Foreign Wars?

[JiJoMacLE45]

[This is not meant as a dig, so before any of you guys who are not from the US start ripping me about American imperialism and the world police thing, just calm down.]

Not including the UK, when was the was the last time a European nation was involved in a major military conflict w/o US military involvement? And by military conflict, I do not mean a peacekeeping or humanitarian relief operation.

[Trigger]

Didn't the French go to war with Greenpeace? p-)

[Vance]

EDIT: Didnt read the question correctly.

[Lobo]

JiJoMacLE45, your question was easily understood. I don't find any problem about it.

If I'm not wrong since the end of World War 2 there hasn't been a war in West European soil. The only wars I can remember are those that took place in the former Yugoslavia during the 90s and Moldova, a former Soviet Union republic in 1992.

Beside those examples we could count a long list of wars, conflicts, skirmishes... in overseas territories.

[Kitsune]

As far as I know, there were several.
Algeria. France send hundreds of thousand soldiers there and between 1956 to 1958 it was a veritable war.
Then there was the Suez-crisis: 1956/57 France and Great Britain send troops to Egypt to subdue Nasser. The protest of the whole world including the USA forced them back. France also had its war in Indochina. But after Dien Bien Phu 1954 the French gave up. The UK of course had the war with Argentinia over the Falklands. Then there is the english/irish conflict in Northern Ireland, a long outdrawn affair, nearly a partisan war at its worst times. Spain, Italy and the scandinavian countries had no war they were involved in after WWII. Same goes for Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. The Swiss while having quite a capable army are sourrounded by friends for half a century now... in fact they havent been in a war since 150 years (but dealing with everyone hehe). WWII left Germany in a kind of Hyper-Vietnam-Syndrome state... after the two world wars it was really fed up with armed conflict of any kind, but nonetheless the divided germans had to live in the shadow of a possible WWIII for decades and with the distinct possibility to be the big looser of that one,too. So after the breakup of the Sovietunion they reduced their military budget (it is today, compared to their GDP, the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Luxemburg). Easrtern Europe has just left the shadow of the Warsaw Pact. Hungary for example had a real partisan war with soviet troops in 1956 (must really been a nice year that one) they in fact overcame their soviet oppressors. They hoped for US support to prevent the soviets from coming back....none came. The Russians came back with lots of tanks and crushed the revolt. In Lithuania, Lattvia, Estonia there was a huge partisan movement just after WWII. They fought against soviet troops who had "liberated" their countries (from the Germans) and stayed there (as new supressors). From the forests of their countries tens of thousand of Estonians /Lithuanians/Latvians fought against the Soviets for almost 10 years, hoping for US or British help...none came. The Revolt was finally crushed in the mid 50ties.

JiJo...Europe has had its share of wars in the 20. Century. And before it, going back thousands of years. It is something of an eternal battlefield.
Compared to this America has been quite peaceful. Perhaps that explains why Europeans think different about war. They have experienced it. Not like the US from a distance (as far as the US civilians are concerned) but firsthand. And not only as the eternal victors. Also as the vanquished.
And war is a hundred times worse if you loose it.


So be patient America !
Old Europe needs a rest.



p-)

[Lobo]

kitsune, you are using a different and very wide concept of war.

Talking about involvement in overseas conflicts the "Britain's Small Wars" websites lists British involvement in conflicts in: India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and many more.

France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal were involved in colonial wars and crisis also after World War 2.

[hood]

well, you're cheating because he said "Not including the UK" which makes it rather difficult to answer.

[JiJoMacLE45]

Kitsune I was not trying subliminaly imply that the Europeans do not fight wars. And it was not just a war fought in Europe, but a war involving European nations anywhere in the globe. Maybe I should have said that in my first post.

I was trying to prove a point. The last major 'war' I could recall being fought by a European nation w/o US involvement(like I said, excluding the UK) was the French and Algerian War in the fifties. There were also many skirmishes like Lobo pointed out in European colonies, and if my memory serves me right these took places in the 50's and 60's (i.e. Belgian Congo, etc). A few in the 70's and 80's, but these later ones were mainly different forces within these newly free governments fighting each other w/ support from their former parent state.

In the nearly fifty years since the French/Algerian War, the US(the USSR not withstanding) has probably been the most militarily active nation in the world. When it comes to protecting its interests and the interests of its allies, we're the first to fight. Other nations have stood by while atrocities occur, in their own neighborhoods(i.e. Balkans) waiting for the US to take the lead before they jump on the bandwagon.

My point is, since WWII the US has been the defacto military leader of the free world. I've said it before, when the UN dials 911, the phone rings in the Pentagon. So the free world has expected us to be this great protector and vanquisher of evil that it has bred us to be. Now when the military might of this nation is set to be put to use against a truly evil regime, the same nations that expected us to be their savior in their times of need, won't lift a finger to support us in a justified action that will effect our safety and way of life. What I'm saying is, the countries that do not support our efforts are the countries that made us the military force that we are. And now that we want to use that force, they get scared b/c they are afraid their own shortcomings will be exposed by our actions.

[Kitsune]

Ehem... do you think so?
I mainly mentioned conflicts (except Suez I admit) that costed thousands or even tens of thousand of lifes EACH. But ist difficult. If you stick to declared wars for example this has been a very peaceful planet since WWII! :D

Its interesting though how the people of this world perceive it. The world stood still when a mere 3000 Americans were killed 9th September 2001. But during the last years there was a sucession of wars in the heart of Africa. Civil wars. Partisan Wars. Very messy with no clear cut parties (and various western nations are involved in it, by backing the one or the other side. With weapons and money.) These perpetual warfare costed around 3 million lives during the last 5 to 10 years. And many people in America or Europe do not even know. Nor do they care. Is this fair?
On the other hand life is not fair, I know.

Sorry if I am a little harsh now. But on TV I keep on seeing smug Americans calling us Old Europeans sissies, time after time. I am fed up with it. If someone behaves like a sissie (a reeeeal biiiig sissie with a hell of a punch I admit...) it is America. "We are at War." LOL. Someone here said "it brought America down to its knees". Rubbish. US of A on its knees because of 9/11? Hardly. But America does not know how it is to be on ones knees, that is the point. Of course it was cruel to kill 3000 people (some were non americans...a few even germans iIhave not forgotten it). It was a huge crime. Yes. No one deserves it to die like this. And their families do not deserve it, either. But the US Air Force killed around the same number of innocents (yeah innocents) that weren't Taliban or Al Qaida in Afghanistan (we will never know the exact number. US Air Force stated that they will not make their studies on that topic public...an ominous sign). And, again this is interesting, no one cares in the US. But on the other hand...Afghans are not Americans. They should be used to die by the scores by now, shouldn't they?
There is really no reason for americans to think of themselves as tougher than anybody else. They simply are not. Or that they are the only ones who are behaving moralic whereas everyone else ('specially those dam frogs n krauts...*sneer') has only nefarious purposes for everything.

Well ok... I try to calm down. JiJo stated a warning at the beginning of this thread. Too late. :roll:


Let me add some personal details regarding my person. I am a German, A Rhinelander (the only Germans with humor lol). MY uncle, to be exact the man who married the sister of my mother, is american. He was stationed as a soldier here in Germany. He studied history and is in fact still here, as the head of a museum in northern Germany. As I grew up I spent many summers (the long school holidays, every 2 or 3 years) with his parents who lived in Memphis (Tennesse, not the one in Egypt). They became something like my third pair of grandparents. From age 17 on I spent some holidays travelling the states. Mostly alone with public transport (greyhound or railway)... even hitchhiking. I have seen a lot of the country (more than many US citizens I think) west and east, north and south and met many people. I especially like the folks in the mid west... country-side. In the movies they are usually depicted as morons (if there is a movie about them) but in fact they are a most decent and generous bunch of people (hospitable too), I instantly fell in love with.
To come to the end... I know America (a little bit of western Canada, too)and the Americans well. I have been there last summer, after 9/11. And I found a land changed somewhat. And I do not think its a change for the better. I first thought "well, it was quite a shock, they need time." But now i'm not so sure. In fact I am worried somewhat (worrying is a national german pastime anyway), that this could be a permanent change. Or even the beginning of a developement to something even worse.
Of course 9/11 was a tragedy. And I am not saying that there should be no consequences. But this emantion of fear and anger in the US today ...this thirst of revenge, this wave of naive patriotism, this is somewhat disturbing. And certain people in the higher echelons of governement seem to exploit this for their plans. (Sorry but this I came to believe).
I can't stop the feeiling that the US of A are on their way to a desaster, not because of this Iraq thing now, but in the years to come.

And I would not like this at all.


How did this start? Quite intersting how how some things literally want out.
But this here is much cheaper than a psychoanlyst...hehe


p-)

[Kitsune]

I just want to add this: As I started my "Article" JiJo's was not there. So what I wrote is NOT an answer to JiJos last post.


p-)

[JiJoMacLE45]

Your right Kitsune, we don't know how to be on our knees and if we do not act against those who plan to bring harm to us, whether it be terrorists or terrorist supporting states or nations that are a threat to our security, then we might take that blow that will not only put us on our knees, but possibly put us down for good.

[Kitsune]

My point was that you are simply overdoing it.
For example this talk that Iraq is a "threat to US security". That is hilarious garbage. It is simply incredible that so many Americans seem to believe it. But your governement seems to want you to believe it. But it is quite clear: This is a weak state. Not even a threat to Israel. Zahal alone could crush the Iraqi armed forces at any time. But american media keeps on stating that an attack on Iraq is some sort of self defense. Then there is the legalist reason that Iraq has ignored so many UN resolutions (and at the same time the US shows that they do not really care about the UN either, so why is it such a big deal if someone ignores it?). And all of a sudden its about the poor opressed people of Iraq that Bush wants to set free. Fact is there are a lot of opressed people out there no one cares about. Or dictators the US themselves back because of their interest.
So you really ask yourself why other nations have problems with it? Because it lacks believability, thats why.
Everyone understood Afghanisthan. The traces of 9/11 lead there, to Al Qaida. America wanted Osama Bin Laden. But the Taliban protected them. So the US crushed them. Europe (Germany and France included) backed it. Today Germans and Dutch are still there (each German soldier over there has to serve half a year in the basest conditions in "Camp Warehouse", and it will going on for at least two more years how it seems today). It was undestandable.
But Iraq? Well it is not connected to 9/11, no one says that. It is no threat (admit it...or do you really believe this sorry state not even in control of its own territoy is a threat to the mighty US of A?). And Saddams WMD? I am very interested what will happen. When the US boys step in and conquer Iraq. And find nothing. What excuses will the US government have for it?

Well we all will find out soon I think.
I think it starts next week.

I think the shock and the fear in the aftermarthof 9/11 is the real threat to the american people. Much worse than Saddam could ever be.



p-)

[warchild1/27scout]

old europe can kiss my ass. boycott the french

[Ratamacue]

Kitsune, what's so hard to believe about him having WMD's? He had them in the 1991 war, and very little has truly been accomplished with inspections in the past 12 years.

The fact is, the only way for people to understand that and back the war is if a SCUD lands in their backyard. Once that happens, we're going to have one of those amazing 100% backing in NATO and clap-every-5-second speeches from Bush and Blair.

[Mark Sman]

SPAIN
Spanish Revolution & Civil War 1936-1939
A brutal affairt with tons of foreign intrigue. German, russian, italian troops fought with the knowledge and support of their governements. Soldiers from many others countries without their gorvernments support.
Forerunner of worse to come in the near future for Europe.

CYPRUS
12/21 1963 Fighting breaks out, with scores of Greek and Turkish casualties on Cyprus.
8/8 1964 Fighting resumes between Greek and Turkish groups.
7/20 1974Turkey invades Cyprus, and Turkish Premier Bulent Ecevit declares that as a guarantor power, Turkey is justified in intervening to restore order and protect the territorial integrity of Cyprus.
8/14-8/16 1974 Turkish forces fight their way south and establish the Attila Line, thereby occupying the northern 37% of the island.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/cyprus/chr6094.htm

INDONESIA
Indonesia was one of the first countries to proclaim a republic in 1945, but the Dutch were unwilling to let their only Asian colony go and fought a bitter four- year war before finally withdrawing in 1949. Perhaps someone can find a link that tells the Duth side of this better, I just found this one link with a quick search.
http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah08.html

[awol6A]

hey Kitsune, are you so sure the U.S. killed thosuands of innocent people in Afghanistan? You mention this as if the U.S. has no regard for civilians on the battlefield. Hey, how many millions of innocent people did your family march into the gas chambers? What's wrong, Germany doesn't want to fight anyone unless they can slaughter unarmed civilians by the millions ??

[Kitsune]

I cannot absolutley sure about this, that is right.
A British journalist made a body count of innocent killed people as good as he could (he said). The list had more than 4000 names on it. But of course, this could be an error or a lie.

As I said, the US Air Force were also interested in the number of innocents killed. They made their research, but stated that their findings would not been made public. Usually they would make such studies public after some months or years, but I heared a Air Force Statement on TV that this would not happen with the Afghanisthan war studies.

If those studies would show that nearly no innocents died, why keep it under wraps?

[Kitsune]

@awol6A:

Believe it or not, my family did not march anybody in the gas-chambers. My parents were born after WWII. None of my Genadparents was member of the Nazi-Party, let alone the SS.

[a. enders]

German does NOT mean NAZI.Come on,you probably think those eeeeevil commies are out there waiting.Anyways,I have to agree with Kitsune.As a mid-westerner I'm constantly seeing these people who've gotten their undies in such a bunch over 9/11 and Iraq (not to say they shouldn't,but...) and are all gung-ho about going in and blasting all them damned Arabs.They don't want to listen to reason,they want to nuke them sumbitches.It makes me sick.Yeah,why shouldn't America be the biggest ****ing bully we can be?We have the power,why not?We can do whatever we want,right?
On the other hand,Saddam Hussein NEEDS to be dealt with and dealt with harshly.Right now,having heard what I've heard from Iraqui people who've survived or escaped,I don't care what the excuse is,he needs to be removed,preferrably (to me ) from existance.
I have to hand it to old Dubya,he seems to actually be striving for some kind of stand-down.Of course there's that part that thinks the policies to be met are something along the line of shaving every dog in Iraq in two hours or we invade.

......think I lost the point somewhere......damn

[Doc]

Well, that number is minimal. Collateral damage happens and no matter how hard someone tries or how smart someone makes a bomb, innocents die. That's just the way it is.

P.S. Why did the french plant trees along their roads?

So you germans could walk in the shade.

[Mark Sman]

Portugal Angola War 1907-1910
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/angola1907.htm

Riffian War
1911 - 1927 Rif War / Second Moroccan War
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/1909/
On a side note there are modern photos of these guys in the gallery.
4 Sep 1920 A Royal Order authorises the formation of the 'Tercio de Extranjeros' ('Regiment of Foreigners') - known popularly as 'La Legion'. Millán Astray commands, and Francisco Franco is his second in command.

The Russo-Polish War, 1919-1920
http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html
I left out the Winter War or Russo Finish War as that is part of WWII.

Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-36)http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/eat/ethiopia/fitalyethiopia1935.htm

Franco-Thai War (1940-41) WWII side note, but interesting
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~dpohara/thai.htm

Revolt in Madagascar 1947-1948
March 29, 1947, Malagasy nationalists revolted against the French
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/mike/mada1947.htm

Portugal Angola War 1961-1975
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/angola1961.htm

Portuguese East Africa
Mozambiquan War of Independence 1961-1975
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/mike/mozambique1962.htm

I skipped alot of stuff that has been mentioned above as well as stuff that hasn't. I mostly skipped the former USSR and modern Russia as well, with a couple of exceptions. I gave the UK a complete miss.

[rafaelcb]

The last 'real' war Spain was involved was in the Ifni Area of what is today Morocco-occupied Sahara in 1956-1957.

It was the first time the Spanish Paratroops saw combat, and also the first time a 'modern' automatic rifle (The CETME) was used in combat. The war was won and the territory was in peace until it was decolonized under UN pressure, just to be immediatlyb occupied by Morocco starting a 25+ years struggle for independence by the Saharauis.

A more modern version of the CETME was produced under licence by H&K (yes, they used the spanish design) and became known worldwide as the H&K G3



http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/1956/index.htm

[Mark Sman]

The primary source for the civilian casualty estimates cited in above messages appears to be -
Professor Marc W. Herold
Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc.
Departments of Economics and Women's Studies
McConnell Hall
Whittemore School of Business & Economics
University of New Hampshire
Durham, N.H. 03824, U.S.A.
FAX : 603 862-3383
Phone: 603 862-3375
mwherold@cisunix.unh.edu

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/dossier/herold12-6.html

The most salient part of this "dossier" is the footnotes, which shows these figures are mostly based on published reports. Ironic considering this quote from the abstract:
"Actions speak, and words [can] obscure: the hollowness of pious ****ouncements by Rumsfeld, Rice and the servile corporate media about the great care taken to minimize collateral damage is clear for all to see."
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/dossier/herold12-6.html#footnote21-30

This research and the dossier do not appear to be based on first-hand interviews or site surveys. It seems primarily based on second-hand sources, some credible, some not. There are many un-attributed quotes.

Whatever, read it and decide on your own.

Also anyone considering sending inflammatory/hate mail to Professor Marc W. Herold should not. I included his contact information because we are discussing one of his published reports, and as such he deserves attribution.

Also a very quick search revealed the following related reading:
Associated Press review of Afghan civilian casualties
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/020211king.html

Civilian Toll in US Raids Put at 1,000 - Boston Globe
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0217-03.htm

Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead The New York Times
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/020721filkins.html

Afghanistan: U.S. airstrikes were highly accurate, but hundreds of villagers still died. Los Angeles Times
http://www.globalexchange.org/september11/20020603_112.html

International Law and the Politics of Urban Air Operations
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1175/

[JiJoMacLE45]

Unfortunetly when your fighting a war, you are going to have non-combatants lose their lives. It is sad, but is one of those things that come with the territory. Especially when you are fighting a war where the only difference between the good guys and bad guys is their idealogical stances, there are no physical features to differentiate between a local Afghani villager and say an AQ terrorist. You also have to take into account how the various tribes are pitting US forces against their tribal enemies.

Warlord X, who has fought besides the Americans since the ground campaign started, says that the village over the ridge is controlled by the Taliban. So the calvary mounts up and hits the target and it turns out afterwards the village is not Taliban controlled. The villagers just happen to be the lifelong enemy of Warlord X and he wanted them out of the picture. It has happened alot.

Now with technology being what it is we have been able to cut down these unfortunate deaths from the 10,000s to the 1,000s or whatever the numbers might be, but you also have to remember that we have also accidentally killed our own forces in the conflict. The JD Davis, Dan Petithory, and Cody Prosser fell victim to friendly fire. Stanley Harriman, the Special Forces warrant officer killed at the beginning of Anaconda was a victim of fire from an AC-130 and those Canadian infantrymen were mistakenly bombed by the F-16 jocks.

Accidents happen, they can not be avoided. No matter how good the technology is, sometimes it just comes down to human error and that is something that no machine will be able to correct.

[Kitsune]

Yeah JiJo, anything you said in your last post is true, I think.

But I thought it important to mention it because american media seem to ignore it totally. If you take an american child that lost its parents during 9/11 and an afghan child that lost them because of an US Air Force attack going wrong somehow... well there might be a difference, but I doubt that those kids would understand them. I think it is important that those who want another war so badly are reminded of the existence of those children.
This does not mean that the war in afghanistan had no positve effects, i'm not saying that. A lot of children can now live in a more free country because of US intervention. And the same will be true for Iraq. But still... there will be others who have to pay for it, dearly.
And I think its only fair that this is not conveniently ignored.

That is all.

[loop]

Spain was involved in two military conflict after WWII, Sidi-Ifni and Sahara.

[Mark Sman]

But I thought it important to mention it because american media seem to ignore it totally. - Kitsune

I provided 4 examples from major U.S. media covering this story in my above post. I can provide hundreds more if necesary. As a matter of fact just about every U.S. media outlet has covered this story. Not only that but the above cited AP and LA Times versions are more professional and reliable than Professor Herold's version, which even he has modified downwards since initial release.

I would be interested in seeing the urls for some of the non-U.S. media sites covering this that you have read, or are reading. English language sites are prefered, but I'll take any examples you've got and try to work my way through them. Keep in mind I have no wish to read opinion pieces or editorials, only items dealing with facts.

Thanks in advance.
additional reading:
Human Rights Watch's take on this
http://hrw.org/wr2k3/asia1.html

Sign posted at the U.S. Central Command's operations center As Sayliyah, Qatar: "Speed is fine but accuracy is final. — Wyatt Earp, 1888"

[Kitsune]

Mark...
If american media cover this topic that well... what are the estimates they give for killed enemies/killed innocents during the afghanistan operations?

[Great Dane]

Talking about civilian kills, or to be more political correst: casualties.

The winner never gets court martialed. He is always right as he gains control of the media and he gets to write the history books.

What about the 1000's of civilian Germans that got killed in the spring of 1945 by Allied 'strategic' bombings. Alone in Hamburg approx. 50.000 were killed in one night as the citys residential areas was put on fire by he good guys.

And what about Hiroshima and Nagasagi

It simply does not make sense to talk about right and wrong killings. When war breaks out the common rules of human behaviour get put on hold.

The only way to stay sane is to avoid war - hey but what about these bad guys that suddenly wants to take over the world? Well first of all we should stop 'fertilizing the ground' for these men to ever get in control and secondly we should have some kind of self defence capabilities to deal with this and at present the only solution is a standing army.

We have been fighting an killing for such a long time so I think it is time to start to openly to talk about alternate solutions. Why not admit that end of the day wars are about ressources, and then try to deal with it over a conference table instead of wasting young men and womens lifes.

[Kitsune]

But at least some things have changed. Around 500.000 German civilians (among them ca. 75000 children) have been killed through American/British bombs. But at that time it was allied strategy to kill as much germans as possible (civilians included). Nowadays they at least try to reduce civilan casualties. It is even stranger today: the Germans tried to protect there own, whereas a main tactic of Hussein and the likes is to heighten the numbers of killed civilans by any means possible.
Times have changed indeed.

[JiJoMacLE45]

Nobody get's courtmartialed Great Dane, what about the -16 pilots on trial for the accidental bombings of the Canadian soldiers.

And as far as getting people to sit down around a table and talk, in theory it sounds great, but the only people who will do it are people who are not threats. You honestly think Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein would leave their sanctuary to sit down at a peace table. We live in a screwed up world where unfortunetly violence is the only language that gets through to some people.

[Duke]

Great Dane
The would be assassin of Adolf Hitler, Stauffenberg, said, "If your enemy has conscious follow Ghandi, and if he doesnt follow Stauffenberg." This means when humans are irrational, uncompromising and belligerent, like Hitler was, they will blow themselves up with you right beside them to get what they want. In addition, Stauffenberg is saying to defeat a force that does not value life cannot be done by nonviolent means. Therefore, diposing of a dictator must be done through war. For if the former is employed the enemy is simply going to kill kill and kill the opposition. This is the predicament today. Saddam has shown and is showing how ruthless, uncompromsing, and belligerent he is. What are we to?? Do nothing and let Saddam survive with his rape teams, his wmd, or his dictatorship.

[Mark Sman]

Mark...
If american media cover this topic that well... what are the estimates they give for killed enemies/killed innocents during the afghanistan operations?

----
Associated Press
AP reporters visited these areas during the course of the war and gathered data on civilian casualties. Their reporting and other reliable counts - by no means complete - in the months since then suggest a civilian death toll ranging from 500 to 600.
----

Boston Globe
The estimate of at least 1,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan - and perhaps many more - is drawn from accounts of villagers and local commanders, as well as visual evidence, at the 14 sites visited.

-----
New York Times
On-site reviews of 11 locations where airstrikes killed as many as 400 civilians suggest that American commanders have sometimes relied on mistaken information from local Afghans.
,and,
Field workers with Global Exchange, an American organization that has sent survey teams into Afghan villages, say they have compiled a list of 812 Afghan civilians who were killed by American airstrikes. They say they expect that number to grow as their survey teams reach more remote villages.
----
Los Angeles Times
The Times reviewed more than 2,000 reports of civilian casualties from U.S., British and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services. After eliminating duplicate accounts, the review identified 194 incidents of civilian casualties from the start of the bombing on Oct. 7 until Feb. 28, when the air campaign was largely completed. The reported death toll, including estimates in some cases, was between 1,067 and 1,201. The Times excluded 754 civilian deaths reported by the Taliban but not independently confirmed, as well as 497 deaths that were not identified as either civilian or military.
----

back to me typing:
These four examples are from the sources I cited in an earlier post, which I take it you did not read. As I also stated earlier many more examples of American media reporting on this story can be provided if need be.

I would also like to restate my request for the urls of non-U.S. media stories you have read or are reading that cover this subject.

additional reading:
I would like to refer back to the HRW page from the previous post, it really is very good.

Also the NYT story refered to another NGO, Global Exchange. Here is the Global Exchange report, CAUTION it is a 3.8MB pdf file
http://www.globalexchange.org/september11/apogreport.pdf

Although I don't agree with Global Exchange's politics, their methodology in this report seems credible. Here is a loose quote from the report
---
The 824 deaths confirmed by our surveyors represent only a small portion of civilian casualties. It is certain that the total number of civilian deaths is higher.
---

[hood]

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but you also have to take into account, the fact that so far almost every Afghani that has been interviewed by media and US soldiers lies as if there was no tomorrow. They lie about where the weapons are, they lie about how many people are in the house, they lie about the village next to them that they say is an enemy when it's really not. Sure there were civilian casualties, but unless there are bodies on the street which you can photograph, you have to take it all with a very large grain of salt. A perfect example would be the world trade center. The number at first was 6000. After all was said and done, we're less than half that number now. Another example is the so called massacre at Jenin. They were claiming over 5-600 dead. Even the human rights organizations said that this was a lie, and in the end concluded around 50 people died, and most of them were combantants. Just as we use PsyOps to affect the hearts and minds, so do they. Maybe if we can elevate the numbers, the US will feel more sorry for us and give us more aid etc etc. Everyone's always looking out for their own hide.

[Kitsune]

Mark Sman is right... this is a difficult topic. Nobody seems to know for sure how many civilians have been killed. And there is lots of propaganda at work: US military wants to downplay civilan casualties whereas anti war activists try to inflate the number as best as they can. :roll:
The sad truth seem to be, that we probably will never know how many really died.


@Mark Sman:

Here are four foreign articles that seem to present an objective view:

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2756429.stm

NZZ (german language, but it is a swiss newspaper):
http://www.nzz.ch/dossiers/2001/afghanistan/2002.02.13-al-article7YQTU.html

"Die Zeit" (german newspaper):
http://www.zeit.de/2002/12/Politik/200212_zivileopfer.html

"Die Welt" (another german newspaper):
http://www.welt.de/daten/2002/04/09/0409au325117.htx

I am sorry if you do not speak german. Try a translation side. If there are any problems understanding it... post a quote and I will try to help.


p-)

[snake6264]

Kitsune

I don't know if you know this but it was illegal for a member of the Wermacht to be a member of the Nazi party and in the German Navy many Jews served Germany

I had 2 relatives in the German Army
General Kinzel of the Northern Army
and Manfred Kinzel a U-Boat commander

neither Nazi's

Snake6264

[Kitsune]

@snake6264:

It was a law since 1920 (made during Weimarian Republic times) that active soldiers may neither vote nor be active members of a political party. The Nazis did not change this. Of course many political parties had been dissolved and there weren't any elections.
But still, a member of the Wehrmacht could not be in the NSDAP. If he was NSDAP member and he entered the army his party-membership was "paused" until he left the army.
But this of course did not prevent the Wehrmacht from getting dirty. It is sad... but they still fought for the Nazi cause. Many might have thought that they fought for Germany or even that they defended the nation...but still, this served Hitler.

As far as I found out General Eberhard Kinzel was a highly decorated General of the OKW. He committed suicide just befor the end of the war.
KptLt Manfred Kinzel was commander of U 338, which was lost southwest of Island on September 20th 1943 with no survivors.

[snake6264]

Thats them

Sad whats weird is one of my uncles was in a recon element (USA) that first crossed the Rhien
How weird if they had met in battle

But to have to surrender to Monty I think I'd taken my life as well
No Joke

Be Safe all

Snake6264

[Mark Sman]

Kitsune, thank you for the sources.
I am working to understand them now.
This will take some time.
Perhaps a day or two . . .
I hope you can understand, and will yourself, in that time, review the matrerials I have previously posted.
MS

[LORD_BUNGLA]

A very pissy war, which is still going on is the Russians VS the mother f*cking Chenains terrorists. ( i can't spell the word) I believe the Russians should nuke the place to hell.

[Royal]

[quote="JiJoMacLE45"]
My point is, since WWII the US has been the defacto military leader of the free world. I've said it before, when the UN dials 911, the phone rings in the Pentagon. So the free world has expected us to be this great protector and vanquisher of evil that it has bred us to be.

I'm not knocking Yanks, or their contribution BUT, what does piss me off is thier self-righteous impression that the world revolves arround them. I've worked at Bragg and with the USMC and have alot of respect for those guys but I don't remember many Yanks in Bosnia in '92-Nov '95 in Sierra Leone in '99/2000 and I think the Rwandans would agree with me

[dweebie]

There are alot more countries supporting the war than what I had thought, here are some of them and what little info I found, this article was written pre-invasion, supposedly there have been around 15 more that say they support the war since the invasion, bringing the number to 49 according to Powel I believe. Some countries can only give moral support and speak for our behalf, but hey that's all they have and I for one appreciate it them sticking their necks out. Here are only a few of them, couldn't find a list anywhere if you find one post the link.
Italy, Spain and Portugal have allowed US forces to operate from their military bases.
Hungary will be a base for training the new Iraqi opposition, while the Czech Republic has offered a decontamination team.
Albania, Croatia and Macedonia.
Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have each given varying degrees of support to the US.
In return, some such as Egypt want extra aid, while others believe support for the war will invite the promise of US protection against future attack.

Others simply believe that Hussein must be deposed.

As far as Americans being conceited, yes we are, we come by that right for the same reason we solute differently than any other country, with our hand parrallel to the floor instead of angled. *History buffs will know that one*
Now for the French, the French just don't like us at all, well they don't like us unless they're being invaded by the germans ;)

[dweebie]

[This is not meant as a dig, so before any of you guys who are not from the US start ripping me about American imperialism and the world police thing, just calm down.]

Not including the UK, when was the was the last time a European nation was involved in a major military conflict w/o US military involvement? And by military conflict, I do not mean a peacekeeping or humanitarian relief operation.

Thought I would point out what i was replying to, heh after I posted it, it seemed way out in left field of the subjects that it has changed to ....

[Knave]

Turkish 'intervention' in Northern Cyprus.

Balkan Wars - Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, etc etc etc.....

The French in Indochina, Algeria, Sierra Leone....

Spain and Morocco staring each other down over Spanish possessions in the Straight of Gibraltar area of the Mediterranean and several ports on the Moroccan coast....

Spain and the ETA in the Basque area.

Portuguese in Angola.

Belgians in the Congo - when the Congo was a Belgian colony.

I'm sure there's more....

[Chris1]

hey Kitsune, are you so sure the U.S. killed thosuands of innocent people in Afghanistan? You mention this as if the U.S. has no regard for civilians on the battlefield. Hey, how many millions of innocent people did your family march into the gas chambers? What's wrong, Germany doesn't want to fight anyone unless they can slaughter unarmed civilians by the millions ??
You're an idiot.
(I don't feel any need to pick apart the fundemental fault with your post, the above is sufficient in my opinion.)

[IBUsquid]

You folks seem to be missing some of the bigger "wars" for lack of better terms. There was the Korean Conflict (not war) that was supported and lead by the United Nations in the early Fifties. Then there was Vietnam. The French were at "war" with the Vietnamese waayyyy before the Americans got involved. I believe as early as the late Forties and early Fifties. After all, Vietnam was a French colony until they decided they wanted their independence too.

[Chris1]

"not including the UK"
"without US involvement"

Indochina/Vietnam has already been mentioned (three times iirc)

[Apogee]

So if we have 10 fingers, 2 eyes, 2 ears, and one mouth, the math works out something like:

We should Type 5 times as much as we read

We should type 10 times more then we would say

We should type as much as we see



Wow, I'm bored.....

[eyeglass]

[

Spain and Morocco staring each other down over Spanish possessions in the Straight of Gibraltar area of the Mediterranean and several ports on the Moroccan coast....

Spain and the ETA in the Basque area.

I'm sure there's more....[/quote]

My girlfiriend is basque from Bizcaia, in the BAsque country the conflict are only policial with the Basque police Ertzainas basque people too....not military intervention, in Spain the army its only for other cuestions.
The cities of Ceuta and Melilla are spanish with all its rights founded in the 15-- the people votes in democratics elections and are in the European Union. In Europe is Istambul and the rest of Turkey are in Asia and nobody question the nationality of this city.

[Bing]

8 fingers 2 thumbs rofl

[warchild1/27scout]

did you know one of kitsune's great uncles died in the haulocaust.he fell out of a guard tower. rofl

[Knave]

"not including the UK"
"without US involvement"

Indochina/Vietnam has already been mentioned (three times iirc)

The French fought the Viet Minh for control over the whole of Indochina after the Second World War; the Viet Minh wanted independance for Vietnam, the French wanted to keep Indochina as a colony... but as a result, Laos and Cambodia became independant as well when the French withdrew.

The Americans came in later to support the non-Communist (and definately not democratic) RVN in South Vietnam against Communist insurgents (the VC) and, later, the North. Though there wasn't much in terms of a cease-fire between the initial war for independence with the French and the "civil war" in South Vietnam, it can be defined as two seperate conflicts.

[LORD_BUNGLA]

LOL, that was slack warchild1/27scout

[yellowking]

did you know one of kitsune's great uncles died in the haulocaust.he fell out of a guard tower. rofl
No, that was Pat Buchanan's father! Pat can't be racist, his father died in a concentration camp! ;-)

[Lancero]

Portugal was not involved in WWII (althought German and the US had some important airforce bases on our soil), we were neutral. That's because we sufred severe losses in France during WWI (we sent an army of 70.000 and only about half came cack).
But, between 1961 and 1975 Portugal was involved in his colonial wars. And they weren´t that few: Angola; Mozambique; Guinea-Bissau; East Timor; and India.

[MARINO]

The last 'real' war Spain was involved was in the Ifni Area of what is today Morocco-occupied Sahara in 1956-1957.

It was the first time the Spanish Paratroops saw combat, and also the first time a 'modern' automatic rifle (The CETME) was used in combat. The war was won and the territory was in peace until it was decolonized under UN pressure, just to be immediatlyb occupied by Morocco starting a 25+ years struggle for independence by the Saharauis.

A more modern version of the CETME was produced under licence by H&K (yes, they used the spanish design) and became known worldwide as the H&K G3



http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/1956/index.htm

Don't forget the Sahara in 70's this was like a war, almost everyday we had firefights and attacks, with POLISARI and Moroccan troops, and don't forget our NEO operations in Equatorial Guinea,( where we were near to go 2 years ago). And the "war" with makis in 40's

[MARINO]

....

Spain and Morocco staring each other down over Spanish possessions in the Straight of Gibraltar area of the Mediterranean and several ports on the Moroccan coast....

Spain and the ETA in the Basque area.

....
It's Morocco this Cuta Melilla, Chafarinas,Velez, Alhucemas are Spanish, and Morocco accepted it in his independence treaty. Nothing to say.
With ETA it's just pilicial conflict. It's not a guerrilla, they just kill people( military and police since the beginnin, then politicians but not any more, thei objectives nowadays are politicans a military) with a shot in the back, and bombs in cars and letters.

[dez000]

Belgium was also involved in the Korean war.





IMJIN : battle on the Imjin from 22nd till 26th April 1951
HAKTAG-NI : From 10th till 13th October 1951
CHATKOL : Continuous fighting during March-April 1953
COREE-KOREA : In action from 31st Jan 51-27th July 53

The Battalion executed all offensive and defensive operations in a very difficult and broken terrain, under an unfavorable climate, with burning and dusty summers, very cold winters, rain pouring down all day and the omnipresent mud from the MOUSSON.
The enemy was fanatic, very superior in numbers, better used to the climate and active during the night, which exacted an exceptional psychic and physical resistance from the Belgians.

3171 Belgians and 78 Luxemburg volunteers signed on for Korea

2636 volunteers tokes part of the fights

2801 volunteers signed up for one year 352 for 2 years en 18 for 3 years

Killed in action : 101 Belgian - 2 Luxemburg's en 9 Korean soldiers

Missed in action : 5 Belgian soldiers

wounded : 478 Belgian soldiers

http://www.belgian-volunteercorps-korea.be/english/frontpage%20e.htm

I believe they were assigned to the 3th US Division, today the traditions of the unit lives on in the 3 Para bn of the Para-Commando Brigade (IRC).

[Para]

It's just thought, but the only year Britain has not had any soldiers killed on ACTIVE Serice was 1967. Now how many countries have fought so long and hard, including America.

[mack pl]

Now how many countries have fought so long and hard, including America.

Israel?



.............

[sp2c]

our last war was the dutch new guinnee crisis

when we were forced to pull out of the Netherlands Indies we held on the New Guinnee for various (some more dubious then the other) reasons but Sukarno (in charge Indonesia at the time) wouldn't have it and wanted to control as much of the region as possible so he send paratroopers to New Guinnee to harrass (kill) the Dutch forces and enlist support among the local populace, this failed misserably as the locals were very loyal and would fight them with spears if they had to (also if a dropping had been sighted they'd lay down trees in a specific pattern which the dutch aircraft would notice and troops could be send to investigate)

then trying to escalate matters he send 3 patrolboats loaded with commando's they were spotted by a Catalina that tried to attack them but it's guns failed (so officially the first shots were fired by the indonesians as they tried to take out the aircraft) failing that this started our last naval engagement to date (the battle at vlakke hoek or something) where one frigate destroyed one of the ships and damaged another.

In the end Sukarno looked at the Soviets for help and together they assembled a large invasion fleet (between 10.000 and 20.000 men) to drive the by that time 10.000 strong Dutch garrison out of New Guinnee. Strong international pressure especially by the Americans (Kennedy Administration I believe, he didn't want the cold war to go hot and he didn't want Dutch troops tied up in New Guinnee because of the threat of a soviet invasion of Europe) who cancelled the marshal funds needed to rebuild the country after WW2 and the loss of public support for the war back home lead to the Netherlands signing over New Guinnee to Indonesia ... the only person to object to this in the end was the representive of the Papua's but sadly nobody cared about him and his people anymore

it lasted from 1950 untill 1962 and claimed the lives of 100 Dutch soldiers (10 in combat the rest in accidents and due to the extremely hostile terrain) and 250 Indonesian paratroopers in combat not counting those killed in the naval engagement or those killed due to the terrain, sickness or accidents.

[sp2c]

Spain, Italy and the scandinavian countries had no war they were involved in after WWII. Same goes for Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands.

are you sure about that?

there were actually three I named one before, the other one claimed 10.000+ Dutch soldiers, and in between that there was this little thing called Korea

[siberian tiger]

Portugal in the 50s have 3 costal territories in India (Goa, Damao and Diu)with a few thouthands soldiers, a navy frigate and no air defence. When India decided that they would not acept the portuguese presence there they make an ultimatum to them. The portugese fascist regime prefer a military loss then a political loss and they have order those soldiers to fight, but the comander of the portuguese forces in those territories surrender to India and the portuguese were made POW for a few time.

Portugal also have Angola, Mozambique, Guiné-Bissau, Cape Verde islands and S.Tomé and Prince islands in Africa. In the islands there were no war but in the continental Africa it start in 1961 and ended in 1974, it was a 13 years guerrilla war with a permanent contingent of 100.000 portuguese soldiers in the three zones. The war only ended because some officers in Portugal organized a coup against the fascist regime, when the war was over Portugal had suffer 10.000 deads and 100.000 men wonded for the rest of their lifes.
I don`t now nºs of the african losses, there were 3 sides in angola some were supported by USA and other by USSR, there was a time that Portugal made a deal with one of them and they stop fighting Portugal and start fight the other independence forces.

There was also the problem of East-Timor, when the colonial wars in Africa ended the new democratic government had decided to give independece for all those territories oversees including East-Timor. When that hapened there was civil war in East-Timor and then the portuguese forces withdraw and the indonesians invaded them. It was a confused operation and i don`t now very well what hapened.

Also the Angolan civil war that last since their independence untill the 90s was very brutall and involved meny countrys. In Angola there were 3 sides, one was supported by South Africa, other by Zaire, these two were indirected supported by USA, and there was other that was supported by Cuba and indirected supported by Comunist China and Soviet Union.
South Africa, Zaire and Cuba fought in Angola plus mercenaires from all the world, it was a civil war with very exterior intervention.