Helen: "Why are you sending troops to Afghanistan to kill more people?"

[Stinky The Clown]

January 26, 2009, 2.16 PM EST at WH presser

[mikelgb]

1. answer?

[Stinky The Clown]

20. The answer was, as I heard it, stammering and deflecting and platitudinous

I essentially heard NO answer

[EFerrari]

53. He said the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and seriously

and he said we know there are people up in the border region planning to attack us again, which is likely true.

[timtom]

88. My reaction to that would be

if they're about to attack us, then let's pull out. What the hell are we doing there, anyway?

(Note, I'm responding to their logic, not you personally).

[EFerrari]

94. I know. Afghanistan needs development and some kind of security force.

And a lot of international love. Sending in more of our troops seems like a big fat no winner to me. :(

[defendandprotect]

128. Yeah . . . but the Cocaine is piled sky high with new peak -- !!

[Renew Deal]

2. What kind of question is that?

Did she answer how own question?

[bigtree]

3. why, indeed?

Doesn't she know they've just gotten started . . . blah, blah, blah?

[truedelphi]

31. Ditto, I say. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

4. Yep, I sure as hell would like to know the answer to that as well....

I think the US should be looking back at history with how the Russians faired in Afghanistan.

[boobooday]

7. Failed, and went bankrupt in the process

I would like to know the answer to Helen's question too.

[bdamomma]

38. their country went down the tubes just like us.

[nolabels]

151. and the few thousands of years of history other would be conquerers

Same goes for the area in and around Iraq

[devilgrrl]

5. Good question. Mine would have been "Why are we still in Afghanistan?"

:popcorn:

[4lbs]

30. For the children?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/afghan-school-girls-attacked-with-acid

[Freddie Stubbs]

139. To keep the Taliban from taking over the country

[tekisui]

143. When will we know that we have been successful and can leave?

That is so open-ended. It's going to be a 20+ year war.

[devilgrrl]

148. I like that everyone thinks we'll do any better than the Soviets...

or the British, etc...

:popcorn:

[Regret My New Name]

156. Well, at least we don't have the CIA trying to sabotage our efforts.

Then again, maybe we do...

[Jokerman]

6. Go Helen! n/t

[Duende azul]

110. Flowers for Helen!

[jobycom]

8. So do we now turn on Helen for being consistent rather than supporting our partisanship?

Has to be asked.

[LakeSamish706]

10. No way, she is right on target with the question... Were going to sink....

gobs more money into a sink hole.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Hell no. I think the question needs to be answered

Helen asked what **I** want to know.

Edit to change "know" to "no" (doh!)

[Bigmack]

74. Helen's question....

is what the press is supposed to do... ask the embarrassing questions.

Even if I didn't agree with her, that question needs to be asked again and again.

[Regret My New Name]

157. Support for Afghanistan has always seemed to be divisive even among progressives.

At least from what I've seen. It's not like with Iraq where it has been pretty much everyone against it.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. Buy up all the poppies for medical use then get farming going

again, we will win with a more positive approach.

[terisan]

11. I like your plan. nt

[geardaddy]

33. Seconded.

All in favor?!

[ClayZ]

23. Standards

Afghanistan could feed the region, and beyond!

Instead of dropping BOMBS, we should be dropping agriculture specialists and seeds.

Feed starving people in Africa!

FOOD NOT BOMBS!

Obama told leaders of hostile regimes in the world their people will judge them on what they build, not what they destroy.

I hope we live up to that standard, too!

BAN BOMBS!

[gulfcoastliberal]

37. Except the specialists would be from Monsanto, with "patented" GE'd seeds. It's what they did in

Iraq. Uncle Milty managed to even fuck up growing plants.

[ClayZ]

41. New Rules!

They must shop at http://www.seedsavers.org/


Seed Savers Mission:
Seed Savers Exchange is a non-profit organization that saves and shares the heirloom seeds of our garden heritage, forming a living legacy that can be passed down through generations. When people grow and save seeds, they join an ancient tradition as stewards, nurturing our diverse, fragile, genetic and cultural heritage.

http://www.seedsavers.org/Content.aspx?src=aboutus.htm

[DCKit]

93. Totally agreed. But make sure to do it at the lowest level - the farmers.

Then burn what we don't need. It's "fighting the heroin over there, so we don't have to fight it here."

[madinmaryland]

12. What was the answer, Stinky? Many of us don't have tv access in out cube farms.

Thx

[Stinky The Clown]

26. See my reply to #1, above

[Radical Activist]

56. Your response didn't tell us anything except that

you don't listen very well.

At least sfexpat2000 filled us in a little.

[Stinky The Clown]

72. Same thing I said .......

A non-answer

[Radical Activist]

81. Just because you didn't like the answer

doesn't make it a non-answer.

[LeftyMom]

96. Would you please change your name during the amnesty?

Your current one is a joke.

[scarletwoman]

99. ROFLMAO!

Thank you! It just kills me every time I see it, that and the avatar. The disconnect is downright painful.

[Radical Activist]

125. Bush isn't President anymore.

It's OK to find out what the President actually said before you dismiss it. I don't even agree with Obama's Afghanistan policy. I was just trying to get a straight answer about what Gibbs said from somebody who obviously didn't listen. Now actually listening to Gibbs makes me less liberal too, huh? Please.

[scarletwoman]

168. I wasn't replying to any post of yours, I was replying to someone else's post.

I have no interest in getting into an argument with you.

I'm sorry, RA, I admit that I definitely have a problem with a lot of what you post. Therefore, I mostly avoid engaging with you because it seems like the most tactful tack to take -- the recent "hippie" thread being a rare exception.

Please, just do your thing, I really don't want to bother you. I apologize for indulging in a laugh at your expense, I know it wasn't a nice thing to do. I'm sorry.

sw

[Radical Activist]

124. So poor comprehension skills and being full of shit make someone more liberal?

Got it.

[ClayZ]

13. Bravo, Hellen!

:loveya:


K and R

[leftstreet]

14. What was the answer?

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

28. See my rply to #1, above

[Uncle Ho]

15. Peace

President Obama is going to bring world peace and prosperity to all.

[NorCalDem]

16. Well, i wouldn't go THAT far....

he's off to a good start, but Helen's question regarding Afghanistan IS a good one.

Welcome to DU btw! :hi:

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. President Obama won't but we all could. Welcome to D U.

Peace be with you.

[biopowertoday]

25. I do believe he and his team will try their best.

[ClayZ]

27. Welcome to DU, Uncle Ho!

:fistbump:

[TahitiNut]

66. Enjoy your brief stay.

:eyes:

[Art_from_Ark]

97. Brief stay, indeed

"Uncle Ho", as in "Ho Chi Minh", as in some smartass who thinks he's being cute on a progressive message board

[ima_sinnic]

135. yeah, my take exactly (nt)

[yodermon]

98. This one's profile:

Member since Jan 26th 2009
Number of posts 8
Gender undeclared
City USA
State USA
Country USA

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Muttocracy]

119. got the USA USA USA chant in there? oh dear. nt

[devilgrrl]

102. I'll "alert" to that!

:thumbsup:

[scarletwoman]

103. The Snark is strong with this one. Welcome to DU!

I think I like you, please don't turn out to be an asshole.

:hi:
sw

[devilgrrl]

106. What would make you think that he was an asshole? He seems so sincere!

:sarcasm:

[scarletwoman]

108. I DON'T think he's an asshole. I'm hoping I'm not wrong. I like his username, I like his post.

Sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm willing to wait and see.

sw

[TahitiNut]

145. The pizza was delivered.

I call that particular breed a "parody troll" ... a rather adolescent form of disruption. Over the years, DU has seen "Chairman Mao," "Uncle Joe" (Stalin), "Viva Fidel," "Comrade Che," and a parade of similar parody screen-names. Invariably, they spout cartoonish (a la Mallard Filmore) posts that are caricatures of liberalism in the extreme and superficial socialism vein.

[scarletwoman]

167. Oh well. My bad. I guess I'm too much of a "benefit of the doubt" kind of person.

I mean, it was just too obvious that the username was over the top, and it was just too obvious that message in the post was unserious in the extreme -- I was just hoping it meant that the poster was someone with a snarky, ironic, sarcastic sense of humor. Kind of like me. :P

*sigh*
sw

[liberalmuse]

17. Go get 'em, Helen!

I love President Obama, but I love her too. The question needs to be asked. I'm sick of these stupid wars.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Can someone explain to me WHY we must leave Afghanistan when the Taliban

is still in power? Can someone explain why we ought to forget about Osama bin Laden and his associates. I love Helen to death. She is the greatest, but I don't understand why she is asking that question.

[Patchuli]

36. Thank you for saying that

because that is exactly what I think too. I don't think the OBL issue is settled and the Taliban are mistreating people horribly. War is hell but I think we've left two countries worse off than we found them. I want out of Iraq badly but unfortunately, I don't think we can just leave the Taliban in control in Afghanistan.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Let's turn it around: suppose we leave the Taliban in power and bin Laden

and his associates free. As a result, we are attacked again. Then what? Obama is blamed for NOT going after bin Laden. Most important, do more innocent civilians and troops have to die because we have become complacent about pursuing al-Qaeda and the Taliban? I need someone to explain this to me because perhaps I'm slow on the uptake.

[Patchuli]

44. No, unfortunately we do have to finish the job

of getting the Taliban's death grip off the throats of Afghanistani people. OBL must be pursued. We were promised that he would receive justice. I tend to think that he's already dead but it would be good to pursue it to completion. I don't want to lose more soldiers either but I don't think it would be right to leave it as it is. * fucked it all up, royally. President Obama is unfortunately mopping up the mess.

[Ex Lurker]

47. After 9/11 we had the chance to

look at ourselves and see what we've done to make much of the world hate us so much, and redress their grievances against us. Instead we've gone on a rampage across Iraq and Afghanistan.

[roody]

101. Why not capture him and put him on trial? Isn't that what

civilized people do?

[eridani]

120. What makes you think we were attacked by illiterate cave dwellers the first time?

If we left Afghanistan, maybe we'd pay more attention to FBI agents like Colleen Rowley who were concerned about people who wanted to learn to fly but not land, and who could not get her superiors to approve a FISA request to investigate Mousassai's computer? And whether we stay or go, I'm betting that Obama would not ignore a warning about "bin Laden determined to attack within the US?"

How about spending some of those wasted dollars for serious port security instead? And not leaving it up to private charities to keep track of loose nuclear material?

[mike_c]

86. who gave US the right to decide how the Afghans govern themselves...?

Let's see-- Israel is also an apartheid nation ruled by a religious minority, with the hardliners having most of the power. AND they're a major threat to peace in the region. Why not bomb them, too? Or invade and occupy them?

Lots of countries have bad government, at least by our standards. Lots of countries have provided residences to unsavory people (although the Taliban arguably had little influence over OBL from the beginning-- the Pakistanis probably had much more-- but they're our "allies" so we kill the other poor brown people instead). There are international laws that prohibit us from simply invading whomever we want whenever we want to do it. That's called "crimes against humanity" in the post-Nuremberg world.

Many folks do not think there was ever any justification for the war against Afghanistan in the first place. Afghanistan did not attack America, nor was it any more of a threat than Iraq was. It's one of the poorest and most backward regions in the world. The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi and Egyptian. If any government actually sponsored the attacks to any degree, it was probably Pakistan. None of the war against Afghanistan has ever brought us any closer to retribution against OBL. It just doesn't make any sense and it never did.

America out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[NNN0LHI]

104. I think its the white mans burden thing?

I don't think we are ever going to break this cycle unfortnately.

Don

[Smith_3]

126. Ironically, Obama isn't even white.

:rofl:

[Cleita]

49. Well, I don't believe that Osama is still alive but Al Queda is and military

sources on TV keep saying he is in Pakistan, which means that Al Queda headquarters are there, so it really makes no sense to stay in Afghanistan. The best thing to do is give the Afghani the aid they need like a Marshall plan that helped develop post war Europe. The Bush administration should have done this in the first place instead of killing people who are still living in a bygone age and who become more militant with every bomb we drop on them. Helping to develop a country so that it can join the twenty-first century would make more sense. Helping them to build clinics, hospitals and schools and a modern economy are what is needed. We can then attach a few sticks to our carrots like women's rights and such.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I am a proud liberal and I keep hearing Rachel and Mike Malloy and

other liberals complain about Obama putting troops in Afghanistan or going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan. I must say that I don't understand what their concern is. We didn't finish the job in Afghanistan in the beginning--and they were among the voices who were shouting that we should have stayed there. And now Obama has to clean up the mounting mess in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) because Dumbya and Cheney refused to do their job. What is the problem??!??!

[Cleita]

62. If the troops are peace keepers while a Marshall plan is put in place...fine,

but bombing an already destroyed country to chase some Taliban and Al Queda seems counterproductive to me. What those people need is a helping hand and if they get that, you will see the Taliban and Al Queda disappear into irrelevant fringe groups that will lose recruits and that no one joins or cares about anymore. They might even turn Osama and his head honchos over to us. We didn't chase every Nazi once WWII was over, but only concentrated on the big fish as they tried to escape. We let the rank and file return to their homes and their lives to help rebuild Germany, the Democratic Germany you see today.

[eridani]

121. Jeebus H. Keerist! More cheerleading for "social work" done with JDAMs and war against civilians

Unfortunately, with imperial domination helping people is strictly secondary to the domination thing if it occurs at all. You can tell when domination is the agenda because dominators always look for local elite cats' paws to carry out that agenda, which eventually fails because the locals always have their own sometimes contradictory agendas as well. For that reason, the would-be dominators are constantly switching sides. Look for that--it's how you can tell what's actually going on.

Our first "intervention" in Afghanistan was recruiting radical Islamists from all over the world to fight against the Soviets starting in 1979, with the deliberate intention (according to Brzezinski) of drawing the Soviets into a Vietnam-like quagmire. We paid American universities to develop pro-jihadi textbooks. Of the native reactionaries, we gave most of our $5 billion or so financial aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who made his bones in the 70s thowing acid in the faces of female university students. (Yes, as late as 1975, female students in Kabul occasionally wore miniskirts.) The CIA knew all about his prior history, and they were happy to watch him burn down girls' schools. Now we have a price on his head. The CIA does a lot BSing about how they never did finacially support bin Laden. True, but only because they invited him to the party precisely because he donated a bunch of his own money to the cause.

After the Soviets left, warlord factions destroyed a lot of Kabul and killed around 40,000 of its citizens. We fully supported the Pakistani ISI in their sponsorship of the Taliban, which the warlord-weary population of Afghanistan thought might suppress lawlessness. Imperial agent Zalmay Khalilzad (currently our ambassador to Iraq) even wrote a WaPo editorial in 1997 explaining how the Taliban were agents of stability and not nearly as bad as those Shi'ite fundies in Iran. Now we don't like them for having temporarily harbored bin Laden.

AFter 9-11 we ignored constant pleas from indigenous anti-Taliban forces to not engage in massive bombing of civilians in support of the Northern Alliance warlords (formerly Soviet-allied, so we switched sides again). After our new allies kicked the Taliban out of major population centers, we refused to let the Loya Jirga of 2002 install their choice of ruler, the former king (favored mainly--even by antiroyalists--because he had pissed off the fewest number of people). They also wanted nothing to do with the warlords we insisted on installing instead, but we installed them anyway.

Our current campaign there consists of supporting warlords who are not much different from the Taliban (except for being slightly less puritanical and a lot more corrupt) with extensive bombing of civilians. That's gotten bad enough so that Lambchop Karzai occasionally bites Ms. Shari the Dominator right on the nose, at least verbally.

Why in fecking hell anybody believes that more of the same can possibly do Afghanistan any good is beyond me.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. Before any of that can be built, though, the country needs to be secure

Right now, in too many places, any of that would simply be destroyed by Talibanis. It's the wild, wild west there, and the Afghans don't seem to be able to get control of their own country. And, once again, we're partly responsible for that.

It's a balancing act, I think - definitely more on building the place up - but security is part of that careful equation as well.

[Cleita]

69. First you need to understand the tribal alliances. They are not loyal to

either the Taliban or Al Queda. They just feel safe with them. Once you start building infrastructure and giving them jobs doing so, there will only be a need for troops to keep any incursions from fringe groups at bay. The average tribal Afghani will desert them for the better deal. They will start enjoying their new jobs, roads, clinics and schools and the Taliban and Al Queda will have no recruits any more.

[EFerrari]

59. Because there will be no military victory against the Taliban in those mountains,

that's why. It's Mission Impossible. There has to be a different strategy to dealing with the al Qaida campus up there and with the protection they get from the populace.

[Chulanowa]

75. Do you think we'll be able to win?

In the annals of history, only two men have been able to gain a military victory in Afghanistan - Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, and both of them were just passing through. Now I like Obama, love him to death in fact... but he's not Temujin or Alexander. If there is a modern day Genghis Khan or Alexander the great, the motherfucker probably lives in Afghanistan.

Russia couldn't pacify the country with 150,000 troops, and lost a tenth of them. The British tried with 25,000 men, and lost a fifth of them. Afghanistan is where world powers go to die.

The only way we can take the Taliban out of power is get the various peoples of Afghanistan to stand together to keep them marginalized. That cannot be achieved by gunfire. And fuck Osama. I'd love to see the guy dragged to court, tried, and hanged, but you know what... We've let too many soldiers die in the goose-chase for him. If you want Osama on a gibbet, the answer is to use intelligence, and pinpoint his ass and send a team or two to deal with him. Not thirty fucking thousand soldiers.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. You're giving me something to think about. But how do we make this happen, especially

when so many people have lost hope? How to we made the tribes come together and work against al-Qaeda and the militant Taliban?

[readmoreoften]

116. Oh, right. Our gang-raping warlord allies are much better.

"Bin Laden and his associates"? Why not take out the Saudis then? We're building a pipeline in Afghanistan. Some "winter soldier" troops in the IVAW have even admitted they were assigned to guard the pipeline. If you think this has to do with "Bin Laden" you're insane. Go see "Taxi to the Darkside" and get back to me.

[datasuspect]

133. the same reason russia left afghanistan

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

21. I love Helen, love Obama 2 but not sure about this one

[1776Forever]

24. Helen you speak for a lot of us - Shouldn't we try another way & see if it works first?

Just asking - :shrug:

[truedelphi]

32. Say there,

Join me for a toast

:toast:

[1776Forever]

82. Be glad too.....

:fistbump:
:toast:

[RedCappedBandit]

68. But violence has worked so well in the past!

[catnhatnh]

29. Hey Stinky,

the question is important, but more important is this-That she was allowed to ask it. After trying to question the Bush regime she was marginalized and ignored. So now I eagerly await seeing how this question affects her status within the gaggle. If it remains that of senior correspondent and they continue to call on her I will remain highly optimistic about the administration. Remember that for a real independent press we need a presidential spokesman who calls on Helen every time and Lester Klingsolver (SP?) much more rarely...

[Kokonoe]

34. In the campaign the president talked about how we took our eye off the ball.

from Afghanistan and moved our resources to Iraq.
Afghanistan deteriorated along the border.
the people in those hills are planning more.
(WHO ARE THEY}
That is delivered through intelligence reports, and good reporters.
The Bla Bla bla people tell the President, and he is investigating our posture.
He said during the campaign; move troops to Afghanistan.
because they have dangerous people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. And, the answer is......????

[bdamomma]

40. Karzai is tired of the killing of civilians also.

[Connie_Corleone]

42. What's the point of posting the question without the answer?

And your reply to #1 is not an answer. Where's the quote from Gibbs without your opinion attached to it?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. If you don't like my summation, try Google

He gave a non-answer. You wanna parse words, find the text.

[Connie_Corleone]

48. You don't want to give a real quote. Fine.

I'll remember that next time I see your name so I can avoid wasting my time clicking on your thread.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Thank you. That's a grown up thing to do

The reason I gave no quote is that I do not have the quote. I also could care less to expend the effort to find it. I heard what I heard (live as it happened on the teevee) and I shared it here. If you mistrust my view, then that's **your** issue, not mine.

:hi:

[truebrit71]

43. Why? Because that is where the real bad guys are...and we would have been DONE with this bullshit...

..."War on Turr" had Lt AWOL not decided to go and grab Unka Dicks oil from under the Iraqi sand..

Afghanistan and Pakistan is PRECISELY where we need to be if we are to succeed in our endeavours..

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Not saying anything about that

The question was asked.

The answer was a non-answer.

[EFerrari]

54. Yes, they are there, that's true. But relying on a military solution

is an error. There is no way we can win militarily in that area.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. To take my reply to you a step further ......

.... you make a good point. I agree that we got screwed by GHWBush's Idiot Son with his criminal mismanagement of things.

That said, that chance to have done it right is more than six years old. In the intervening years, what has happened? I certainly don't expect to hear secret information, but I do think we can be told more than platitudes by the official White House spokesperson.

Look, I am actually willing to to be patient and give them some latitude on this. I was in favor of the initial invasion and I am still of a mind that we need to get this thing settled with bin Laden - in some fashion.

My objection is obfuscation by the guys who said they wouldn't do that.

[Duende azul]

109. what exactly are "our" endeavours?

[truebrit71]

114. Eliminating radical islamic terrorists...you know like the fuckers that flew planes into buildings a

..few years ago....

[eridani]

122. We could start by quitting being the imperial bully of the world

Conquest and domination provoke terrorism, which is how conquered people who are powerless to stop conquest exercise their only option, which is making conquest less enjoyable that it would otherwise be.

[leftchick]

136. we fucked up that as well

invading and occupying mid east countries is a great way to foment more terrorism. It is good for the MIC too! A win win!

[Hubert Flottz]

51. Because we have pipelines to protect!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

111. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We've got a winner here! Give that boy a kupie doll!

[readmoreoften]

117. You hit it on the nose.

[SidneyCarton]

55. The answer, (which the press secy. did not give) is as follows:

We are currently engaged in an open-ended counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Judging from the history of that region, we will ultimately be unsuccessful in the total destruction of the Taliban. The best we can hope for is to strengthen the post-Taliban government put in place in Kabul so that it may allow for the gradual development of a stable and secure Afghanistan that will not be a haven for outlaw organizations such as Al Qaeda. Failing that, we will likely remain in Afghanistan until, much like in Vietnam, it becomes clear that the costs of remaining are far greater than any benefits that we recieve from continued occupation.

Obviously this answer is unsatisfactory, but it would be true.

[EFerrari]

57. She didn't ask what the solution is, she asked why troops were being sent in.

He did answer her and the follow up should have been, "Do you seriously expect a military operation will solve this problem?" but, she didn't ask/get a follow up.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. That's parsing .....

We know what was mean t and what was said. If you heard it live, Gibbs gave a long answer that said little and then, without so much as a breath, called on the next reporter.

Look, I'm not necessarily opposed to a troop buildup in a way that Obama has suggested he would do. Just don't bullshit me.

[EFerrari]

65. I don't support a troop build up but was just trying to be fair.

I did hear it live. TG for Helen. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Indeed!

:thumbsup:

[SidneyCarton]

78. Fair enough, my fault for posting without fully understanding the question.

[EFerrari]

80. That's just my take, anyway. Ymmv. n/t

[NMDemDist2]

58. d00d, I think you burnt the popcorn

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

64. :sniff sniff:

d00dette ..... ya think? ;)

[Fireweed247]

67. Why the hell were we ever in Afghanistan??

Osama is dead, the hijackers were Saudis...and there is no way in hell that the Taliban were able to pull off 9/11.

Just how did "The Taliban" talk NORAD into standing down? How did they get the US Government to avoid investigations and then fix the commission report when they were finally forced to investigate? Did the Taliban suggest that Bush and Cheney testify together and not under oath? Did they buy the puts on the airlines because if they did I am sure we would have heard about it.

The war on terror is a lie. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor that the PNAC bastards planned and executed for their own benefit. It is so obvious that I am surprised that there are still DUers that do not see this.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Please

Don't hijack my thread. I'm asking nicely.

[JohnyCanuck]

115. "I am surprised that there are still DUers that do not see this."

Me too. But then again how many Americans know about Operation Northwoods or Operation Gladio.

Nor are they aware of the extent to which Western intelligence services have a history of cooperating with and using for their own nefarious purposes the same "evil-doers" and "terrorists" that their governments publicly condemn.

Translated from an article in the Norwegian Daily Stavanger Aftenbladet (Stavanger Evening News):

Terrorists working for western countries

We have been told that Western countries would do everything they could to eradicate Al-Qaeda in the "war on terror". But Western intelligence has from the 1990s, used terrorists to do dirty work in a number of countries.

SNIP

The Soviets gave up Afghanistan in 1989. Bin Laden's men fought in a couple of years of civil war that followed. So against whom should the jihadists now fight their holy war? The regimes they came from would not tolerate fundamentalist guerrilla fighters in their own backyard.

Western intelligence services saw an opportunity. Documentation proves that British and American players in particular exploited the brutality of Al-Qaeda. "The goal has been to destabilize regions where Anglo-American power wanted to secure control over oil and gas resources," said the British terrorism analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. He has written several books on the subject.

In 1991 came three US military agents arrived in Azerbaijan. They arranged to fly in over 2,000 mujahedin soldiers. The job was to create rebellion and remove Russian influence. Bin Laden established an Al-Qaida's office in Baku. It was a base for terrorist actions in the Muslim neighborhood near Russia. After two years of unrest the democratically elected president was overthrown in June 1993. The corrupt Alijev took power. Now western and Saudi oil companies could secure a lucrative contract. Construction of the pipeline oil Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan could begin - bypassing Russia.

In 1992 the war in Bosnia began. An official Dutch report authored in 2002 by Professor Cees Wiebes from the University of Amsterdam shows that the Pentagon secretly flew thousands of Al-Qaida soldiers into Bosnia, ostensibly in support of Bosnian Muslims. But these brutal thugs provoked the Serbs so that a peaceful solution was impossible. Nato and the United States supported the Bosnian Muslims with the air strikes.

snip

Ahmed points out that the other areas where Western covert operations have used al-Qaeda terrorists include Algeria, Egypt, Chechnya (see Graph) and even the Philippines. These case studies show how the activities of Islamic terrorist groups linked to Al-Qaeda through training, money, weapons and fighters have been sponsored by the Anglo-American alliance. "Either by direct or indirect support through state intermediaries. The overall purpose has been to secure control over raw materials, especially oil and gas," said Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2009/01/norwegian-daily-terrorists-working-for.html

[TrogL]

73. Canada could use some help over there

While you guys have been busy fighting a non-existent enemy (the people who knocked down the towers) in Iraq, we've been trying to get some sort of a workable solution in place in Afghanistan.

Who knows, we might even find OBL hiding in plain sight.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. You'll get no argument from me.

[MellowDem]

85. Canada is helping the US right now...

and actually they're leaving. Canada doesn't need any help. We need help. And Canada won't be helping soon.

[go west young man]

77. Helen knows that it's just more money down the toilet.

The mountains of Afghanistan and the people fighting there will drain the US just as it drained Russia. The best future defense for the US is to get out of everyone else's backyards and quit stealing their resources and controlling their governments. Until we learn that lesson we will always have people trying to kill us. Obamas strategy of changing Karzai out may be a plug for a small hole but in the long run the rest of the world see's the US as an imperialist country thereby damaging us in other areas. No wonder South America has swung completely left. They see us for what we are now. In the "Great game" we are losing because our foreign policy is flawed and has been for quite some time.

If the US wants to gain credibility in the world it would do well by rebuilding Gaza and Lebanon instead of tossing it to th wind in the desert.

[Mari333]

79. thank GOD for Helen

its the one thing I vehemently disagree with Obama on...and we need to get the f out of there.
and anyone who wants us to stay there should either enlist or stfu.

[bridgit]

83. Helen knows the short answer to the wording of that question as such...

It is, "Because that's what troops do period" The cat's cradle then opens up into, 'why are we there again?' '9/11 wasn't the Taliban's fault why are people being mean to them?' 'If the tribal regions want to grow, harvest, and traffic heroin into American cities killing scores to finance nefarious doings then why shouldn't they be allowed to?' etc...

No one should be comfortable with war; and so the left has never been comfortable with staking out a position on events that swirled around 9/11, previous attempts upon the towers, dropping the embassy in Kenya, or the Cole for that matter, or what if anything to do about any of these seemingly disparate events. And I think that's part of why questions, like Helen's, swirling likewise round & round seem sometimes off balance, youthful, brand new; as though they were never considered before

What, no, "Why have you (Obama) authorized a Hellfire strike inside Pakistan?"? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/obama-continues-pakistan_n_160356.html?page=4

[ihatehannity]

87. easy answer

Hannity said stay in Iraq... so we go to Afghanistan... remember, Hannity is never right, do the opposite

[bridgit]

92. Hannity says Obama is a doo-doo head; Barack Obama is a great man, hey! I like how that works!

:bounce:

[rug]

89. There is no answer.

[K8-EEE]

90. What SHOULD we do in Afghanistan

We all know -the women there were/are not even semi treated like human beings. GWB goes and blows the lid of the place and then totally abandons it for the Oil War.

How do you set it right?

I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

[roody]

107. Where was our oh-so-compassionate government when the

Taliban was blowing up the Buddhas?

[K8-EEE]

123. OK but I'm asking....what should we do?

It's like half the population there is under arrest -- the Taliban rule is awful. What's to be done about it? The problem is there's been so many decades or war there, I agree, when the Soviets came to "liberate" them it also didn't go well. But how can we help people in Afghanistan? If nothing else....help them get the hell out of there.

I'm asking because I am familiar with the women's struggle there (from involved Lebanese neighbors) but don't have a huge knowledge base of the history of it...was it ALWAYS like that?

Non-hostile answers if you please....

[roody]

144. Build, not destroy.

[K8-EEE]

147. Oh absolutely but wouldn't any building be in war-like conditions

I mean if you're going to build there....you're gonna get shot at, you're gonna get blown up. The act of something like building a school for girls say, much needed, is considered an act of war by the religious extremists there so what's to do?

[MrSlayer]

91. Because there are people there that need killing?

Actual terrorists perhaps? Unlike Chimpy and friends, this administration is not going to take their eye off the ball. This administration isn't going to strengthen the terror groups to use against us for fear purposes. This administration isn't going to invade countries for the sole purpose of profiteering. There are terrorists and training facilities there that need to be taken out. I expect this administration to do just that. We aren't going in there to simply "kill people".

[eridani]

127. You created these people with your tax dollars in the 80s

More military attacks on civilians have done nothing but contribute to the extinction of reasonable people and the ascendance of the most vicious fundies. More military force = yet more vicious fundies. It's like dumping more and more antibiotics into a bacteria culture; eventually all you have left is the most dangerous strains possible--that you have created yourself.

All you are doing is advocating ramping up the war of each against all, which women always, always lose.

[lib2DaBone]

95. Not meant to be off topic..but.. How can we wage war in Afghanistan..

when we lost 50,000 jobs in America today? We can't even manugacture a box of can openers in this country.... let alone tanks and airplanes and ammo.

We (America) are so broke.. we can't even pay attention....

[JohnyCanuck]

132. Actually I disagree

You can't manufacture can openers, but the military industrial complex ensures that the manufacture of guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, jet fighters etc. is the one area of manufacturing that still thrives in the US.

[Romulox]

140. It "thrives" in the US because taxpayers are forced to subsidize it to the tune of 100s of billions

each year. And even then, our services are forced to buy the substandard products of these crony industries by a politicians padding their congressional districts.

ANY industry could "thrive" under such conditions.

[DemBones DemBones]

100. I love Helen. She always does her job

and gives presidents hell.

[MasonJar]

105. Do not send in multi troops. Put in the kind of troops who can clean

up the mountains in and around Pakistan, where Taliban are sending out radio messages threatening to kill residents who do not do as they say, such as those who send their daughters to school. Clean out those scum any way possible.

[Condem]

112. Gosh, Helen, I don't know.

Because, maybe, the fucking Taliban needs to be eradicated from this earth. With no memory of them, whatsoever. How's that??

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. Because the Taliban need to be killed

[scarletwoman]

118. Because we're bad ass, that's what we do.

[defendandprotect]

129. Good for Helen---!!! Remove troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and go home!!!

This is about warprofiteering, oil and imperialism ---

And, remember what we did to the Russians in setting them up for "a Vietnam-type experience

in Afghanistan" --- at the hands of religious fanatics we put in business as "The Taliban"....

How stupid are we?

[leftynyc]

141. That would mean

leaving the women of Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban. Leaving them to a group of animals that only wants to enslave them. No education, no freedom, no music, no laughter. Are you okay with that?

[defendandprotect]

153. That's what we've been doing for the last 7 years . . . !!

Women in Afghanistan are in even worse shape than when we first went in--!!!

We created the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- with CIA money via ISI-Pakistan and we then went

into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians entered . . . "in order to bait the

Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a 'Vietnam-type experience.'"


And we have brought drug production in Afghanistan to new peak levels --- and we're selling it.


There would be many ways to help the women of Afghanistan -- but commiting the US government

to assisting religious fanatics -- either in Afghanistan or Iraq or US -- is not going to do it!

[leftynyc]

160. I do not believe they are in worse shape

Women are part of the government (when not getting killed by the taliban for doing do), going to school (when not getting killed by the taliban for doing do), are able to see doctors when they are sick. Where do you get the information they are worse off?

So after appropriate self-flaggelation for creating the taliban (and that's debateable - we created the mujadeen), can we at least agree that these women need help NOW and not when the freeking UN decides to help.

[defendandprotect]

161. Were they setting themselves on FIRE before we attacked Afghanistan .. . ???

No --

There is no question -- the US/CIA created the Taliban thru funding via the ISI-Pakistan.

You're in denial about the condition of the women -- while suggesting that what they need

is more of what they've gotten over the last 7 years!!!

What we need to do is stop funding religious fanatics whether in the US, Afghanistan or

Israel--!!!

[leftynyc]

163. Are they setting themselves on fire

because the US is there? Because if not, I have no idea of what the connection is. Maybe you don't think education is the way out but I know better. And you rant about religious fanatics while turning a blind eye to what the taliban means for women makes me want to barf.

[defendandprotect]

169. Because their conditions are worse than previously . . .

but rather than measuring what is worse than horrible . . .

Tell me what improvements the US has made for women in Afghanistan?

They are begging in the streets --- they have turned to prostitution.

They are setting themselves on fire.

Education is important for every woman on the planet -- just as it is

for males. However, only females as a class have been kept from

education --- and probably never more so than living under the Taliban.

And what has the US done to combat that?

Oh, and excuse me for "ranting against religious fanatics" --- !!!

They probably have nothing to do with the suffering of females anywhere

in the world!!!

We all know what the Taliban means for females --- but the US is doing

nothing about it.

Meanwhile, we still have the UN CEDAR Agreement unsigned ---

maybe Obama will sign it.

[leftynyc]

164. In fact, here a story about

how they're setting themselves on fire because of lack of education and forced marriages bringing on despair. They are speaking of Herat where - surprise, surprise - the fucking taliban is all over the place.


http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1051725.html

[defendandprotect]

130. Helen's next question should be: "We are bankrupted, how can we afford two wars" . . . ???

Iraqis and Afghanistanis are inviting us to --- LEAVE, LEAVE, LEAVE

GO HOME, GO HOME, GO HOME!!!

[cboy4]

131. Sometimes I wonder if Helen asks specific questions to

only be combative.

She's sounding more and more like a wacked out left extrimist than a rational thinking person.

[defendandprotect]

154. And that leaves you sounding like . . .

you don't like liberal/progressive questions . . .

How is it "rational" to support wars we can't afford and which make no sense?

[bridgit]

155. The extent to which wars make less or no sense is the extent to which the war mirrors...

whatever sense was possessed by the CiC that sent the troops there to begin with. That being the case; troops in Afghanistan make perfect sense. If Helen's question is an example of a Lib/Pro question it's easier to understand why others consider them to be filled with ether and so lighter than air. It's a good thing Helen once again sits before an Admin that even seeks her input in that the world remains a dangerous place, others want us dead, Obama authorizes Hellfire strikes into Afghanistan, American Mean is spring locked & loaded, and the Taliban kill people with the heroin they grow for money to finance their doings so it's clearly better to be asking questions of people more likely to even answer them filled with ether or no...

http://www.ftd.com

[defendandprotect]

159. You support these wars --- ??? You support Bush on these wars--???

Even if you bought the Bush myth on 9/11, the hijackers were mainly Saudis -- not

Afghanistanis. Why didn't we bomb Saudi Arabia. And, why didn't we bomb all of

Mississippi in order to catch KKK terrorists?

The idea that you kill innocent civilian populations in order to catch a small number

of terrorists taking refuge in that country is insane.

And, it's really enlightening to see the disdain for Helen Thomas and liberalism and

progressive thinking among a few posting here at DU come out into the open where it can

be seen in broad daylight-!

The world is a "dangerous place" because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and other right-wing

murderers like them who are responsible for 9/11 no matter how you look at it --

either MIHOP or LIHOP. As Clarke and many others have made clear, Busco were informed,

warned -- even the United Nations Security Council warned Bush and our intelligence

agencies in August--!!

The Taliban were set to halt heroin production before we invaded ---

and, evidently, you missed the recent video here at DU which showed a British or

Canadian military officer looking at the huge PEAK new crop of heroin and commenting

on how "the US government loves to sell drugs!" This drug trafficking could not exist

without the cooperation and knowledge of high government officials and corruption of

our police enforcement.

And, btw, the US/CIA arranged for the creation of "The Taliban/Al Qaeda" thru the ISI-

Pakistan. We are responsible for organizing religious fanatics into the Taliban for

our own purposes-!

Again, it is clear that the right-wing loves war and hates Helen!






The extent to which wars make less or no sense is the extent to which the war mirrors...
whatever sense was possessed by the CiC that sent the troops there to begin with. That being the case; troops in Afghanistan make perfect sense. If Helen's question is an example of a Lib/Pro question it's easier to understand why others consider them to be filled with ether and so lighter than air. It's a good thing Helen once again sits before an Admin that even seeks her input in that the world remains a dangerous place, others want us dead, Obama authorizes Hellfire strikes into Afghanistan, American Mean is spring locked & loaded, and the Taliban kill people with the heroin they grow for money to finance their doings so it's clearly better to be asking questions of people more likely to even answer them filled with ether or no...

http://www.ftd.com

[bridgit]

162. Now you're just being ridiculous and somehow proud of it

Thank you for proving my point, it was much easier than I thought it would ever be. So because I disagree with the wording of a Helen Thomas question I then love g.w. bush and hate Helen Thomas? I've changed my mind, that's not ridiculous that's just plain stupid! Your litany of disconnected conspiracy theories have a forum of their own. Displayed here they are evidence instead of why it has taken 12+ years to get rid of the neocon nightmare...there's no focus, there's no center, no balance; just the careening of a driver-less vehicle from side to side. But I'll just pick just one:

"The Taliban were set to halt heroin production before we invaded ---"

Nice talking to'ya LaLa, it has more to do with antique Britain and the opium wars than you are able to imagine http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/04/military.afghanistan

[olegramps]

134. I believe it is a fair question.

What are the differences from our being involved in the Iraqi quagmire and the possibility of that also happening in Afghanistan?

I am of the opinion that if we had keep our emphasis on Afghanistan rather than invading Iraq perhaps we could have succeeded at the time since world opinion was behind us. I am not as confident today that this could be pulled off. I say this because the Bush-Cheney administration has turned the entire Muslim world against us. In fact the Taliban was just as feared and hated by most of the countries in the region as by the Western nations. Iran even assisted us in our attacked against the Taliban.

These cases of indiscriminate bombings that have resulted in civilian casualties is turning even those who originally supported us into our enemies. Yes, it is in my estimation a fair question. If we had more like Helen, the evil Bush PNAC regime would have not been able to pull us into a war that was totally unjustified.

[GeorgeGist]

137. google results for your quote

"Why are you sending troops to Afghanistan to kill more people?"


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&as_qdr=all&q=%22Why+are+you+sending+troops+to+Afghanistan+to+kill+more+people%22&start=0&sa=N&filter=0

[Romulox]

138. Thank god someone is speaking sense. Bring all our soldiers home, NOW. nt

[Prometheus Bound]

142. Answer: "terrorists" reside in Afghanistan.

So it seems they're not there for the women or children or other altruistic motives. They're there, almost 7 1/2 years later, supposedly to git them terrorists.

NEXT QUESTION?
In the category of the more things change the more they stay the same, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during Monday afternoon's press briefing why President Obama was sending more American troops into Afghanistan "to kill people"?

Mr. Gibbs explained to the 88-year-old Miss Thomas that "terrorists" reside in Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/27/inside-the-beltway-10295181/

[Laughing Mirror]

146. She didn't get an answer, did she?

I know, I listened for it. It never came. It never will.

[jmg257]

149. "because if we kept them HERE to kill more people, someone might get REALLY pissed". nt

[jakeXT]

150. Is anybody surprised?

Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties
• US forces to step up operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Pakistani president tells US ambassador strikes 'do not help war on terror'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Saeed Shah in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 January 2009 20.11 GMT
larger | smaller

The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.

Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as the US takes the fight to its enemies in the region.

The Obama administration is to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 and when asked in a television interview if the US public should expect more American casualties, Biden said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/25/obama-airstrikes-pakistan/print

[MassNssen]

152. such a good question!

such a good question!

[malaise]

158. Bravo Helen

End the fugging war and occupation

[paulk]

165. that's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question

I expect better from Helen Thomas.

[marshall]

166. Back to the back row with you, Helen!

And talk to the hand.

But she got a good lick in there while she could.