What price an Afghan life?
Interesting article in the Groniad..
If Nato treated all human life as of equal value when paying compensation it would change the face of the Afghan conflict
How many Afghan lives are worth one British life?
We shrink at that question. If forced to answer, some reply: "All human life is of infinite value." Others cite the Jewish teaching that if you put one human life on one side of a scale, and the rest of the world on the other side, the scale is balanced equally. Most just say that an Afghan life is worth the same as a British life, because all human lives are of equal value. Isn't that what we all believe?
The Ministry of Defence has been paying compensation to Afghans for accidentally killing their children, their brothers and sisters, or their parents, during the fighting in Afghanistan. Thanks to a freedom of information request from the Guardian, we know how much the MoD has paid families when a member has been killed. Here are some examples: daughter hit by shrapnel from air-strike and later died of injuries, $1,000; mother killed during bombing, $5,000; two brothers and two sons killed by hellfire missile strike, $32,000. The variation in the figures is not explained, but in no case was more than $8,000 (about £5,000), paid for the loss of a single life.
There is nothing unique about Britain in this respect. The Guardian has reported that the US generally pays no more than $2,500 in compensation for the loss of an Afghan life. In contrast, after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the US government set up a Victim Compensation Fund. The average payment it made to families of victims was $1.8m. Adjusting for purchasing power at a 5:1 ratio suggest that the US regards the life of an American as equivalent to the lives of 144 Afghans.
What would happen if the Nato forces really took seriously the idea of the equal value of all human life? They would then have to compensate Afghans for the civilian deaths and injuries they are causing at the same level as they would compensate their own citizens if, for example, a military exercise went wrong and killed people at home. That would serve three important purposes. First, it would demonstrate to the Afghans that the Nato forces truly respect them as equals. Second, the troops themselves might start to see Afghans as more like them, and have a new respect for the people they are trying to aid. Third, a dramatic increase in the costs of endangering the lives and limbs of civilians might foster a new restraint, because no military force wants to drain its own resources. The result would then be that fewer civilians would be killed – surely a very good thing, both for the civilians themselves, and for winning over the support of Afghans.
The Guardian
As far I know, after the dirty invention of Nuke, americans were looking for an experimental field to check the outcome.
btw, the Pilots of those dirty bombs were initially supposed to be on suicide mission carrying cyanide in their pockets.
Uranus, as far as I know, the Japanese were told not to bomb PH...and if they did, a nuclear attack would follow. that is the info I have.
Anyway, war is always dirty and IMHO, totally uneccessary in most cases. We have other means to negotiate ,IMHO. No need to kill so many people.
nomerci--Following Hiroshima, the U.S. sent an ultimatum to the Japanese government demanding unconditional surrender and explaining the same would happen to another city if no surrender was made. The U.S. waited several days, but the Japanese government remained silent.
Also, Operation Downfall--the planned allied invasion of Japan--secretly estimated allied deaths to exceed one million and civilian deaths to be well over 10 million based on the ratios and experiences at Okinawa and other Japanese territorial islands. Certainly the civilian population and army was digging in all over Japan for a long fight.
Sad to say, but empires throughout history have learned that that if you kill enough civilians, nations will yield in order to protect the rest. I have little doubt that if London endured in 1940 was Dresden suffered a few years later, Britain would have negotiated.
Put like that, I suppose not :O(
However, I do believe that the public would begin to take more notice of the casualties.
One_shot--the Japanese killed far more civilians than the US ever did in that war. Just ask people on Nanking.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilian casualties--110,000
The rape of Nanking: 200,000+80,000 women raped, but no one really knows.
Civilian targets were a matter of course in the Second World War for all sides. The weaponry, the desire to destroy the nationalism that bolstered the regimes, and the assumption that industrial might was crucial to the war effort, made civilians legitimate targets. That is the problem when regimes that have the full backing over their people go to war.
oneshot, that war did not cause Hiroshima, the Japanese caused Hiroshima. They were told loud and clear what would happen if they attacked PH,they did it and paid the price.
A very steep one..
Britexpat--In 2010, the UN estimated 2,700 civilians died in combat-related incidents. 75% were killed by insurgents, so no compensation there. Of the remaining 25%, NATO forces accounted for less than 1/2 the killings, but let's round it up to 350. Until a higher compensation of model akin to the blood money a family gets in Qatar for a wrongful death (in exchange for a light or nonexistent sentence), which is about $60,000 or $21 million a year. Even if you go to a million dollars per wrongful death, it still only amounts to less the 1% of what the US has spent on the war in Afghanistan thus far. And that is assuming the US would pay for all the deaths. In civil court, the burden of proof for a wrongful death is substantial. Did the kids die from the bomb or did the bomb expose a faulty building that was about to collapse anyway? No fault there, the US would say; builder's fault. Were the civilians being used as human shields or knowingly harboring insurgents? Again, no fault there. Were the civilians disobeying warnings to leave the area due to impending fighting? Once again, no fault.
Even if the US paid out for every victim at a high rate, that is not enough to make the US government change its ways. After all, the US routinely launches $600,000 cruise missiles at ruins.
the war that you are talking about caused Hiroshima and nakazaki , How many civilians was killed in this??
do we have to consider it as defense by killing civilians or collateral damage or revenge ??? :D
khalas
oneshot, my country went through a war and lost a lot of their citizens. in fact, my family lost some family members. di my family swear revenge etc? No, not at all.In fact, I do not know anybody who did. In my country, that is.
anyway, I said what I had to say...khalas.
you can't say that western people don't dance in the streets..i already mentioned above how some people were glad for what happened to japan, as a revenge or paypack for Pear Harbor.
and if you say "most western people"....also most eastern people don't dance in the streets for others' disasters.
in the time of war, and when some people loose their families or relatives of the beloved ones,Revenge will fulfill their hearts and they want others to feel and suffer the same,so i think you can't blame a father or a mother or a son lost his beloved one for dancing in the streets for crisis of the same people who caused them pain....and i think revenge is blind that is why a lot of them reached a point that they don't care between a soldier or a civilian .
Generalizing on a fake video shot celebration in Gaza street after 9/11, doesn't make U different then those posted in the link bellow.
Damn, the killer team was missing of their fellow Nazi sister ;)
have a look again
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0602176
lol brit...they would ask for money from the West to accomplish that...which then would go into their own pockets. Nice try though..;)
oneshot, as you, by now, probably know, I am 100% AGAINST our military going into those countries, for whatever reason.
And we both know that there are very wrong things happening on ALL sides. No need to go into that.
Is one side guiltier than the other on any level ? NO, I think not.
And no, those terrorists were,probably, not sent by their governments per se...never the less, they are citizens of said country's governments.
And let's see here...were there not pictures etc. of people celebrating and dancing on the streets in certain countries after said attacks ?
Anyway, none is better than the other..except that most Western citizens do not dance on streets after people got butchered in some countries, and they do not burn flags and effigies of some countries and so on and so forth.
Oh, and most citizens in the West are against us being involved..sadly that has not been taken into consideration by those governing us. hopefully that will change soon. and much more ought to change too. God willing...;)
I personaly believe that many of the "accidental" killings would stop if the compensation levels were raised significantly. It would mean that NATO allied governments would start to take more notice and even the people themselves - because compensation comes out of their pocket.
I also believe that the Afghan government be made to pay compensation to those killed yesterday. this would lead to them taking better precautions to protect the civilians.
one_shot--I am not trying to justify the US military's actions. I think we are largely in agreement on that.
But I am asking if you think the Afghani government, which helped to incite the riots btw, owes compensation for the civilian UN workers killed in the riots and if you think it will pay out.
and these air strikes are not made by riots, but by a very well prepared and planed attacks with accuracy reach to 95% as per their claim.
can you tell me about the press people that have been killed by air strikes of the USairforce in these areas...
How much did the Saudi government pay the families of the victims of 9/11 ?
How much was paid to the families of the victims in the London terror attack?
How much was paid to the families of victims of the Spain terror attack?
------------->>>>>>as i remember that these people are extremists and not sent by the saudi government to do these attacks, all the world know that killing innocents in islam is forbidden.
Uranus
as for those rioters, simply treat them as the US & Allies are treating other civilians.
One_shot--I agree about the soldiers, but what about the civilian UN workers killed by rioters the other day protesting the Florida Qur'an burning?
How much does the Afghan government pay for a British/American etc. life?
------>> as i remember these people are soldiers,"not in there countries but in afganestan" beeing paid by their governments to take life of some people by risking their own lives.
britexpat--I think if the compensation level was raised, the US would do the same thing as it does with UN fees and dues--'put it on our tab' or sue us for it.
At least at the lower level poor victims are compensated.
I think we have been side tracked. The gist of the article is whether 'raising" the compensation would be beneficial in the long run. Would it help the country and the allies.
nomerci: You are right. I was in a compund in riyadh that got hit by terrorists. I did not get compensated.
Uranus, Newly Recruited Afghan security forces by US & Allies, and as for those rioters who killed UN staff i condemn them.
Alter Dusty--do you mean the rioters or the Qur'an burners? Both struck me as equally radical, narrow and stupid, although in my own view murder trumps blasphemy.
Don't be surprise, these forces are recruited, trained and paid by US & Allies.
well one shot, I can't quite understand why that is the case...but if I could, i should probably be worried.
To be honest, I was surprised to learn that the UK and US were paying out what is essentially wrongful death claims. In previous wars this was largely unheard of.
I wonder how much Afghan security forces, which kill more civilians than the US does nowadays, pays per victim.
most probably those who did it yesterday, were pretty inspired with Bush Ideology, and my mistake not to mention in my above post (Nic's Inspiration)
nomerci ..you remind me of the people who was glad when tsunami attacked japan and their reply was "payback for " Pearl Harbor "
Alter Dusty--probably not the same as the evil men who murdered the innocent civilians in the Word Trade Center.
And probably not the same as the moronic rioters who killed UN workers the other day in riots over a Qur'an burning in Florida. Yes that makes sense--someone in Florida does something abhorrent, so let's kill some people from other countries who had nothing to do with and probably disapproved of it. The logic ranks up there with Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Just wonder, which religion followers are these soldiers, who went for Hunting civilians?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327
oh , and not to forget, how much did the Saudi government pay those who were maimed, killed in the Riyadh compound attacks?? Heck, we did not even hear an apology....
Most probably apologies and compensation went to the compound owners...because they really need it! Eh.
How much did the Saudi government pay the families of the victims of 9/11 ?
How much was paid to the families of the victims in the London terror attack?
How much was paid to the families of victims of the Spain terror attack?
How much does the Afghan government pay for a British/American etc. life?
How much did the Taliban pay the innocent people who it has killed or maimed?
Of course the US and UK governments do not consider the lives of its own citizens and equal to those of foreigners. No country does.
Britexpat
With regard to the compensation scale, to what extent does it take into account potential earnings of the deceased? For example, this is a major factor is wrongful death litigation in the US. Lifetime earnings of someone working in the World Trade Center is likely to be substantially higher than someone living in Kabul, and I am guess, Britexpat, that you and I have life insurance policies that far exceed what an average chap in business in Kabul has. Average annual household income for Afghanistan in $300 vs $50,000 for the US or 166 to 1 (which is remarkably close to your 144 to 1).
I am not justifying it, just explaining the mentality.
There shouldn't be any compensation at all. Its a War & they'll have to pay the price through their dead bodies...not dollars or pounds. An eye for an eye.
Gaurdian is a stupid newspaper even knowing the fact that americans and allies are still trying hard to balance the figure of 4000 with millions of Afghans civilians.
Some Religions do better job keeping their real agenda hidden, and the one mostly practiced in West (A page from NIC's Bias Book)