Costs: July 2009 Already Deadliest Month of Afghanistan War

Posted: July 15, 2009 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

July is already the deadliest month to date for coalition forces in Afghanistan, only 15 days into the month.

Coalition fatalities in the month of July so far, listed by name, age, and branch of military service:

  • Mevlüt, Baydur, 39, Turkish Army
  • Sungur, Faruk, 51, Turkish Army
  • Di Lisio, Alessandro, 25, Italian Army
  • Spicer, David S., 33 , U.S. Marine
  • Heede Jr., Michael W., 22, U.S. Marine
  • Lindstrom, Eric J., 27, U.S. Army
  • Hatfield, Jerome D., 36, U.S. Marine
  • Barbozaflores, Pedro A., 27, U.S. Marine
  • Lembke, Matthew R., 22, U.S. Marine
  • Simpson, Daniel, 20, British Army
  • Murphy, Joseph, 18, British Army
  • Backhouse, James, 18, British Army
  • Aldridge, William, 18, British Army
  • Horne, Jonathan, 28, British Army
  • Scott, Lee, 26, British Army
  • Farris, Joshua R., 22, U.S. Army
  • Brackpool, John, 28, British Army
  • Hume, Daniel, 22, British Army
  • Hayes, John E., 36, U.S. Marine
  • Hager, Roger G., 20, U.S. Marine
  • Tate, Darren Ethan, 21, U.S. Navy
  • Missman , Gregory James, 36, U.S. Army
  • Roy, Michael C., 25, U.S. Marine
  • Talbert, Christopher, 24, U.S. Army National Guard
  • Whiteside, Christopher, 20, British Army
  • Garner, Mark A., 30, U.S. Army
  • Joannette, Martin, 25, Canadian Army
  • Audet, Patrice, 38, Canadian Army
  • Babington-Browne, Ben, 27, British Army
  • Williams, Derwin, 41, U.S. Army National Guard
  • Hosford, Chester W., 35, U.S. Army National Guard
  • Chavers, Brock H., 25, U.S. Army National Guard
  • Johnson, Issac L., 24, U.S. Army National Guard
  • Gideon, Nicolas H. J., 20, U.S. Army
  • Randolph, Tony Michael, 22, U.S. Navy
  • Elson, Dane, 22, British Army
  • Laws, Robert, 18, British Army
  • Dennis, David, 29, British Army
  • Michaud, Charles-Philippe, 28, Canadian Army
  • Fairbairn, Aaron E., 20, U.S. Army
  • Casillas, Justin A., 19, U.S. Army
  • Bulger, Nicholas, 30, Canadian Army
  • Sharp, Charles S., 20, U.S. Marine
  • Thorneloe, Rupert, 40, British Army
  • Hammond, Joshua, 18, British Army

According to the National Priorities Project:

To date, $172.9 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Afghanistan since 2001. In addition, we estimate that $24.4 billion dollars of the recent supplemental will be used to further fund the war in [Afghanistan] for a total of $197.3 billion dollars.

The stress of the escalation in Afghanistan had led the Defense Department to consider temporarily growing the size of the U.S. Army:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is weighing a possible temporary expansion of the US army to ease the strain from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, his press secretary said on Wednesday.

Gates was discussing the idea, backed by Senator Joseph Lieberman, with senior officers to add 30,000 troops to the active-duty army, press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters.

The possible expansion from the current strength of 547,400 would be designed “to get them through what is still a stressful period as we draw down in Iraq and continue to plus-up in Afghanistan,” Morrell said.

…Any expansion would be temporary but would carry a significant price tag, possibly more than a billion dollars, army officials said.

We will likely never know how many civilians died in Afghanistan as a result of the war. According to the Human Security Report Project’s Afghanistan Conflict Monitor, “[s]ystematic collection of civilian fatality data only began in 2007.” However:

When is enough enough? End this war.

  1. […] Costs: July 2009 Already Deadliest Month of Afghanistan War posted on July 15th, 2009 at Return Good for Evil […]

  2. Sporkmaster says:

    But with info like this it is easy tosay how horrable things are. But compared to what? Consider all the deaths in the US due to murders,abd other violent crime? Why does numbers alone dettermine if we should leave or not?

    To give another look, during ww1 there are records of units losing 300 people in a single week. Also from a medical view people who are wounded incombat have the highest chance of survial on record inthe low 90 percnet range. I think the number of US troops that died from bleed outs was 2500 alone.The same type that we are able to save today.

    Every person that we loss is heavy loss, but I think that there are things that are worth taking that risk. (When I get to the stan I will let you know what is going on)

    But even if we were to leave right now, what is there to assure that the number of deaths do not go down? Also if the numbers go up, what is there to say against the statement that we do not care if people die if they are not American and white?

    It’s feels like no matter what we do there it will be seen as a wrong.

    • dcrowe says:

      Hey Sporkmaster:

      To be fair, I’d say up front that there’s not an acceptable level of deaths at all because I don’t believe in using violence in conflict. So you’re right in a way–no statistic can satisfy me on this issue. Fair enough.

      You’re going to the stans?!

      I agree that there are things worthy of risking one’s life. I disagree that there are things worth killing for. I know that the policy/political reasons that get us into the wars are not necessarily the same reasons that individual troops fight. For example–we did *not* invade Afghanistan to help the people of Afghanistan. If we accept the arguments given by the White House in good faith, the president ordered the invasion 1) as a punitive expedition against the Taliban for harboring Al Qaida and 2) to prevent another attack. The Afghan people were suffering before 9/11, and we weren’t going to invade. To support those goals, we got in bed with some very ugly people, one of which is now in the Afghan defense ministry, even after it’s come to light that he massacred 2000 prisoners. I know that supporting the cast and crew of that wreck of a “government” in Kabul is not what gets troops up in the morning–they are worried about women’s rights, democracy, and the well-being of the people of Afghanistan–but the policy choices we made by backing the Kabul government undermine almost every single one of those motivators.

      Here’s an analogy to help illustrate my thinking about this: Three gangs are in a knife fight, with one huge gang that got into the fight to make sure his favorite of the two wins. Halfway through, the members of this huge gang have an epiphany and realize they shouldn’t kill people, so they leave the fight. Say that the total number of stabbings doesn’t go down…that doesn’t mean the one who withdrew should have stayed. But there’s a good chance that without their brute strength and skill, the total number of deaths might decline.

      I totally get the moral ambiguity here and the anguish about what happens next. Often, though, I think that people confuse what they want for the Afghan people with the actual future we’re setting in motion for the Afghans, not to mention the bloody road between the present and our future plan for the region.

  3. sporkmaster says:

    Well the reason that I wanted to bring that up is a difference in expectations in war, for example the worse day in Afghanistan or Iraq is equal to one of their better days in previous wars. I was watching a show about the attack on the Laffey, a US destroyer. It lost 32 men in a aerial attack in a 90 mins. So the number of deaths that seem high to us, may not be looked at the same by those in previous generations. They will see that this is a sad time, but my not relate thinking that this is a cause to withdraw. Also here is another video that I think relates to the differences in this conflict and ones of the past.

    As far as me going to Afghanistan that is just a feeling, I have no orders for me at the moment. But I expect to be there in the next two-three year s if we are still there.

    Well I think that this is a area that we really have reached a impasse. I sympathize with wanting to not use violence, but one area that to me really gets grey is when the lives of other people are in immediate threat. I realize that this is giving a pre-set situation but just like car crashes. You may go around 10,000 times and get back safely 9,999. But it is that one time where what you do or do not do affect you and others. Again I know there are too many variables to go over all of them But for me I made a promise to do all I can to make sure that my patients are not harmed. If I have to use lethal force I will, if I can stop them without lethal force I will. It will all depend on how the cards play out.

    Now about the reason we went into Afghanistan. I agree that was not the decision making reason that we went there. But just because it was not does not mean that it cannot change. Consider during WW2 our main objective was to stop Germany, but that did not stop us from helping Germany along with Europe. Nor did it stop us from supplying West Berlin when it was being blockaded during the late 40s. Afghanistan could not have invaded us, but they had the ability to cause small to mid level attacks.

    Now here is were it gets really complicated. It is the argument of morality against necessity. Should we have done something about it? Yes. But how to do that and make sure that OEF works would be a major challenge. Consider this. Remember the 6,000 Polish Officers that the Soviets killed? Well it seems that the Allies ran interference to ensure that the alliance to Soviet Russia. I found a entry that talks about it in detail. But this is where things get complicated. The evil of political necessity strikes again.

    But the main concern is how Somalia went down that the violence continued, or to a lesser extent in Haiti. If the civilian infrastructure is not secure and working, there will be no peace. For me the question is “Can Afghanistan function to meet the needs of it’s people and can it’s police/military enforce it’s laws with limited international support. Because if the population is neglected and let go into unrest, all your doing is making a breeding ground for more violence and terrorist attacks. I as support, I offer how the allied nations treated Germany after WW1 and how the retaliatory actions help lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. Also it should be noted that the Nazi party came to power in the 30s rather then in the 20s when things where more successful. Could be a reason why it attempt to overthrow the government failed and landed Hitler in jail. People seem to not want change when things are going well. If we do not leave Afghanistan in a working fashion.

    Also last side note. I know that the drone strikes have caused civilian deaths in Pakistan, but where was the outrage there when attacks that where spawned out of Pakistan in Afghanistan?

    • dcrowe says:

      Hey Sporkmaster:

      I had plenty of outrage over the attacks spawned out of Pakistan in Afghanistan–I just have absolutely no influence over Taliban decision-making, so it’s not something I spend time blogging about (although a lot of the information I link to clearly spells out the non-combatant deaths caused by the Taliban). I view this blog as having two primary functions: 1) to push for my readers to consider alternatives to violence, especially in national policy and 2) to push Christians to take seriously the actual teachings of Christ, all of which are nonviolent. Both of those are advocacy–I write to try to actively change things, rather than just put out information. There are tons of things I’m outraged about that don’t make it onto these pages. But I also don’t think my outrage over those attacks by the Taliban and others justifies killing anyone over it.

      But for me I made a promise to do all I can to make sure that my patients are not harmed. If I have to use lethal force I will, if I can stop them without lethal force I will. It will all depend on how the cards play out.

      Look, I respect this kind of commitment, although I disagree on principle with the taking of any human life for any reason, and it’s definitely a heck of a lot better than passivity while bad things are happening. I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you think having a sidearm distorts any decision making process, i.e. whether knowing you could pull your gun if you wanted to looms large enough in your head to affect whether or not you’ll have the patience to push for every possible nonviolent resolution to an incident where your patients are threatened.

      It’s very true, as you say, in WWI, WWII, and even in Vietnam and Korea, we lost people at a much higher rate than we do today. I don’t think that’s really the issue, though, and I don’t think that should be our reason for not getting agitated about the losses incurred so far in the modern wars (although I know that’s not what you’re saying).

  4. Dear Sporkmaster,‎

    Being a medical humanitarian worker myself, I fully support your commitment to your ‎patients. Ghandi was a medic in the Boer War. So, what motivates you may be the wonderful ‎non-violent inclination in you, not the violent.‎

    We find Perry O Brien in a similar ‘impasse’ and here’s his testimony.‎–M-by-Perry-O-Brien-090313-‎‎405.html

    Perhaps, humanity is slowly moving beyond this impasse. It has tried to, ironically by ‎‎‘legalizing’ or ‘making war acceptable or sensible’ ( Nuremberg and Geneva ). I’m not sure if ‎those resulting conventions were positive developments for ‘civilization’ and none of us will ‎live long enough to see how Mankind ‘evolves’ in this regard. But moving beyond is usually ‎about something newer and hopefully, kinder.‎

    Self-defense is natural but I wish we could say that about armies in general. Please listen to ‎Afghan kids chat about this over a game of stones.‎

    More than that, I wish we would search for and listen to what ordinary Afghans wish for.‎

    They at least deserve to practice as much self-defense as you do.‎

    Thanks sincerely and peace!‎
    Hakim in Afghanistan

    • dcrowe says:


      I can see what you’re saying re: “legalizing” war. Take for example “Christian just war theory.” It should limit Christian involvement in war and encourage Christians to critique a government’s rationale for war. However, it’s more common usage seems to be the opposite: to give Christians an excuse to wage war and feel justified in doing so.

      Stay safe!


  5. Please watch 3 Afghan kids talk about British forces in Afghanistan as they play with ‎stones

  6. Sporkmaster says:

    Hey,how are you. Not ignoreing you just been busy with the family. Also with the British soldiers, is that vidoe on youtube or some where else.

    I will have a reply soon.

  7. sporkmaster says:

    Well when I talk about lack of outrage, I am looking at the population of Pakistan. The people seem content on letting the Taliban set up shop there to continue further attacks. But when they themselves face violence they act shocked. Just look at the incident of the red Mosques where the leaders where trying to enforce a strict version of Islam. But they were doing it by armed force, for all practical purposes they where trying to make their own country. So when the government challenged it became a huge mess. It just seems that the people there are trying to appease the beast. I mean look at the time the village elders where killed by the Taliban over the issue of who what in charge.

    I think that it does play a big part in that perspective. But there are two things you have to consider; one is that my weapon by military standards is a defensive one and that in my deployment most of the dangers have been from IEDs, not people. But we have received training on when and when not to use your weapon. I talked about that in the “reflective fire” post. Because every one goes through training and we practice it to make sure that when that one in a million odds that we are ready.

    I think that out of the entire year I drew my weapon with the possible intent to use it twice. The first one was when we received a few pop shots and I drew my weapon. But I put it up because the distance to the area we thought the shots where coming from was too far. ( On a side not we never fired because we could not confirm the target was one that fired the shots) The second one was when we went into a large fort like building and where not sure that it was empty. Nothing happened on that one too, so I cannot really say about the what ifs because I have not encountered many situations like these. But I have to be careful about loading my weapon because of Saddam’s government, people link the action of chambering a round in a pistol with someone is going to get executed. There was one case that I was trying to figure out what a couple of kids where wanting to see on my vest. I flipped the nine to show the grip that was still in the holster and got a quick response that that is not want that wanted to see. (No Good, No Good) in Arabic with hands raised. But this country is odd in that you cannot always apply logic in the say way.

    For example; There was a time that we are watching a bridge and stopping people so what we could do work or when we had large construction vehicles that could cause damage to passing cars. (Also for security also well). We where working with a small group of Iraqi soldiers who where also engineers. So they where helping with the project and guard the site. We had this car come up and we did everything to make them stop. We had signs, waving flags, shooting off pen flares when they get too close. He is not stopping. One of the Iraqi guys looks back, sees what’s going on and raised his AK and fires a shot in the air. The car immorality stopped and turned around. We all looked at each other in surprise because if we did that we would be in a lot of trouble.

    But one thing about being armed is that it allows you to go to places where otherwise you could not go. The civilian side you are not allowed to go into the area until the police secure it. But because you have a means of defending yourself in a hostile zone you have more flexibility. But going back to the original question it depends on the training and how serious the person takes it. Because if the person thinks war is like a video game it is going to end badly.

    • dcrowe says:

      This is a great comment–really honest and helpful to people trying to understand your thinking. Thanks for posting it.

      FYI, my posting will be on and off over the next several days–we are moving into our first house (yay!).

      Hope all is well with the family!

      • sporkmaster says:

        Thanks, I enjoy posting here.

        New house you say? Would I be off to guess that it would be in the Round Rock area? Just seems the place where people are going lately. Look forward to photos.

        Things are going well, I am going on leave on the 22 and should be home in Texas on the 24th. I stay there until the 2nd.

  8. sporkmaster says:

    Well I have to ask, in Afghanistan how do you ensure the safety and security of those you help, not to mention yourself? I have not been to Afghanistan yet so this is basing it off of Iraq.

    The main thing about the kids’s comment about not caring about unrest that worries me is that unrest means additional death and violence. Because to me the odds of that ending peacefully are not that high. Also I think that the kids are too young to remember what things where like under the Taliban. Because even if we leave that the Taliban will not use their old violent tactics again.

    Also with girl, I do not doubt that there is a general wish for the violence to stop, but how? If there is not a way to make it work all the best intentions and wishes are worthless. I mean for example, what is plan to make sure that the needs of the smaller towns and villages do not get forgotten about in a sea of red tape. Or how do you make sure that those that get aid are able to keep it against insurgent groups? How do you allow women to have rights and education without having to worry about being attacked?(Legislation included too)

    I have to disagree about the rules of war being used to encourage war. To me it is a way of preventing suffering against those that would lay waste to everything in sight. But the thing is that I think that where will always be negative things about humans; such as stealing, lying, infidelity, jealously. All things that will be present. The only thing I think we can do about it is try to reduce it as much as possible. That is the reason why we have laws. Because not everyone is going to behave out of the goodness of their heart, but on threat of penalty.

    I think that with Gaudi it is not so much about the overall idea, but how to apply it in specifically in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. I know that there have been references made to the success in the past, what I would like is a more detailed plan of “Ok we need to do xzy for providence A and do xzy for providence B because of the sparse population, etc, etc, “ Because the individual challenges on the ground and how we deal with them will be the difference in success or failure. That is a conversation I would like to go with further detail. But to make that work, you really need to be there, in which only one of the three of us has. So the best we can do is speculate on what ifs and what has happened there is the past few years.

    • dcrowe says:

      That is a conversation I would like to go with further detail. But to make that work, you really need to be there, in which only one of the three of us has. So the best we can do is speculate on what ifs and what has happened there is the past few years.

      I agree very much with this. There’s an ethical rule when you show up in-country to do nonviolence training, etc.: you do not lead strategy–you educate on tactics and you support what the group is already doing. You never, ever want to show up thinking you know the place if you actually don’t.

      Just to speculate though–it would probably look close to what Abdul Ghaffir Khan did in the NWFP during the Gandhi / partition era. That’s the closest regional example I can think of, and it has the advantage of also being a Pashtun movement.

  9. Dear Sporkmaster and Derrick,‎

    I had a small security issue specific to myself quite recently. I counted on the local ‎community, who were willing to protect me.‎

    Yes, on the ground, we should listen to the deeper meaning behind the kids’ views about ‎self-defence, which are similar to the reconciliatory suggestions of the Afghans below, ‎which speak for themselves about what Afghans want, NOT want non-Afghans want :‎

    ‎ “Neither the US nor Jihadies and Taliban, Long Live the Struggle of Independent and ‎Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!” RAWA ( Revolutionary Association of the Women ‎of Afghanistan ) statement on the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan ‎October 7, 2008‎

    ‎”People are growing tired of the fighting,” says Bakhtar Aminzai of the National Peace ‎Jirga of Afghanistan, an association of students, professors, lawyers, clerics, and others. ‎‎”We need to pressure the Afghan government and the international community to find a ‎solution without using guns.” ‎

    • sporkmaster says:

      Yikes glad your ok. My next worry would be that there might be retaliatory attacks against them for helping you.

      I understand that but what makes you think that the Taliban will listen? I mean no one there looks at a road and says “This road is too boring, it really could use a large yield bomb that could go off at any time”. Or wake up and say ” I could really use a acid squirt to the face today”. But the insurgents do it anyways.

      Our goal it to make sure that the Afghanistan can defend themselves before we leave. The only real way to make that happen is to force the Taliban into a position that suing for peace is a better option then continuing to fight. But as long as they have refuge in Pakistan it will be very hard to achieve.

  10. ‎”We want reconciliation with the Taliban through a loya jirga,” or grand assembly of ‎Afghans, says Fatana Gilani, head of the Afghanistan Women’s Council. “We don’t want ‎interference from foreign countries or negotiations behind closed doors.We are against ‎Western policy in Afghanistan. They should bury their guns in a grave and focus on ‎diplomacy and economic development.” ‎

    ‎”Afghanicide – the killing of Afghanistan – must be stopped,” says Israir Ahmed ‎Karimizai, a leader of Awakened Youth of Afghanistan.‎

    ‎“We can’t differentiate between the ordinary people and the Taliban. And so, my ‎assessment is that for every one person that we kill, we’re creating ten more who are ‎against us. Honestly, I felt that when I was in Washington, that many of our policymakers ‎don’t even have a clue of what’s really going on, but they’re making policies. And that is ‎a really scary thing. More troops translate to more killing here…. the opinion of mine and ‎so many other people here who share this frustration that, you know, America needs to ‎better focus on its strategy about what they’re doing here and, you know, what they want ‎to accomplish in Afghanistan” Rangini Hamidi, Afghan American peace activist in ‎Kandahar

    • sporkmaster says:

      There are a few issues in Iraq that I have seen that I have wondering are in Afghanistan too? Like supplies, pay issues and medical treatment. Because it talking to people first hand and hearing stories about it second hand have shown that there is a big brake down in how projects and daily affairs are run.

      For example. Fuel requests for generators at small post are being ignored. People going through red tape to receive live saving medical aide. (I wrote a longer post about that if you are interested). People are not getting the right pay and promotions are non-existent. That is just on the top of my head. There is a lot to be fixed and I think that the insurgents are trying to exploit that frustration.

      But with more troops you can go to the smaller villages and places that often get ignored. It is those areas that we have to make sure that they have what they need to live in peace. Because if we do not these many smaller villages are just going to be a recruiting ground for more insurgent attackers or become taken over with the use of force.

  11. ‎”Everyone is always talking about what would happen if these troops leave us – a civil ‎war will happen in Afghanistan – but nobody is talking about the civil war of today. ‎‎”Unfortunately Australia has followed the wrong policy of the US, which is a mockery of ‎democracy and mockery of the war on terror, and it is quite a war crime that they are ‎doing there. We are between two powerful enemies. From the ground, the Taliban and ‎the northern allies are continuing to commit crimes and fascism against women and men ‎in our country. From the sky these occupational forces are bombing and killing the ‎civilians. She says she wants people to stand up to their governments against the “wrong ‎policy” of military intervention in Afghanistan. These countries are wasting their money ‎and blood in Afghanistan and I, on behalf on my people, pay my condolences to those ‎people who lost their sons, their loves, their husbands in Afghanistan and have been ‎killed. They should raise their voices against the wrong policy of their governments.” ‎Malalai Joya, an Afghan politician who has been described as “the bravest woman in ‎Afghanistan” Ms Joya says she is disappointed in the United States’ involvement in ‎Afghanistan. She says her country needs to find its own way to democracy without ‎military intervention.‎

    • sporkmaster says:

      I know this is going to be brief for time but I have to make a comment on the last sentence. “How?” If they (Taliban) do not listen, then what?

  12. If you’re interested in a perspective from within Afghanistan, please read the latest post ‎‎“An Afghan lion will be killed in the dark” at Our Journey to Smile.‎

    And watch the video where Shir an Afghan Lion speaks of a great Afghan need.‎

    Hakim, grieving in Afghanistan

  13. Dear Sporkmaster,‎

    Thanks for your concerned responses.‎

    The tribal code of hospitality and protective refuge is a practice of honor that does not ‎provoke retaliation.‎

    Afghans can probably defend themselves, as they did very well against the then Empire ‎in the First, Second and Third Anglo-Afghan wars. Military trainers should think hard ‎about the value of ‘training’ hardened locals in a terrain natural to them and in a foreign ‎language that needs translation. ‎

    What if the Taliban does not listen? The question begs for a creative and compassionate ‎effort towards reconciliation. It should also ask, “What if the ‘foreigner’ doesn’t listen?” ‎The Taliban are NOT more prone to NOT listening. It’s like the Israeli-Palestinian issue ‎and the biased thought that only the Israelis or only the Palestinians are willing to listen.‎

    So, if reconciliatory negotiations break down (which is the recommendation of most ‎Afghan peacemakers), they break down among their own people and they will sort it out ‎by themselves.‎

    The rules of war as a way of preventing suffering may be playing its role in this past ‎century of wars. ‎

    But perhaps, we need to strive harder at the rules of peace, for the sake of a kinder ‎humanity.‎

    Hakim in Afghanistan

  14. Sporkmaster says:

    Sorry about the late reply.

    Well you will have to forgive me because I am more of a half empty then half full type of guy. That is a nice concept that works only if people follow it.

    Ok here is one thing to consider, just because you did well in the past does not mean that you will do well now. Just look at the Italians. Had a history of on of the biggest and longest lasting empire in the known world. Was defeated in WW2 after only three years from them entering,

    I understand the concern that we should listen to the concerns of the Afghan people but just remember that we are the only foreign people in this fight. If people from other nations are looking to fight jihad in Afghans to be martyrs and get their 72 virgins, what are the odds that they will listen? With that conflict I look at the groups rather then a people as a whole. It is the reason why I would be more willing to listen to the Fatah then Hamas.

    But what about places such as Somalia where they have been “sorting it out” for years with endless blood shed. Or the former Yugoslavia that when through blood shed for several years?

    I sympathies with wanting peace but with that it is going to take more then just saying “lets all get along” to maintain it.

    Hope your doing well and stay safe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s