====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Rakesh writes: "Ron J gives us data from 2008, but forgets to add that in 2009 the civilian deaths caused by anti-government forces have doubled. This is not quite as laughable an error as sartesian's hallucinations about the motive power of anti-Russian animus. The syllogism that Ron J provides is however a real gem; Ron J makes the elementary error of confusing the validity with the truth of the argument (where for example does he prove the NATO intervention is an act of, or in the service of, imperialism?)" Without going into an argument about who is bombastic or a debate about methods of debate, my response is two fold: I at least provided some data regarding the number of casualties. Rakesh provides none. However, here is more from the UN "UNAMA recorded 1,013 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2009, an increase of 24 per cent as compared to the same period in 2008. Of these, 59 per cent (595 deaths) were due to Anti Government Entities and 30.5 per cent (310 deaths) to Pro Government Forces. " Of course, these numbers don't tell us how accurate the figures are, because they don't tell us how one determines a civilian. In addition, they do not tell us how many of the resistance deaths are of men who were civilians a year ago, but have since joined the resistance (and are no longer counted as civilian). Nor do they tell us how many of these deaths are related to the drug trade and other illegal activities. As to whether or not the US war there is imperialistic. Let's see, the US is there to protect its security interests as perceived by its government. The government in Afghanistan was created, built and is maintained by the US. The control of Afghanistan is part of the strategy to create a ring of military bases around China and Russia subscribed to by the US government--the Pax Americana outlined by the PNAC and by the Democrats. AND---The US military is in the country, acting within rules it has set for itself, taking over land from Afghans to build its bases, destroying the countryside and the homes of Afghans, killing Afghans at will, cajoling, threatening and otherwise ensuring that the puppet government Washington installed does the bidding of Washington (or loses its position if it fails to do so)...etc. To me, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks like imperialism and acts like a foreign occupation, it's imperialism. Those who say the US military presence ensures the continuation of the resistance are right. So why doesn't the US leave? It's not just about Al Queda or the Taliban. It's about the desire of the US to control the region for its own reasons--political and otherwise. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
