd Axworthy as Foreign Affairs minister took advantage of the US embargo that prevented any US corporations from dealing with Sudan.) share responsibility with those countries that have the capability to act yet do not.
Preventing genocide is in everyones self-interest. 

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

Like Rwanada, no one wanted to help but Canadians and the Dutch, one who never should have been there (Dutch), and the other so financialy under presure, and were told toget out and let it happen by the US, because it wasn't a meaningful, useful, and quote "over populated" poor country, but yet, several countries sent over a couple thousand troops each to rescue their civilians, but left the Rwanadas for dead... God bless the rich :-\

 

[Long in the tooth]

The great irony is that those most in favour of intervention in humanitarian crises seem to be the ones less supportive of a robust military that might be able to do something about it.  Must be the water.

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

The great irony is that those most in favour of intervention in humanitarian crises seem to be the ones less supportive of a robust military that might be able to do something about it.   Must be the water.

I never did, or will get those people who cry for something to be done, but are against military intervention, even if it is the best, or only resort..

 

[Gunnerlove]

Why would the president need to rely on media reports? I thought his military was supposed to keep track of that kind of thing and send the info up the chain.

 

[a_majoor]

Since the media insists on relentlessly promoting the "100,000' civilian deaths figure, I think the President was simply correcting their hyperbole with the factual evidence the forces on the ground have been able to collect.

 

[Armymedic]

Like Rwanada, no one wanted to help but Canadians and the Dutch, one who never should have been there (Dutch), and the other so financialy under presure, and were told toget out and let it happen by the US, because it wasn't a meaningful, useful, and quote "over populated" poor country, but yet, several countries sent over a couple thousand troops each to rescue their civilians, but left the Rwanadas for dead... God bless the rich :-\

It was the Belgians in Rwanada.

 

[UberCree]

Rwanada.

Fruedian slip...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Fruedian slip...

It was the Belgians in Rwanada.

And perhaps another, had we invaded.