CODEPINK heartbroken by Obama's commitment to continued military aggression in Afghanistan

[G_j]

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=4692
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Feb. 19, 2009 CONTACT
Jean Stevens, CODEPINK media coordinator, 646-723-1781


CODEPINK heartbroken by Obama's commitment to continued military aggression in Afghanistan:
Calls for real change, humanitarian aid and reconstruction

WASHINGTON -- CODEPINK Women for Peace is heartbroken and discouraged by President Obama's decision to deploy an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, a screeching halt to his rhetoric for change and moving our country in a new direction.

CODEPINK women call on Obama and his administration to reject a proven-false military solution, and call for a surge in diplomacy and humanitarian aid and an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

"It makes no sense to appoint Richard Holbrooke to find a way out of the Afghan quagmire while sending 17,000 more troops," said Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK co-founder. "You can't do diplomacy while widening the war. We must freeze the number of troops, engage in immediate diplomatic efforts — with Afghan women at the table — and then replace our military mission with a humanitarian, reconstruction mission. That would reflect the change the American people voted for."

The deployment is a continuation of the same failed U.S. policies that have inspired a Taliban resurgence, raised civilian deaths, and destabilized infrastructure and social system. There is no military solution to Afghanistan, as many military officials and think-tanks have concluded. "You don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency," Gen. David Petraeus told the Associated Press recently, and Special Envoy Holbrooke said, "It is like no other problem we have confronted...I have never seen anything like the mess we have inherited."

Not only will military policies not work, but they will lead to an increase in civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S military. A United Nations report released earlier this week found the Afghan civilian death toll nearly doubled in 2008, with the U.S. directly blamed for almost half of these deaths. The number of Afghan people who believe the US has performed well dropped this year to 32 percent from 68 percent in 2005, military scholar Anthony Cordesman told a Congressional hearing last week. Meanwhile, more than two-thirds of Americans oppose increasing the deployments, and European opposition is so great that leaders of Spain, France and Germany have refused to send any additional forces.

Obama must take bold and compassionate action to address the Afghan's real need for health care, clean water and education by providing humanitarian assistance through non-governmental organizations, instead of continuing to cripple Afghanistan with more years of war. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results. It's time for change.

For interviews and more information, please call Jean Stevens, national media coordinator, at 646-723-1781

[anonymous171]

1. Obama is not a pacifist.

[Runcible Spoon]

3. .............

and? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

14. Bush waged an "illegal" war based on lies and you're suggesting it would

be "pacifist" to stop it???

And we've already killed more than 200,000 innocent civilians with this one ---

while we killed 500,000 of them in prior bombings, etc over twenty years!!!

Yeah -- the American Empire is "pacifist" --- !!!

:crazy:

And same for Afghanistan . . . we've been exerting control over them for twenty

years -- and oops! their opium crops seem to be peaking again!!!

Women are faring so much better, too, since we've been there!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. We've killed 500,000 Afghanis?

[camera obscura]

85. You're conflating Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unless you think Afghanistan was illegal and caused 500k deaths.

[Baby Snooks]

171. Afghanistan was legal?

Just how does Afghahistan differ from Iraq? Both times we have gone into Afghanistan it has been to "secure" our "national interests" which are the interests we went to war with Iraq to "secure" which are the interests of the multi-national oil and gas corporations which serve the oligarchy of the Bushes and are the foundation of the "military-industrial complex" which the military defends.

You have forgotten the massive oil and gas pipeline system that Enron was to build in Afghanistan which Enron still intends to build which was intended to transport oil and gas from Russia to a port in India as well as to a port in Israel once we "liberated" the oil in Iraq and Iran and once we "liberated" the land for a new pipeline system in Syria and Jordan to allow us to bypass the Persian Gulf and OPEC. Enron was never bankrupt and never insolvent. But it was put out of business. Temporarily. To allow "redistribution" of the assets through the bankruptcy. Mainly to friends of the Bushes. Who turned out not to be such good friends of Ken Lay.

Thems that's got the gold makes the rules. Thems that's got the oil makes the rules in today's world.

You have forgotten as well that we put the Taliban in power and kept them in power.

We are not in Afghnaistan for humanitarian reasons. And we are not remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons.

[Freddie Stubbs]

255. What specific law is it in violation of?

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

128. Yeah, if we just let the Taliban retake the government, the women will fare MUCH better.

:crazy:

[DarleenMB]

129. Thank you.

I would also recommend reading The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns.

Obama SAID during his campaign that if necessary he would re-engage in Afghanistan. It's necessary.

[JackRiddler]

191. What do the women of Afghanistan say?

No doubt those who can remember pine for the days of the pro-Soviet 1970s, when women went to school and walked freely, before the United States began to undermine their country on behalf of the Cold War, and finance and arm the warlords and mujahedeen who morphed into the Taliban.

The oldest, most frequently cited women's group in Afghanistan is RAWA. (They started as anti-Soviet.)

Have a look just at the headlines on the front page of their website:

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

The US Government Wants War,
the People of US and the World Want Peace!

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)

RAWA is the oldest political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan since 1977.
«جمعیت انقلابی زنان افغانستان» (راوا) قدیمی ترین سازمان سیاسی - اجتماعی زنان افغان است كه از سال ۱۳۵۶ بدینسو بخاطر آزادی، دموكراسی و احقاق حقوق زنان در افغانستان بنیادگرا زده می‌رزمد.


More...


نه امریکا و نه جنایتکاران طالبی و جهادی،
زنده باد پیکار نیروهای مستقل و دموکراتیک!

Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban,
Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!
RAWA's statement on the 7th anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan
October 7, 2008
مردم کشوری تحت اشغال بیگانگان و سلطه‌ی جنایتکاران جهادی
به جنگ با پاکستان نخواهند رفت!
RAWA Sends 21 Afghan Children for Treatment in the USA
June 24, 2008 RAWA celebrates
the International Women's Day
March 8, 2008 - Kabul

RAWA Statement on the International Women's Day (Mar.8, 2008)زنان افغان در دوزخ بنیادگرایان و اشغالگران میسوزند

د افغانستان ښځی د بنسټپالو او تیری کوونکو په دوزخ کی سوځی

Declare Your Strong Support for Immediate Release of
Young Afghan Journalist Parwiz Kambakhsh
خشم تانرا در مقابل بازداشت پرویز کامبخش ابراز کنید!
Español | Français | Italiano | Català | Dutch | 日本語 | Deutsch
The US and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are
the Main Human Rights Violators in Afghanistan
RAWA communiqué on Universal Human Rights Day, Dec.10, 2007

امریکا و عوامل بنیادگرایش، ناقضان اصلی حقوق بشر در افغانستان
امریکا او بنسټپالی گوډاگیان یی په افغانستان کی دبشر دحقوقو اصلی سرغړوونكى
Afghan Refugee Camp Forcibly Evacuated:
Help RAWA Resettle the Families in Afghanistan

September 24, 2007
RAWA denounces the gloomy day of April 28
April 28, 2007

RAWA statement | RAWA call on UN
Movie Clip | Press Coverage

Español | Deutsch | 日本語 | Italiano

وحدت جنایتکاران ۸ ثوری و ۷ ثوری را با متشکل ساختن رزمنده‌ی مردم
پاسخ بگوییم!
خون اجمل به گردن دولت خاین است
طرح ننگین «مصالحه ملی»، آخرین میخ بر تابوت دموکراسی کاذب

Disgraceful Bill of "National Conciliation":
The last nail into the coffin of fake democracy
Five Years Later, Afghanistan Still in Flames
Speech by Zoya at a benefit for RAWA in Los Angeles on October 7, 2006
Afghan orphans reshape their lives at RAWA orphanages

Dr Najibullah Lafraie: Fundamentalist in the Guise of Academician
The "Miracle" or a Mockery of Afghanistan?
RAWA's response to "The Afghanistan Miracle" (The Seattle Times, Oct. 4, 2005)
The US Government Wants War,
the People of US and the World Want Peace!
Swedish | Português | Español | Italiano | Français | 日本語 | Deutsch دولت امريكا جنگ ميخواهد، مردم امريكا و دنيا صلح!

... more RAWA Statements and Past Events

Reality of life in so-called "liberated" Afghanistan

AFGHANISTAN: “It’s too risky to be an aid worker”
IRIN: Dozens of people involved in relief work were kidnapped and/or killed in 2008 and large consignments of aid items were pillaged by insurgents and criminal groups, according to the UN. Ahmad Wali (not his real name) works for a local NGO in Logar Province, about 60 km south of Kabul and where four employees of the International Rescue Committee were killed by unidentified armed men in August 2008. Wali spoke to IRIN about the risks he faces.

Obama backs Bush on Afghan jail prisoners
The Mail: President Obama has angered human rights groups by saying terror suspects seized in Afghanistan cannot challenge their detention in US courts. The US Justice Department says 600 ‘enemy combatants’ held at Bagram air base have no constitutional rights. Human rights groups had hoped Mr Obama would take a different stance to George W. Bush’s.

Uncomfortable Others: Afghan Civilians Wounded by America
RAWA News: If Afghan victims of American or NATO forces get mentioned at all in the mainstream press, it is the dead. Those permanently maimed in “precision” air strikes or midnight assaults by U.S. Special Forces hardly ever are worthy of notice. Yet, such attacks result in injured as well as wounded; indeed, the ratio of wounded to civilians killed in the predominant air attacks in Afghanistan during the initial U.S. bombing campaign was about 1.8 to 1. This ratio has likely decreased as the fighting became more lethally focused, but a decreasing ratio raises the specter of war crimes having been committed against civilians.

Afghanistan: Slipping out of control
Afghanistan Still World's Opium Capital
Thousands flee fighting and hunger in Afghanistan
Afghanistan is Barack Obama's Iraq - or Vietnam
‘Two-thirds of Afghan police take illegal drugs’
Afghan Official Claims 15 Civilians Killed in US Strike in Herat
UN Reports 40 Percent Increase in Afghan Civilian Deaths in 2008
Afghan diplomat Mohammed Fagirad charged in all-day wife beating in NY
Iran is helping Taliban in Afghanistan, says Petraus
Five Afghan Children One Woman Killed in Australian Raid in Uruzgan
16 self-immolation cases among Afghan women registered in Badghis
Deadly attacks hit Afghan capital, 27 killed 50 injured
US forces kill school principal in Khost
Alia's husband poured acid on her face in Kunduz
Afghan government the weakest one: Pentagon
UK officer held for Afghan 'casualties leak'
AFGHANISTAN: Child servitude, marriage resemble modern-day slavery
Afghanistan: The Smell of Death
Obama More Deadly for Afghan Civilians than Bush (in Jan 2009): “Change” Afghans Should Look Upon with Skepticism
Gul Afroz, 13-Year Old Gang-Rape Victim Demands Severe Punishment for the Rapists
A picture of misery: how corruption and failure destroyed the hope of democracy
Children in Afghanistan brave sexual harassment as they walk to school
Afghanistan cultivates drugs on record vast area under US invasion
Afghanistan Tries to Hide Troubled Past
Anger and unrest continue over US raid in Laghman, Afghanistan
Obama's Vietnam
Afghanistan needs to double midwives: UN
From Hospital, Afghans Rebut U.S. Account
Paktika lacks female health care services
Taliban ‘treated in same field hospital as British soldiers’
NATO soldier, over dozen civilians killed in Afghanistan (Roundup)
Locals claim US-led coalition killed 25 civilians in Kapisa
Afghanistan: slipping back into chaos
Drug Trade Remains A Contentious Issue For ISAF, Afghan Government
Nato chief faults Afghan leaders
HRW: Karzai Must Hold Officials Accountable for Past Crimes
New Taliban Rules Target Afghan Teachers: 2 teachers killed
Drug addiction on rise with Afghan kids
Warlords gang-rape a woman in Badakhshan
100 suicide attemps among women in 8 months in Kandahar
Cases of violence against women in north of Afghanistan
Post-Taliban Kabul blossoms for the rich
Police rapes a girl in Takhar, Women are sold in Faryab
Sanobar, 11-years-old girl is abducted and raped by warlords (with photos)
No 'real change' for Afghan women
90 civilians perish in NATO air strike: Residents (with photos)
Stone Age still lingers on in Bamyan, many live in caves
Takhar residents took to streets against armed men
UNIFEM: "65% widows in Kabul see suicide the only option to get rid of their miseries"
People of Paghman protest against Sayyaf, police kill 2 protesters (with photos)
Hundreds Demonstrate in Takhar against Warlords, Murder of Children (with photo)
UN details atrocities committed over 23 years of conflict in Afghanistan
Attacks, 40% unemployment rate plague Afghanistan
US not interested in peace in Afghanistan: Kathy Gannon
Gulbuddin's terrorist party has 34 members in the parliament
UNICEF warns of continued threat facing women and children
Women rights situation in Afghanistan worries AIHRC
The Whole Justice System of Afghanistan is Rotten
Some cabinet ministers in Afghanistan are deeply implicated in the drugs trade
Gulbar, an Afghan woman is burnt by her husband (Photos and movie clip)
Gap between rich and poor widens in Afghanistan
Female foe of warlords faces them in Afghan assembly
Opium farmers sell daughters to cover debts to traffickers
The women of Afghanistan find a leader
US Exporting Fake Democracy -- By Force
New report by AJP accuses high-ranking officials of violating human rights
Violence against women in Afghanistan remains dramatic – UN expert
Bring War Criminals to Justice (HRW names top criminals in Afghanistan)
Afghanistan "Narco-State": UN
Afghan women still in chains under Karzai
Painful story of the Herati shelter girls
UN accuses top Afghan ministers of land grab

More...

Gang-Rape Victims
Cry for Justice

Gang-rape of
12-y-old Afghan girl

"Globalization" of Poverty
Hits Afghanistan

An Afghan woman
abused by her husband

Ear and nose of Nafisa
was cut off by her husband

A 12-y-old girl
victim of violence

Many Afghan Women
Commit Self-immolations
(Photos and Movie Clip)

11-year-old Sanobar is
abducted and raped

7-year-old Samia
Victim of Violence

Destitution
in Kabul

Victims of
the US strikes

RAWA Schools

Afghans to Obama: End the Occupation (Interview with Eman, Member of RAWA)
Uprising Radio, November 13, 2008
RAWA in the 2008 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs in Hiroshima
The NATO Occupation and Fundamentalism:
An interview with Mariam of RAWA (Z Magazine, Aug.14, 2008)
Celebrating the Marathi Translation of "Meena - Heroine of Afghanistan"
Sinhalese version of "Meena - Heroine of Afghanistan" was published in Sri Lanka
RAWA activist speaks in a conference in Jawaharlal Nehru University - New Delhi
RAWA activist addresses anti-war demo in Barcelona, March 15, 2008
Dr. Karan Singh presents an honorary award to RAWA (New Delhi, April 22, 2007)
Working undercover, RAWA exposes fundamentalists of every stripe
New Internationalist Magazine, Issue 400, May 2007
RAWA photo exhibit in California State University, Bakersfield
"Turn your grief into positive energy"
By Kate Hannan, about her volunteer work with RAWA (Dec.12, 2006)
Meena among 60 Asian Heroes (Time Magazine, Nov.13, 2006 )
Eve Ensler Speech: "American Regime Export Military Democracy" (Oct.7, 2006 )
Interview of Truth Radio in Canada with a RAWA activist (Oct.8, 2006)
A beacon of strength (Australian Educator, Winter 2006)
An exclusive interview with Mehmooda, a member of RAWA (The Times of India, June 24, 2006)
RAWA: a Model for Activism and Social Transformation (ZNet, June 1, 2006)
Speech of RAWA member in a Conference on South Asian Education Systems
RAWA Interview with some prostitutes
"Revolutionary", a poem by Thomas Fortenberry dedicated to RAWA



Books on RAWA and Afghan women:

Meena - Heroine
of Afghanistan
The Martyr
who founded RAWA

by
Melody Ermachild Chavis


Bleeding Afghanistan:
Washington, Warlords,
and the Propaganda of Silence
By Sonali Kolhatkar
with
James Ingalls




Zoya's Story:
An Afghan Woman's
Battle for Freedom

by Zoya with
John Follain
and Rita Cristofari


With All Our
Strength:
The Revolutionary
Association of the
Women of
Afghanistan

By Anne Brodsky



Copyright © Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) 1997- 2009
http://www.RAWA.org

Get the message. The original US intervention led to the rise of the Taliban, because the US-backed warlords were barbarians. You want to fight the Taliban, stop bombing Afghanistan and put up the money the US promised for development.

WHERE'S THE PROMISED AFGHAN "MARSHALL PLAN"?

[Dorian Gray]

150. That argument

makes sense for Iraq, but not Afghanistan. Our troops are there because the former government harbored terrorists.

[JackRiddler]

192. You mean the former government that arose...

as a direct result of the original US intervention in the 1980s?

You mean the former government that the US was negotiating with and giving money to, even after the world knew about what they were doing to women, even after they blew up the 1000-year-old Buddhas?

Funny how once those negotiations failed, the US prepared to invade Afghanistan, and Bush was asked to sign off on the preparations on Sept. 9th, with operations due to start in October. And then - oh, look, a pretext!

NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED!

.

[Baby Snooks]

197. You must be joking...

By the same logic Pakistan was harboring them as well since the terrorists are in a mountainous region referred to as "No Man's Land" which despite assumptions that it is under the authority of Afghanistan and Pakistan is in fact autonomous. It is probably the most primitive place on earth and operates under the rule of agreement between numerous tribes that have inhabited the region for centuries. The Taliban in some ways has become a "collective council" for the tribes.

The Taliban is just as much a problem for Pakistan as it is for Afghanistan so why are not in Pakistan as well?

"Our troops are there because the former government harbored terrorists."

And Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was building a nuclear weapon and had helped plan 9/11 with Osama bin Laden.

[KakistocracyHater]

58. Explain pacifist to me, I am not a hippy, too young 4 that

Do you think a pacifist just lays on the ground & passively endures attacks/physical violence?

That definition is outdated.

[Two Americas]

97. here you go

When a Republican is in office, opposition to war is good - they are war mongers and we are not.

When a Democrat is in office, then only a pacifist - which is a bad thing - would be against war.

So we should all be against "their" wars, and in favor of "our" wars. Even if it is the same war. Because partisan loyalty is more important than the country and more important than principles and ideals. Only purists and pacifists and other undesirable types are loyal to principles and ideals.

[bread_and_roses]

113. Exactly (n/t)

[LWolf]

152. BINGO. nt

[Two Americas]

96. does that defend all wars?

As long as a leader is on our team, and is "not a pacifist" then all is well?

[SammyWinstonJack]

186. Is he a warmonger?

:shrug:

[Runcible Spoon]

2. Careful, Codepink are personae non grata around here these days.

:evilfrown:

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Says who?

[Runcible Spoon]

7. Lots of people who don't like the administration questioned.

I'm not allowed to call out; search is your friend.

[kas125]

17. It's true. There are a few people, like you, who support CP, but

I discovered long ago that for the most part this feels like a pretty unfriendly place for a CodePinker to hang out.

[defendandprotect]

15. DLC doesn't like them . . . ????

[bvar22]

33. Yeah, the same Democrats who "sanctioned" MoveOn....

...while giving Bush MORE money to keep the Wars going.

Now, it is Our Guy doing it, so its all good.

[Baby Snooks]

179. Nancy Pelosi doesn't like them...

Of course she doesn't like them because they were the first to realize that the Empress was serving the Emperor. And still is.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. Imperialism moves forward

K&R

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Um, didn't he say he was going to, in the campaign?

I'm sorry, but if you're "heartbroken", you haven't been listening.

[kas125]

51. Absolutely wrong. We listened to every word he said, including

all the times he asked for our input. We are giving it. So should you, and every other person who has a brain. Just because he said it, does not mean that we have to accept it. He still works for us, asks for us to tell him what we think, and hopefully will listen to what the people say.

[Two Americas]

98. I don't get that

See this doesn't work for anyone with any memory at all. Anti-war critics - before the election and during the primaries - were warning of this. At that time, the zealous Obama fans violently disagreed with that, and attacked anyone who said Obama would do this. Now, the same critics are being attacked because they should have known all along that he was going to do this.

The pro-war people are going around in circles here to defend it.

There were hundreds and hundreds of posts during the primaries with people insisting that one of the main reasons to vote for Obama was his anti-war stance. Now many of those same people are saying "where did you ever get that idea?" and are calling anti-war people "stupid" for "being surprised."

Insanity.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. I think a lot of people make a big distinction between Iraq & Afghanistan.

Some, not so much.

[Two Americas]

201. maybe

I am comparing people's opinions then, to their opinions now.

There were some here who supported the actions in Afghanistan and not in Iraq back before the election, yes. But not as many as there are now, not by a long shot.

I have seen no one who was in favor of the actions in Afghanistan before the election, but are now against that. Yet that is the implication when people accuse them of only being interested in "tearing down Obama" or of "looking for anything to criticize." They were all opposed to the actions in Afghanistan before, and they still are now. There is no cause to insinuate that they have an agenda or hidden or nefarious motives, and that is what people are attacking them with.


...

[Warren DeMontague]

220. I actually think you're wrong. I think there is a large difference of opinion between how people

think we should handle Iraq & Aghanistan.

The International ANSWER crowd that insisted on lumping them together was and still is a minority.

You can see ample evidence of it in this very thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5111372

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5107153

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5108851

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5111529

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5110689

[Two Americas]

223. I didn't deny that

I didn't deny that, and I said that was not what I was talking about.

[Pirate Smile]

8. My Headline: Obama does what he said he would do during the campaign.

I'm shocked. :eyes:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

16. Let's consider what SANE and HONORABLE leadership would do . . . !!!

Let's not hang out at the baseline where Bush left us ... !!!

[Political Heretic]

76. But he was wrong then and he's still wrong now!

Yes, perhaps CP shouldn't be shocked, but Obama is still tragically wrong on this.

[spoony]

92. Precisely!

Tragically wrong, quite well put.

[JackRiddler]

87. Would you use this excuse if Bush was the one escalating a war?

[RollWithIt]

211. What do you mean by escalating?

How exactly do you escalate a war. Either you're in one or you are not.

[JackRiddler]

234. Dictionary definition of escalation:

escalate, verb
increase rapidly : the price of tickets escalated | (as adj.) ( escalating) the escalating cost of health care.
• become or cause to become more intense or serious : ( intrans. ) the disturbance escalated into a full-scale riot | ( trans. ) we do not want to escalate the war.

The latter usage - escalate war - conventionally denotes sending more troops to the theater, like the 20,000 Obama has ordered deployed to Afghanistan at the suggestion of the Pentagon, or like the Bush "surge" in Iraq. This generally means a rise in casualties, the casualties in modern American wars being very disproportionately high among the target population, mainly civilians.

Care to dispute any of that? Your point stands -- either in or out -- but it's still an escalation and worse to be "more in" than "less in."

[bread_and_roses]

114. Guess what? Some of us voted for Obama DESPITE this stance - we opposed it then and

we oppose it now. Focusing on the word "shock" or "heartbroken" is counterproductive and totally misses the point: we oppose more militarism as a "solution," we oppose the aerial bombing, we oppose the continued assumption that "collateral damage" is OK. To put it in its' simplest terms, we oppose the dismemberment and incineration of children because they happen to be near some "target." Some of us consider what we are doing in Afghanistan as criminal as what we've done in Iraq; that it's been on a smaller scale is irrelevant. Some of us opposed the Afghanistan invasion from day one. And we'll continue to oppose it, regardless of what Obama said or promised in the campaign.

The notion that having voted for Obama means one must support everything he does is - literally - crazy, ie, unfounded in any sort of reality. Why people keep posting it as if it were an answer is a mystery to me.

[Maat]

229. Thank you for so articulately stating my view (n/t).

[tigereye]

9. yes it's disappointing, but he signaled his intent to send more troops there

I was disappointed, too, since I hoped that it might be different.

[babylonsister]

10. VetVoice weighs in...

VetVoice: "I wanted to Stop Bush's Surge, but I Support Obama's Stabilization"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105282&mesg_id=5105282

snip//

Today we face a much different situation in Afghanistan as President Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 U.S. troops "to stabilize a deteriorating situation." Karen De Young reported on this in the Washington Post . Now, many of those veterans who stood up to "Stop the Escalation" are now standing with President Obama to announce their support. This is the right war, and the right time.

When we took our eye off the ball to invade Iraq in 2003, many of the needed troops and resources were allocated to the wrong fight. As a result, the situation in Afghanistan continued to become more fragile as U.S. and NATO forces struggled to keep control and of regions where Taliban forces are reasserting their power. Now we face a challenge in which Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government is crumbling and allowing the same wide spread lawlessness that gave birth to Al Qaeda.

The difference for our veterans of these recent wars in supporting President Obama, is that he has already announced his understanding for a change in strategy. He talks about the needed reforms that will allow our country to develop smart power and real national security. Unlike George Bush who buried his head in the sand until the 2006 elections slapped him awake, the Obama Administration is undergoing a massive review process to better understand and execute the fight. He talks of including diplomatic and political solutions to the military effort.

The addition of troops right now is not putting the cart before the horse, though. The addition will allow us to provide some security through the expected spring offensive from the enemy, so that there's an actual Afghanistan situation to review, and not a failed state completely overrun by the Taliban.

[Turborama]

248. This is the most crucial point, the troops are needed to secure the essential reconstruction

that's required to fix the country we helped demolish.

From a post I started last week...

"We're going to have to use development", and here's why we need troops for that

what's been badly needed in Afghanistan since the invasion is reconstruction of a totally fucked up country (excuse my French but I can't think of a better way of putting it right now). Unfortunately, this cannot be done without troops providing the security that's required whilst the reconstruction is stepped up. Hearing President Obama speak like this gives hope that at last the real problems with Afghanistan can finally be addressed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3744341&mesg_id=3744441">More

[geek tragedy]

12. Well, the people who thought we should leave Osama

and the Taliban alone of course are going to insist on that course of action today.

[JackRiddler]

89. The Taliban offered to turn over Osama, which Bush refused.

He is now either dead (as the bogus video and use of friggin' still frames run for a quarter hour indicates), or, if alive, probably not hanging out in Afghanistan for US to find him.

[geek tragedy]

93. Onl an idiot would think that Taliban offer to be made in good faith.

The Taliban were already under UN Sanctions for refusing to turn bin Laden over after the Embassy Bombings.

They were in zero position to negotiate, and their "we'll turn bin Laden over to Pakistan if you share your intelligence with us" offer was a damn joke.

[JackRiddler]

103. They asked for the proof of Sept. 11th, which wasn't provided...

Only an idiot would believe the official story of why Afghanistan was invaded, when it was by official admission planned, prepared and approved in advance of Sept. 11th. Or look at the last seven years in Afghanistan and think the killing is not yet enough, and it's time to find a better crusade in the non-military realm - not another war. Or support a few hundred billion dollars more for the escalation there, instead of investing in the transformations we need here and in the rest of the world now. Or never, ever, learn from history.

[geek tragedy]

104. Yes, the Taliban are victims in all of this.

Pro-Taliban talking points from people who describe themselves as Democrats.

Sad.

[JackRiddler]

106. No, you're the victim, most obviously, of propaganda (and perhaps self-delusion).

Because the Taliban came to be as a consequence of bad US policy. Unfortunately they may end up running Afghanistan again, thanks to a bad US policy that acts as though Predator bombings of wedding parties and a big prison at Baghram are going to win the "hearts and minds."

You can talk high and mighty about the evil Taliban, and yet still pursue a policy that doesn't harm them or even helps them.

Above all, you're the victim of the propaganda that says stopping the Taliban was ever the priority. Until mid-2001 the US was giving them money and the oil companies were courting them. These entities didn't change their minds because they suddenly discovered that the Taliban rape the rights of women and blow up ancient monuments of other religions. No. They changed their minds only and solely because they determined finally that the Taliban would not prove useful to the building of pipelines.

NOW:
WHERE'S THE MARSHALL PLAN FOR AFGHANISTAN?

It was promised by the Western invaders. Did they deliver? How much aid was provided?

How many billions were put into bombing civilians from the air (something Obama criticized while campaigning), as opposed to developing this country? Because the development has been a pittance.

And who in Afghanistan is served by a military escalation? Do you think the evil of the Taliban entitles the US to take extermination measures, and deny the human costs or call it "collateral damage"?

[geek tragedy]

111. Oy, the disproven pipeline crapola.

I hear there's a tinfoil sale at Kmart.

[JackRiddler]

116. The Pipeline Crapola.

Yes, if you're not going to admit you're wrong, this is the point in the argument at which all you have left is to call names and run away.

For those who haven't explored this issue and are interested, here is some documentation on the Afghanistan maneuvers by US oil and military-intel interests prior to Sept. 11, 2001. You'll have to follow the link to see all 21 entries and the links to the documents cited so you can research for yourselves.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=afghanistan+pipeline+oil&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

21 events found. (0.042 seconds)

EVENTS

September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline Deal
Oil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Before proceeding further, however, Unocal needs to execute agreements with Pakistan and Afghanistan; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud’s government in Afghanistan, however, have already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company. Henry Kissinger, hired as speaker for a special dinner in New York to announce the Turkmenistan pipeline deal, says the Unocal plan represents a “triumph of hope over experience.” Unocal will later open an office in Kabul, weeks after the Taliban capture of the capital in late 1996 and will interact with the Taliban, seeking support for its pipeline until at least December 1997. (Coll, 2004, pp. 301-13, 329, 338, 364-66)
Entity Tags: Ahmed Shah Massoud, Unocal, Taliban, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Henry A. Kissinger
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World’s Known Oil Reserves
The American Petroleum Institute asserts that the states bordering the Caspian Sea, north of Afghanistan, contain two-thirds of the world’s known reserves, or 659 billion barrels. Such numbers spur demand for an Afghan pipeline. However, by April 1997, estimates drop to 179 billion barrels. (Middle East Journal, 9/22/2000) This is still substantial, but the estimates continue to drop in future years (see November 1, 2002).
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built
The Associated Press will later report that the Enron corporation bribes Taliban officials as part of a “no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan.” Atul Davda, a senior director for Enron’s International Division, will later claim, “Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials.” Presumably this effort began around 1996, when a power plant Enron was building in India ran into trouble and Enron began an attempt to supply it with natural gas via a planned pipeline through Afghanistan (see 1995-November 2001 and June 24, 1996). In 1997, Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas (see December 4, 1997). They are “given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal (goes) through.” It is alleged Enron secretly employs CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. According to a CIA source, “Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a ‘tax’ on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through a pipeline they planned to build.” This source claims Enron paid more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and “a large portion of that cost was pay-offs to the Taliban.” Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enron’s collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. (Associated Press, 3/7/2002)
Entity Tags: Atul Davda, Enron, Taliban, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline
Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia reach agreement with state companies in Turkmenistan and Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan; the agreement is finalized in 1997. (Unocal, 8/13/1996)
Entity Tags: Unocal, Delta Oil
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=carpet+of+gold&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
Niaz Naik. (Source: Calcutta Telegraph (left))
Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. (Salon, 8/16/2002) This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” (Guardian, 9/26/2001) Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says, “It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” (BBC, 9/18/2001) One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs” —an invasion—or “carpets of gold” —the pipeline. (Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. 43) Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.” Naik and the other American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. (Salon, 8/16/2002)

Entity Tags: Uzbekistan, Tom Simons, Russia, Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Mullah Omar, Lee Coldren, Niaz Naik, Osama bin Laden, Karl Inderfurth, Taliban, Bush administration

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

[geek tragedy]

158. What pipeline, Captain History?

If the pipelines was so freaking important, why didn't Bush lift a finger to get it built.

But, yeah, I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with those 3000 people to whose murders the Taliban were active accomplices.

[JackRiddler]

188. Just because they didn't get what they hoped for doesn't mean it wasn't their motive.

No different than with Iraq. No different than with any other imperial invasion that goes wrong. They gambled, for now they lost. But they did put Mr. UNOCAL consultant Hamid Karzai in as president and Mr. UNOCAL consultant No. 2 Zalmay Khalilzad as US plenipotentiary. Funny how that works. (I know you'll dismiss that with more smarm and ignorant pride, but you're not the one this is being written for.)

And on behalf of my hometown New York City and the likely majority of the families of those 3,000 dead, who do not accept the official story and excuses for Sept. 11th, fuck you very much. (Mods: That's a respected New York turn of phrase.) Tell it to Beverly Eckert, who devoted herself to opposing the war in Afghanistan because she understood that killing barefoot peasants doesn't get you justice, just more people who want to kill you.

You don't speak for the dead of Sept. 11th, and Bush didn't either. If that was the motive for the invasion of Afghanistan, why was the invasion readied in advance? If Bush didn't want a deal with the Taliban, why did he give them $120 million in aid through May 2001? If Bush cared about the dead of Sept. 11th, why did the White House suppress the EPA findings and warnings about the air at Ground Zero, showing that the lives of the exploited heroes in the pit didn't matter?

All this is history now, though many of us still fight for the truth and justice of September 11th. You tell us, eight years later: what does it gain to kill a few thousand more civilians and say, oops, collateral damage? Pakistan doesn't want the US bombing targets inside Pakistan. There is nothing to be won in that region. The soldiers will once again die for nothing. Enough.

[geek tragedy]

206. We have invasion plans for Canada prepared.

The military has all kinds of plans for invading people. That doesn't mean that we're planning to do it.

Bush never tried to get that pipeline built. He was focused on invading Iraq, which has oil, rather than pursuing some pipeline that wouldn't bring a drop of oil to the United States.

Sorry, but I don't debate 911 Truther Kooks.

Have a nice day!

[JackRiddler]

214. Actually, "we" (i.e., the Bush regime) had more than plans for Afghanistan in 2001:

It was a timetable.

"You don't debate" is right - you skip the facts, then skip out. Bye-bye!

You avoid what's inconvenient, call names, and repeat tired cliches those of us with experience have heard many times. Again, I am not writing here for you. I don't imagine you will be moved in the least. But the empty and ignorant way in which you argue your side is revealing to anyone here who is neutral. Anyone else reading this has the means to research these matters for themselves. There's a reason you're not providing details or links, just bald assertions that are flatly untrue or meaningless generalizations.

SO, AS FOR PIPELINES:

FIRST, "Bush" wouldn't build a pipeline. A corporation would. The whole point is that in 2001, as the regime took office after its illegal seizure of power, two actors put a high priority on securing a route for a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan (as opposed to China or through Turkey to the EU, the competitors):

- a) the oil companies who chummed around with the Taliban in the late 1990s, such as UNOCAL (for which both the post-invasion president and US ambassador had worked). These companies were among those who lobbied Cheney in the opening months of the Bush regime (the infamous "energy talks" that remain mostly classified thanks to Judge Scalia, Cheney's hunting buddy).

- b) the US government, which engaged in backchannel talks with the Taliban until June 2001. These coincided with $120 million in US aid to Afghanistan. The US negotiators threatened the Taliban with "a carpet of bombs" if they did not accept the offered "carpet of gold" (a unity government with Northern coalition and a pipeline deal).

That you would assume all this is done to bring a drop of oil to the United States (straight for your tank, perhaps?) or that it necessarily matters who buys the oil reveals how little you know of these matters. It's flatly embarrassing.

What matters is who gets to control the oil. Who profits from the business? An American oil company moving oil through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean (and thus anywhere on the world market? Or European companies moving it through Turkey to the EU, or someone else moving it over land to China?

This was why, when the 6+1 talks fell apart, US planners determined to topple the Taliban in the fall. And these were preparations with a timetable, not just a plan, and with India, Russia and Pakistan informed of the intent.

Now, finally: If the US has a current plan to invade Canada (there was one in the 1920s), then that hardly supports your attitude, which is that of the ostrich with its head in the sand. In fact, it would be a frightening revelation, showing just how out-of-control the military-industrial complex has become in its determination to justify every contingency and an enormously wasteful pulverizing of our tax money, no matter how patently insane the justification.

A Pentagon that has contingency plans for invading Canada is a mad-dog and more likely, not less likely to really invade Afghanistan, and that was being prepared just as Sept. 11th conveniently arrived.

Thanks for making my points!

.

[geek tragedy]

238. It wasn't even an oil pipeline, you ignoramus.

It was a natural gas pipeline.

The fact that you don't even know what the pipeline was supposed to be carrying indicates your seriousness in understanding the issue.

Now run along junior.

[JackRiddler]

242. So now you're admiting there was supposed to be a pipeline after all?

Thank you, o great and wise one.

You mentioned oil yourself, above. Who cares? Was there a pipeline plan? Company that wanted to build it? Negotiations to persuade the Taliban they wanted it? Threats to them to accept it? War plan to get the territory straight? String of bases built along the proposed route? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and now you're admitting it.

I'm happy if any readers go through our exchange, they can figure it out themselves.

And I thought you wouldn't argue with me any more.

Thanks, gramps!

[geek tragedy]

247. Nobody denies that there were attempts to get a pipeline built.

What you and the other members of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade have never produced is a single shred of evidence indicating that the motive for invading Afghanistan was related to that pipeline and not the much more obvious answer of the 911 attacks.

Anyhow, this is like arguing evolution with the Jesus Rode a Dinosaur crowd. Some people are immune to facts and logic, and one finds them on the extreme left and the extreme right.

[JackRiddler]

249. The comeback of the lazy, arrogant, insecure know-nothing...

I'll edit your projection so that it better fits its true target:

Anyhow, arguing with (geek tragedy) is "like arguing evolution with the Jesus Rode a Dinosaur crowd. Some people are immune to facts and logic, and one finds them" most often posturing as mainstream centrists, huddling for the protection of status quo acceptability.

[smiley]

215. you sure are great at name calling.

I especially liked the 'Captain History' from your earlier post.
:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

239. When I'm debating people who think we invaded Afghanistan

to help build an oil pipeline, scorn is the natural emotion to express.

[smiley]

244. it was natural gas pipeline...

not an oil pipeline..... geesh - do a little research. It always helps a conversation rather than acting like a 10 year old and calling each other names.

[geek tragedy]

246. I know it was a natural gas pipeline.

Some people lecturing me on my 'ignorance' informed me that it was an oil pipeline.

Hence my contempt for them.

[smiley]

257. you have contempt for them because?....

they corrected you on your information? hmmm.... I guess that makes sense.

[smiley]

131. could you please post a link to where this has been disproven?

:)

[geek tragedy]

159. This subject line is physically longer than

the amount of pipeline constructed during Bush's presidency.

[smiley]

194. I don't see the link

:shrug:

edited to add a few links of my own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020318chicagotribune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

[geek tragedy]

205. I cannot link to something that does not exist.

The failure of that pipeline to exist over seven years after the US took over Afghanistan pretty much demolishes this "Bush invaded for a pipeline" garbage.

Sorry, but saying it was a pipeline instead of 9/11 is simply counterfactual and anti-empirical.

[smiley]

213. evidence exists to the planning of a pipeline

This is factual. It is also factual that this pipeline has not been built. This we agree on. I've done some research today and I've found many articles which do in fact claim that there were plans to build a pipeline but have since been put on hold considering the volatile situation in the region. Just because it has not been built does not mean that there where never plans for it.

I don't disagree with you that we are there because of 9/11. But I do feel that there are more geopolitical strategic goals at risk here other than we are just there to find those crazy Arabs who supposedly brought down the twin towers. But if you do a little research you will find that this pipeline is not a myth. It may have been yet to be built, but you can't deny the initial plans for such a pipeline

BTW - I never once have said that Bush invaded Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I was only asking you for a link which backs up your ad hominem comments. Which you have yet to provide.

:)

[geek tragedy]

240. No one denies that there were plans to build a pipeline.

Nothing sinister about it, to be honest. Pipelines get built all of the time.

But, the fact remains that there is no factual support for the argument that the invasion was motivated by a pipeline. It quite frankly doesn't make sense--it would have been much easier to bribe the Taliban and build a pipeline than invade and destabilize and then restabilize. Moreover, Bush not trying to build it really kinda deflates that theory.

[webDude]

143. geek tragedy, please seek help.

[Maat]

230. The disproven pipeline crapola ...

you mean the one a friend in the oil and gas industry had a hand in modeling?

Uh ... it's not crapola.

[JackRiddler]

235. Nice. Tell us more.

[Maat]

251. Well, one thing I know is that no one ever gave up their plans of routing things ...

through Afghanistan, and controlling those routes; so, color me skeptical of the need to go in there.

[geek tragedy]

241. Did that friend have a role in making the decision to invade Afghanistan?

You see, no one denies that there were plans and even attempts to get that pipeline built.

What is garbage is the unsupported assertion that we invaded to build a pipeline that we then never tried to get built.

[JackRiddler]

243. Who's "we"? I didn't invade Afghanistan - did you?

Your pronouns identify your sympathies.

And "we" were never going to build it (if by "we" you mean the government, at the time the Bush regime with which you apparently identify, since they decided on the invasion and you did not). UNOCAL was going to build it, but Afghanistan was too much of a clusterfuck and no one wants to invest it. Doesn't mean it wasn't the motive. Ditto Iraq: in the end the US oil companies will be cut out of the Iraqi oil, that doesn't mean one of the motives was not to get them in on it.

Just to apply your logic: The Roman invaders didn't get to keep Germany, so whatever their stated motives were for invading it must have been true!

[geek tragedy]

245. Well, by your standards the invasion could have been

to score some nice, affordable Afghan rugs for the White House.

Sorry, but the pipeline stuff belongs next to teh 911 Twoofer and Obama birth certificate crap.

It is a conspiracy theory designed to delegitimize the United States acting in its own self-defense.

[RollWithIt]

212. Provide a link please, Taliban offered to hand over Osama? When?

Must have missed that.

[JackRiddler]

217. US obstructed a number of efforts to get Bin Laden...

And I remember it at the time, perhaps because I was in Germany where the Taliban overtures were reported openly.

How serious the Taliban were is subject to question, but you can be sure they didn't want an invasion.

Search at http://historycommons.org, which provides documentation and links of hundreds of corporate media stories, books by officials and witnesses, and government documents relating to Sept. 11th. You'll find entries like these, and then you can go to the source articles and read the books and find out for yourself.

---

Prior to 9/11 - two examples:

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=taliban+offer+laden&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

April 1999: CIA Rejects Working with High-Level Taliban Leader Opposed to Bin Laden
Mullah Mohammed Khaksar. (Source: Amir Shah / Associated Press)
High-level Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Khaksar secretly meets with CIA officials to explore cooperating with them, but the CIA is not interested. Khaksar had been the Taliban’s intelligence minister, but he recently switched posts to deputy interior minister. He is friends with top Taliban leader Mullah Omar, has thousands of policemen under his command, and has solid links to intelligence sources within the Taliban. He secretly meets with US diplomats Gregory Marchese and Peter McIllwain in Peshawar, Pakistan. Marchese will later confirm the meeting took place. Khaksar says he fears the Taliban has been hijacked by the Pakistani ISI and al-Qaeda. He believes Mullar Omar has fallen under the influence of bin Laden and wants to oust him. Khaksar later claims he told them that he was worried about al-Qaeda because “one day they would do something in the world, but everything would be on the head of Afghanistan.” The diplomats pass his offer to Washington (though it is unknown if it was relayed to high-level officials or not). Khaksar soon receives a letter back rejecting his offer. The letter is later shown to the Associated Press, and states, in part, “We don’t want to make mistakes like we made in the holy war (in the 1980s). We gave much help and it later went against us.” (Associated Press, 6/9/2002; Guardian, 6/11/2002) Khaksar later says he did provide the CIA with information on two or three other occasions before 9/11, but it is not known if this takes place before or after this meeting. Starting in 1997, he also keeps a regular secret dialogue with Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. The Northern Alliance’s foreign minister will note after 9/11 that Khaksar was in “constant contact” with Massoud until 9/11, giving him a steady stream of valuable information. (Knight Ridder, 11/29/2001; Washington Post, 11/30/2001) After 9/11, the US will show no interest in Khaksar’s intelligence about the Taliban (see Between September 12 and Late November 2001 and February 25, 2002).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Shah Massoud, Mullah Mohammed Khaksar
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline



March-April 2001: Taliban Envoy Comes to US and Meets with High-Ranking Officials about Handing over Bin Laden
Rahmatullah Hashimi. (Source: PBS)
Taliban envoy Rahmatullah Hashimi meets with reporters, middle-ranking State Department bureaucrats, and private Afghanistan experts in Washington. He carries a gift carpet and a letter from Afghan leader Mullah Omar for President Bush. He discusses turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country. A CIA official later says, “We never heard what they were trying to say. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’… I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” Others claim the Taliban were never sincere. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up until 9/11, all fruitless. (Washington Post, 10/29/2001) Allegedly, Hashimi also proposes that the Taliban would hold bin Laden in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. However, this offer is refused. This report, however, comes from Laila Helms, daughter of former CIA director Richard Helms. While it’s interesting that this information came out before 9/11, one must be skeptical, since Helms’ job was public relations for the Taliban. (Village Voice, 6/6/2001) Hashimi will mention to a reporter in June 2001 that he was in the US for a total of six weeks. (United Press International, 6/14/2001) According to one article at the time, Hashimi meets with “several senior officials from the State Department, CIA and National Security Council but also from the non-governmental organization Council on Foreign Relations.” Secretary of State Colin Powell is reportedly irate at the meetings because he had not been informed that high level officials would be meeting with Hashimi in the US. He blames CIA Director George Tenet “having laid on a red carpet for (Mullah) Omar’s adviser.” (Intelligence Newsletter, 4/19/2001) Hashimi reportedly directly meets with Tenet. (Irish Times, 11/19/2001)
Entity Tags: Taliban, US Department of State, Osama bin Laden, National Security Council, Rahmatullah Hashimi, Laila Helms, Colin Powell, Central Intelligence Agency, Council on Foreign Relations, Mullah Omar, George W. Bush, George J. Tenet
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

---

After 9/11 - one example:

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=rejects+Taliban&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Late September-Early October 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Agrees to Face International Tribunal; US Not Interested?
Leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamic parties are negotiating bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 9/11 attacks during this period, according to a later Mirror article. Under the plan, bin Laden will be held under house arrest in Peshawar and will face an international tribunal, which will decide whether to try him or hand him over to the US. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph ), this plan has been approved by both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. (Mirror, 7/8/2002) Based on the first priority in the US’s new “war on terror” proclaimed by President Bush, the US presumably would welcome this plan. For example, Bush had just announced, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” (ABC News, 9/17/2001) Yet, Bush’s ally in the war on terror, Pakistani President Musharraf, rejects the plan (stating that his reason for doing so was because he “could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety”). Based on a US official’s later statements, it appears that the US did not want the deal: “Casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort (to overthrow the Taliban) if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured.” (Mirror, 7/8/2002)

---

There are many other entries on this specifically, go look. The point is the US wanted the invasion. You may even support the rationale for it. But more than seven years later, it's time to go. And to provide the promised "Marshal Plan" for Afghanistan, which has never been financed, not another 20,000 troops in a pointless campaign that most of the Afghans oppose because it's not killing Taliban, it's mainly killing civilians. (This is the nature of war.)

.

[G_j]

224. thanks for taking the time

to provide this information. I remember well when that happened, and was livid with Bush for not even trying to pursue the offer.

[defendandprotect]

13. Aren't we all....??? Show us a way to stop it --- !!!! We have no more impact

with the Democrats on stopping these wars than we had with Bush --- !!!

Does that tell us anything???

AND, 45,000 private contractors in Iraq alone --- !!!!

WTF????

[MadBadger]

19. No, we arent all dissapointed with this course of action.

[MadBadger]

18. What exactly do they have to be heartbroken for?

"Obama said he would do it...AND HE DID! My Heart is broken for him keeping his word!"

[kas125]

54. Dead civilians killed in drone attacks??

Our hearts SHOULD be broken. If yours isn't, then I feel sorry for you.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Just like he said he would. All a-fucking-long.

[LWolf]

153. Yes. Which is why I never wanted him to be the nominee.

Why his election did not fill me with euphoric joy.

Why I'm not a supporter.

[Occam Bandage]

21. What kind of precious little flower is "heartbroken" by a politiian keeping a campaign promise?

[Hissyspit]

26. Nice sexism.

Some of those "precious little flowers" spent time in jail in confrontation with the Bush administration. And people can still be heartbroken over the action whether it was a campaign promise or not.

[Occam Bandage]

30. No, they spent time in jail because they decided that breaking laws would be politically effective.

I do not believe that getting oneself thrown in jail is automatically praiseworthy. It's probably unpleasant, but voluntary unpleasantness is not necessarily heroism. In absence of any positive impact, it is stupidity and nothing else. I'm pretty sure that not one person in the entire nation decided that Iraq was a bad idea because a Code Pinker ran screaming into an unrelated public assembly of some sort. Ergo, they are not heroic, they are stupid. The fact that a significant number of DUers--that is to say, people who entirely agreed with their aims throughout the entire Bush presidency disliked them might give you some clue as to how the public at large saw them.

And no, if you are a normal person, you cannot be honestly heartbroken because a politician kept a campaign promise to not do something yet. You can say you are, and you can perhaps even be so self-absorbed that you think you are, and you can post that you are on the internet in hopes of drawing sympathy, but all are simply lies you tell to others or to yourself for politics' sake.

I suppose you could, however, if you were a childish, impossibly sheltered, supremely sensitive rose-petal of a human.

(You identify flowers with women? Who's sexist, again?)

[Hissyspit]

38. LOL Really...

I'm the one identifying women with flowers, not identifying someone who identified women with flowers?

Right...

Nice try.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Nope. I identified people claiming heartbreak from the mundane as flowers.

The fact that in that statement--a statement explicitly about character--you identified the flowers with women and not with character is entirely indicative of your own feelings and not of mine.

[Downtown Hound]

65. Well, getting oneself thrown in jail for a cause isn't automatically

a positive thing. However, in my opinion, it's better and a lot more honorable and action oriented than doing nothing but posting on an internet forum all day long, like a lot of their detractors here on DU do.

And I think the reason that so many DU'ers dislike them is because they dared to hold the Democrats accountable for their support of the Iraq War instead of just only bashing the Republicans. Some DU'ers really have a hard time with people that call out the Democrats on their bullshit.

[Cid_B]

90. Whenever Code Pink comes up...

I have to think of my favorite Daily Show clip of all time.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley

They protest their own interview for God's sake.

[Cherchez la Femme]

142. Thank you

& Amen. Unlike "precious little flowers", real men never have their heart broken. :eyes:

If CP were composed of men that kind of sentiment would never have been expressed.
I guess my party was never really what I thought it was :(

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

29. Welcome to DU, bobmaller!

:toast:

:patriot:

The OP is indeed correct that Obama indicated that he would put more troops and more focus on Afghanistan, however that has no bearing on whether Code Pink should indicate their disappointment in our new government's action. They are a non-partisan group.

[kas125]

64. As a co-founder of a CP chapter, I must say that I LOVE you!

[Occam Bandage]

31. Yes. Should I be impressed with the fact that you didn't bother

to research any candidate's public positions before you voted?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

42. I suppose I do feel that people who vote blindly are a bit less useful politically, yes.

[EFerrari]

82. You have no idea what you're talking about. lol

[bread_and_roses]

115. It's hilarious. During elections, we're told we must vote for the D despite any policy quarells

on the basis of "what's the alternative." We're told we can deal with those policy disagreements "later" - after the D wins. Then, after the election, we're told we can't bring up those policy disagreements because "we knew what his/her stance was when we voted.

"He said it during the campaign" is not an answer.

[Cherchez la Femme]

149. And you

surely any Democrat (or Liberal or Progessive) who would have voted for any other candidate.

No possible way to please you, is there?

Nice :eyes:

[kas125]

55. The kind who cares about innocent people being killed in our names.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. ...

:applause:

[unkachuck]

22. I'm with CODEPINK....

....slaughtering people with new moral certitude is still slaughtering people....we're the invaders in Afghanistan....

....for every innocent woman and child killed, hundreds of young men are being willingly recruited to defend their mothers, sisters, daughters and nation....do you really want to turn bushs' economic war of choice into a cultural war that lasts for generations?

....if you wish to spend the proper amounts of money to defend our nation against terrorism then start with our borders and our lax commerce and economic standards/practices....only after we've secured fortress-America with a government capable of defending us from killer peanut butter will the terrorist threat be managed....

....stop trying to solve our terrorist problem on the cheap by killing innocent middle-eastern women and children....

[Mark Twain Girl]

23. I agree with CP's perspective but good grief, they should have known, wasn't hard to tell. nt

[kas125]

57. We did know. That doesn't mean we can't be heartbroken when

the news reports that Obama is sending drones to kill innocent children and their mothers or when he sends thousands more of our troops there for no good reason.

[Hissyspit]

74. Code Pink founder in December and July 2008:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_nader_and_medea_benjamin_on

AMY GOODMAN: And how will you deal with Afghanistan? He supports a surge in Afghanistan.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Afghanistan is one promise we don’t want him to fulfill. And we have to get out there very quickly, and we are building up as a peace movement to take on the issue of Afghanistan to say that this is not a, quote, “good war,” that this has to be a negotiated solution, and that we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan.
More than that, Amy, we have to start taking on the Pentagon budget. Barney Frank came out recently and said cut the Pentagon budget by 25 percent. That’s a great way to start. Let’s put our support behind that and say, let’s close down these bases that we have overseas. Let’s take the $10 billion that we’re spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, use them for domestic purposes, and let’s start reining in the empire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/the-peace-movement-needs_b_114707.html

Medea Benjamin

The Peace Movement Needs a Strategy For Afghanistan

Posted July 24, 2008 | 05:56 PM (EST)

The peace movement was moving full-throttle during the primary season to confront the presidential candidates on the war, and can take credit for helping to shift the momentum from Hillary Clinton -- who voted for the invasion of Iraq -- to Barack Obama -- who opposed the invasion. And we have certainly contributed to the momentous shift on the need for a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have also moved into high gear to prevent a war with Iran, and so far, have been holding our ground on that front.

But in Afghanistan the peace movement has been missing in action. This has come back to hit us in the face during Barack Obama's Middle East trip, where he called for sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. John McCain, not to be one-upped in putting our young men and women in harm's way, is also calling for an escalation of the Afghan war.

My first trip to Afghanistan was during the height of the U.S. invasion in 2001. I was horrified to see the number of innocent civilians killed and maimed by our "smart bombs." As I sat in makeshift hospitals watching children bleed to death, or saw the craters made by our bombs where homes used to be, or visited farmers whose limbs were torn off by our cluster bomblets, I wondered where this military adventure would lead.

Seven years later, we see the results: Innocent Afghans continue to be killed and maimed, more US soldiers are now dying in Afghanistan than Iraq, the Taliban have gained new strength, opium production has soared, and Osama bin Laden has not been found. The Afghan people continue to be among the poorest in the world, women are still oppressed, and the U.S. government reneged on its promise of a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild Afghanistan.

Now we have the two major presidential contenders -- Barack Obama and John McCain -- advocating the exact same "solution": Send more troops. But more troops will only mean more violence, more suffering, more killing of innocents, and more recruits for the Taliban. This war will drag on and on, for there is no way to conquer tribal forces in a vast, rugged, thinly populated country like Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Just ask the Russians. With nearly twice as many troops as the U.S./NATO forces and with three times the number of Afghan soldiers, they left defeated after 9 years of fighting and 15,000 dead.

It's time for the peace movement to come up with a position on Afghanistan. We know that war is not the answer, but what is? It's not enough to simply say "Troops out now." Should we be calling for talks with the Taliban? In Iraq, the U.S. government not only talked to Sunni insurgent groups that killed U.S. soldiers but is now allied with them.

How can we stop Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan from being a training ground for militant fundamentalists? How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war? Should we advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and if so, based on what criteria? How can we work with the peace movements in NATO countries to have a more unified and effective position?

What should we call for in terms of development aid to Afghanistan? How can the Afghan economy be weaned from opium? How can we truly support Afghan women? What will happen to them if the Taliban take over again?

This debate is long overdue. We can't put it off anymore and knee-jerk slogans won't work. We, the peace movement, need to come together and develop a strategy before our troops are sent from the "bad war" in Iraq to the "good war" in Afghanistan.

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. Here's a revelation

CODEPINK are a band of morons who see the world strictly in terms of black and white, exactly like Bush and his cabal. The only difference is the ideology that they perceive as "white".

CP adds nothing to the debate. They serve solely to disrupt. In the end, they set back the peace movement for every stupid stunt they pull.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Some things ARE black and white,

like unprovoked invasions of other countries, or continuing a military presence in another country for vague, Vietnam-like reasons.

I LIKE Code Pink. They don't accept bullshit, conventional-wisdom explanations for indefensible behavior.

[Occam Bandage]

32. If you think geopolitics is black and white,

you're sheltered. That's all there is to it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I stand by my claim that unprovoked invasions are immoral in all cases

There can be geopolitical situations in which there is no good solution, but I think we ought to be able to take a stand against unprovoked invasions or against getting involved in further Vietnam-style conflicts.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Afghanistan wasn't unprovoked. Problem solved.

Never mind that "provocation" is pretty vague; if a nation were engaging in genocide, with millions dying, does that count as a "provocation," or must the world do no more than write some strong letters asking them to please stop?

But regardless, Afghanistan wasn't unprovoked at all. AQ attacked the United States. The US demanded bin Laden, who was in the care of the Afghan government, be extradited. Afghanistan refused. We demanded the right to pursue bin Laden and break up al-Qaeda. Afghanistan refused. The United States and its NATO allies were acting in self-defense.

[bottomtheweaver]

44. Afghanistan did not attack the US.

Neither did Iraq, Iran, or Syria. And whatever AQ really is, it isn't the government of any of those countries.

[Occam Bandage]

45. Correct. Good thing I didn't say that it did, huh? nt

[bottomtheweaver]

46. Then we're all in agreement. Our attack on Afghanistan was unprovoked.

It's great to get along, isn't it?

[Occam Bandage]

48. Ignoring arguments isn't the same as defeating them. nt

[Yukari Yakumo]

56. Hypothetical situation

Let's say Al lives in Todd's house. One day, Al hires Sal to kill Wanda. Sal gets the job done, but dies in the process. The cops quickly manages to figure out Al was behind it all and that he lives in Todd's house. To complicate matters, Todd tries to prevent the cops from apprehending Al. So, what do expect the cops to do?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Except that your analogy falls apart

The Taliban didn't hire the hijackers. (On your analogy, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. Oh, wait. Saudi Arabia can defend itself.)

The Taliban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. if they offered proof of his guilt.

While I have no love for the Taliban and was opposed to them before it was fashionable, the Taliban and others resisted because we invaded their country.

No one thinks Osama bin Laden is still in Afghanistan.

So why are we still there?

[Yukari Yakumo]

135. Except you totally missed what was who.

Plus would you rather hand the country back to the Taliban? Are you THAT stupid?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

208. In case you haven't noticed, they control just about everything outside Kabul

I was opposed to the Taliban back in the 1990s when the CIA was encouraging them--encouraging them because they were believed to be the only force that could bring "stability" to that unfortunate country, so don't talk to me about the Taliban.

I was opposed to supporting the Mujaheddin in 1979, because I knew they were a bunch of retrograde Islamic fanatics, not the "freedom fighters" that the media portrayed, and that women had it better in Soviet Central Asia than in just about any place in the region.

But then, I look at more than conventional news sources.

[closeupready]

52. Hey, there, Dianne! How're your Halliburton stocks doing these days?

???

[JackRiddler]

107. Was it self-defense on September 9th, when the orders to attack Afghanistan were put on Bush's desk?

[JackRiddler]

218. "Shades of grey" and "realism" are oft-found excuses for aggression and murder.

The justifications constantly found for the next war are realpolitik in name only. The policy is deeply destructive and unrealistic. This is the thinking and behavior that has created so many enemies around the globe, brought suffering to untold millions of people, and pulverized trillions of dollars of wealth that could have solved all of our problems with health care and education and transport and energy.

Imagine the US had never started fucking around in Afghanistan in the first place, before the Soviet invasion! How can anyone think life wouldn't be better there today, and there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

Or imagine the US had allowed the democratic government of Iran to stand in 1953, even if it (shudder!) nationalized the oil industry, as was its right. So many problems would not exist today.

[Hissyspit]

28. Speaking as someone who knows some of those "morons" personally,

being active as non-partisans is not equivalent to seeing things in black and white. Regardless, if it wasn't for some of those "stupid stunts," many in the U.S. would have had no idea that there was an active anti-war movement.

I don't agree with every Code Pink takes or with every opinion of the members, but you do realize how much your post sounds like every rabid anti-anti-war freeper post I've read over the past eight years?

[Yukari Yakumo]

40. Really?

Wacko is the image regular people are left with when CODEPINKers (?) whenever they do their stunts. Their actions discredits the peace movement and makes their arguments weaker. They give Fox Noise and Falafel Man all the ammunition they could ever need.

[EFerrari]

86. LOL. Heaven forfend that Faux "News" ever look askance at a liberal!

What, do you melt? You should know to carry your own towel by now.

[kas125]

75. And what do you do to try to make things better besides judge

other people?

[EFerrari]

84. Thank you for calling me a disruptive moron!

:hi:

[LWolf]

154. Here's another:

I have more respect for Code Pink, and more in common with them, than I do either of the "major" political parties, despite the fact that I'm a registered Democrat.

I often see political partisans as morons who allow themselves to be swept up in the misleading euphoria that a fervent fan of a team does before the world series or superbowl; who allow their fervor to manipulate them for the purposes of powerholders who don't really give a shit about them, or the issues they spout so much rhetoric about.

Non-partisan groups who focus on issues, rather than teams and personalities, are more honest, have more integrity, and have a better vision of the greater good.

In my opinion, of course.

Which is just as valid as anyone's.

[FrenchieCat]

34. OMG! Where were they during the election?

[Occam Bandage]

35. They decided sometime around 2006

that Nancy Pelosi would inherit the role of Supreme Evil from George Bush, and it seems they're laying the groundwork to shift their energies over to Obama. Such are the ways of people who desire attention above results.

[Yukari Yakumo]

47. The differences between the real and phony

Real peace activists usually stay unknown because they desire results. They don't seek the spotlight, the spotlight seeks them.

Fake peace activists get known because they desire the attention. They active seek the spotlight, the means doesn't matter, and, at the end, neither does results.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. So, as a peace activist you support the war in Afghanistan?

[Yukari Yakumo]

60. For some reason...

You come off as someone who would be against going to war in Europe 1941.

To achieve peace, sometimes you must go to war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Somehow, I get the feeling as a "peace activist" you support the war in Afghanistan.

So, which is it. Peace activist, or hawk?

[Hissyspit]

68. Peace = War

Dubya would be so proud.

[EFerrari]

88. Caramba!

:rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

141. It's exceedingly strange

& I didn't think anyone could approach that member who defends our Moderate-Conservative Democratic President no matter what,
all the while sporting a Che Guevara icon (with no trace of irony, may I add)! Go figure. :shrug:

[kas125]

72. Okay, then, as a "real peace activist" please tell me what it is that

you do that's more effective than what CodePink does.

[Yukari Yakumo]

137. Write, call, and organize. Simple as that.

MLK didn't need put his hands in front of politicians faces painted in red. Neither did Gandhi. Nor the hundreds like them.

Their actions causes ordinary people to think all peace activists are totally wacko like CP. By being brash and abrasive, all in the name of getting on TV, CP sets the peace agenda back, not forward.

[Cherchez la Femme]

140. Well THAT'S measureable

against what CodePink does! /sarcasm

You're implying or alleging they don't write, call and organize? :eyes:

[kas125]

236. Well, darn, why didn't I think of calling, writing and organizing...

You are actually saying that's been effective for you? You must have much more receptive representatives in DC than I do, because I've done those things endlessly for years and none of their minds have been changed. In fact, after asking for a meeting for over two years, we had to sit in at our Democratic senator's office and get arrested before he'd agree to meet with us. And it wasn't just us, we were asking for a town-hall type meeting. If your calls and letters to your reps have been effective you should consider yourself fortunate.

[Downtown Hound]

196. Your argument is frankly...stupid.

Since when do you decide what a "real" peace activist is? Getting attention to oneself can help bring attention to a cause, and a famous leader of a movement can help bring new people into the fray and give them something to rally behind.

And allow me to ask, how many members of Code Pink can you actually name? Two maybe? Three? Code Pink is a huge organization with many members, and I can only think of Medea Benjamin when I try and think of who in the organization I actually know of. The idea that they're all attention whores is more of a concoction of your own mind than something that has anything to do with reality.

[bottomtheweaver]

41. The claim he made in the debates was that if he had "actionable intelligence"

that Osama was in Afghanistan he'd go in there, or at least that's what I heard. Maybe he's gotten that, but so far nobody's been able to put forward a legally or morally defensible rationale for going into Afghanistan, then or now, and frankly that isn't one either.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Nope, he stated that about Pakistan, not Afghanistan.....

Here is his speech back on August 1, 2007--
Video at the link: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

Excerpt from Transcript

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
...
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
....
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

more.

[bottomtheweaver]

66. Going into Pakistan is even less defensible.

And the problem with that speech is that it doesn't provide a defensible rationale for attacking Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any other country that has not attacked the US. If Obama wants to uphold the grossly illegal and unconstitutional Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare on flimsy, phony, or nonexistent pretexts, that's about as antithetical to his claims of opposing "a dumb war, a rash war" as it gets.

[FrenchieCat]

69. You didn't quite read. You sound like John McCain and the Washington Times!

Wash. Times misrepresented Obama debate comment, repeated false claim about his Pakistan comment
Summary: In an article about the second presidential debate, The Washington Times falsely suggested that, during the debate, Sen. Barack Obama said he doesn't think the U.S. can "face the challenge" in Afghanistan "after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq," and it uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Obama "threaten to invade Pakistan"

Curl also asserted that "Mr. McCain targeted his rival's lack of experience, saying Mr. Obama foolishly threatening to invade Pakistan and said, 'I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did.' " But as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama has not "threaten to invade Pakistan." Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, he stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Indeed, in comments from the debate that Curl did not mention, Obama said:

OBAMA: Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Senator McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200810080026?f=s_search

[bottomtheweaver]

73. Red herring aside, "hunting down bin Laden" and launching an unprovoked war

are two entirely different things. We've got several gigantic and well-funded intel operations that are very good at assassinations of inconvenient persons anywhere and at any level that could have captured bin Laden on September 12, 2001 if it were actually an objective. Obviously, it isn't, and even if it were, it wouldn't justify an unprovoked war.

[creeksneakers2]

123. We aren't attacking Pakistan or Afghanistan

They have no armies of their own fighting us. We are in Afghanistan and Pakistan fighting subgroups of their populations.

[bottomtheweaver]

127. LOL, that's a whopper Gonzo would be proud of.

The fact that we're bringing the full force of our grotesquely mechanized weaponry against a CIVILIAN POPULATION makes the war into an even greater crime against humanity.

[Hissyspit]

71. You are not being fair, FrenchieCat:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_nader_and_medea_benjamin_on

Code Pink is non-partisan. They were well aware that Obama was preferable to McCain.

Medea Benjamin in December:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_nader_and_medea_benjamin_on

AMY GOODMAN: And how will you deal with Afghanistan? He supports a surge in Afghanistan.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Afghanistan is one promise we don’t want him to fulfill. And we have to get out there very quickly, and we are building up as a peace movement to take on the issue of Afghanistan to say that this is not a, quote, “good war,” that this has to be a negotiated solution, and that we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

[FrenchieCat]

78. I don't have a problem in that they are against the Afghanistan war....

I just have a problem with CP being Disappointed....cause in my mind, disappointed means expecting something and being let down. They couldn't have "expected" that he would do much any different from what he is doing, so they are not really disappointed, they are just moving on with their issue which clashes and has always clashed with his.

[Hissyspit]

80. It doesn't say 'disappointed.' It's says 'heartbroken and discouraged.'

Which are words they chose, I'm assuming, to add an emotional aspect to their public declaration against Obama's actions, but they do not imply that Code Pink didn't see this coming. And I don't have any problem with people criticizing the choice of words, but what I see people doing here is attacking Code Pink for something that Code Pink has not done. And that is not fair. Code Pink has been clear that they preferred Obama to McCain. Code Pink has been clear that they are against escalation in Afghanistan. For the posters here to imply that Code Pink are somehow naive for not seeing this coming is reading something into the press release that is not there. You can be heartbroken and discouraged at something that occurs that you saw coming miles away and were hoping to the last minute that it would not happen. And the news of late did in fact indicate that Obama might not pursue this course. But that does not mean that they have forfeited their right to speak out on it or are naive, as some posters here are implying.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Same difference......

As for Code Pink, I'm in Berkeley often, and have met some of them,
and I don't have a problem with them.

They are antiwar, and that is commendable.

[EFerrari]

81. They didn't say that. n/t

[closeupready]

50. I support CodePink.

Obama is warmongering. :mad: I am fucking pissed fucking off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Bravo for Code Pink who don't become hawks because "our" guys are in charge of the killing.

[anaxarchos]

59. Love that liberal imperialism...

...which values honesty in election campaigns over the lives of the "fuzzies" and values dogs and cats above all. Very impressive.

Which level of the inferno is this, again?

[Skittles]

61. they are just now figuring this out?

[Hissyspit]

70. No. Medea Benjamin in December: "Afghanistan is one promise we don't want him to fulfill."

Again, Code Pink is anti-war non-partisan. Code Pink knew that Obama was highly preferrable to McCain. Code Pink offered cautious optimism at the election of Obama but promised to keep pressure on him with regards to his actions toward Iraq, Aftghanistan and Iran.

Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin...


DECEMBER 2008:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_nader_and_medea_benjamin_on

AMY GOODMAN: And how will you deal with Afghanistan? He supports a surge in Afghanistan.

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Afghanistan is one promise we don’t want him to fulfill. And we have to get out there very quickly, and we are building up as a peace movement to take on the issue of Afghanistan to say that this is not a, quote, “good war,” that this has to be a negotiated solution, and that we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan.
More than that, Amy, we have to start taking on the Pentagon budget. Barney Frank came out recently and said cut the Pentagon budget by 25 percent. That’s a great way to start. Let’s put our support behind that and say, let’s close down these bases that we have overseas. Let’s take the $10 billion that we’re spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, use them for domestic purposes, and let’s start reining in the empire.


JULY 2008:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/the-peace-movement-needs_b_114707.html

The Peace Movement Needs a Strategy For Afghanistan

Posted July 24, 2008 | 05:56 PM (EST)

The peace movement was moving full-throttle during the primary season to confront the presidential candidates on the war, and can take credit for helping to shift the momentum from Hillary Clinton -- who voted for the invasion of Iraq -- to Barack Obama -- who opposed the invasion. And we have certainly contributed to the momentous shift on the need for a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have also moved into high gear to prevent a war with Iran, and so far, have been holding our ground on that front.

But in Afghanistan the peace movement has been missing in action. This has come back to hit us in the face during Barack Obama's Middle East trip, where he called for sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. John McCain, not to be one-upped in putting our young men and women in harm's way, is also calling for an escalation of the Afghan war.

My first trip to Afghanistan was during the height of the U.S. invasion in 2001. I was horrified to see the number of innocent civilians killed and maimed by our "smart bombs." As I sat in makeshift hospitals watching children bleed to death, or saw the craters made by our bombs where homes used to be, or visited farmers whose limbs were torn off by our cluster bomblets, I wondered where this military adventure would lead.

Seven years later, we see the results: Innocent Afghans continue to be killed and maimed, more US soldiers are now dying in Afghanistan than Iraq, the Taliban have gained new strength, opium production has soared, and Osama bin Laden has not been found. The Afghan people continue to be among the poorest in the world, women are still oppressed, and the U.S. government reneged on its promise of a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild Afghanistan.

Now we have the two major presidential contenders -- Barack Obama and John McCain -- advocating the exact same "solution": Send more troops. But more troops will only mean more violence, more suffering, more killing of innocents, and more recruits for the Taliban. This war will drag on and on, for there is no way to conquer tribal forces in a vast, rugged, thinly populated country like Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Just ask the Russians. With nearly twice as many troops as the U.S./NATO forces and with three times the number of Afghan soldiers, they left defeated after 9 years of fighting and 15,000 dead.

MORE

[kas125]

77. We, as CodePink, are non-partisan. But as individuals, we worked

our asses off to get him elected. We spent money, we traveled, we worked at our local offices, we made phone calls from home, we donated money, we attended the DNC Womens Conference, we did everything possible. Nobody worked harder to get Obama elected than the CodePinkers I know. But we did it because we hoped that he would listen the people and get us out of these immoral and expensive endeavors.

[G_j]

94. I hear you

but we knew, of course, he was a not a peace-candidate, and that, as peace workers we are always shut out.
Let us see how many wars we are in, four years from now. I knew when I voted for Obama that we would have to be in the streets again, if really believed in what we were fighting the Bush admin about.
We knew it, of course we were hoping the "better angels" might find a way.
peace is the lonely outcast


:think:,,and we should continue to support Dennis Kucinich!

[LWolf]

177. That's a good answer to my question, thanks.

<snip>

Afghanistan is one promise we don’t want him to fulfill. And we have to get out there very quickly, and we are building up as a peace movement to take on the issue of Afghanistan to say that this is not a, quote, “good war,” that this has to be a negotiated solution, and that we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

[Freddie Stubbs]

261. Benjamin supported the Green Party candidate for President. Let her lobby President McKinney

[Hissyspit]

79. Background: Afghanistan as a Failed War

http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2009/01/afghanistan-war-protestors-were-right.php

A Look Back

However, it's important for us to remember that Afghanistan is not a "good war" gone "bad," but what has happened in Afghanistan since the October 2001 invasion was the predictable consequence of a flawed policy decision.

To be sure, much of the country supported the invasion of Afghanistan. However, there was a strong minority of people who were highly critical of the war. I'd argue that this group was a mix of folks from the 1960s left, the solidarity movements of the 1980s, the groups organizing against President Bill Clinton's Iraq policy, and the anti-globalization movement that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s (which was at its peek around the time of September 11). In September and October of 2001, the Internet was still in its infancy as a progressive news source, but a wealth of pieces critical of the US invasion of Afghanistan were published on sites such as Alternet.org and Zmag.org.

Looking back on these articles, it's striking how right many of them were. While a fair number included in their talking points the fact that the United States had no clear proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks (which was true at the time), many of the other points came to fruition. The war did become a lengthy occupation characterized by an unsuccessful counter-insurgency campaign, the war did not dramatically improve the lives of Afghanistan citizens (although some predicted humanitarian disasters did not come to fruition), and civilians bared the brunt of the assault both as direct casualties (a number which continues to grow) and as a result of the disruption of the country. At the same time, bombing Afghanistan failed to destroy either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and both have been able to attack the US and its allies in the years since the 2001 invasion. News out of the country continues to be dismal, with an almost constant stream of stories on civilians deaths by the Taliban and related insurgent groups or the US.

For those who are interested, links to some articles from September/Early October of 2001 critical of the invasion of Afghanistan appear at the end of this article.

MORE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/afghanistan.unitednations?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

UN figures reveal 62% rise in Afghan civilian deaths

guardian.co.uk, Monday 30 June 2008 12.21 BST
Article history

Mourners carry the coffin of a suicide bombing victim in Kandahar. Photograph: Allauddin Khan/AP

The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan has risen by almost two-thirds in the first half of the year compared with 2007, UN figures showed today.

The figures, which reveal that almost 700 civilians have died, show that the instability and violence afflicting the country are taking an increasing toll on ordinary Afghans.

[bridgit]

91. I only feel a tad bit sorry for anyone that didn't see this coming...

[G_j]

95. we all saw it, but

I feel more sorry for the human race, and yes, for those who would have the audacity to hope for an end to military violence as problem solver (peace).

[AmyCamus]

99. If you thought you were electing an anti-war candidate, you weren't paying attention

His current policy is more aggressive than Bush's was.

[JackRiddler]

105. There was a choice? And do you surrender your beliefs when you vote?

Count everyone and the majority of this country want an end to wars and a reinvestment of all the war bullshit at home. We were stuck between a former terror-bomber of peasants (this was his "service to country") who wants to attack (covertly or overtly) Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela and Afghanistan and keep a big presence in Iraq, vs. a guy who is only certain about supporting the latter two, though he might discover he needs some humanitarian imperialism in Africa.

More importantly, voting for Obama doesn't mean you accept every piece of policy he promised to deliver. More likely, it means you're stuck within a farce of a system that gives the choice between definite plague and probable malaria.

[spanone]

100. heartbroken? he ran on this...not that i back him on this, but it is NO surprise

[MadHound]

101. It's amazing,

The people around here defending this action with the line "well, he ran on expanding the war in Afghanistan" like this somehow makes it all right. It doesn't, nowhere near anything that can be termed right.

Yes, he ran on a platform of getting out of Iraq, and expanding the war in Afghanistan. Given the alternatives of the time, Hillary, who was, and probably still is itching for a fight with Iran, and McCain, who would just continue the same of shit, the alternative of Obama seemed like the best out of a bad lot.

However just because Obama ran on this platform, and just because we voted for Obama doesn't mean that we have to agree with the widening of this war. Nor does it mean that we should stop trying to persuade Obama that the course he takes in Afghanistan is the wrong one. In fact Obama needs to pay attention to people like Code Pink and the anti-war groups. We're not going to go away, and if you don't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then his honeymoon will end quickly and his chances for re-election will diminish quickly.

Just because a Democrat is now waging an expanded war doesn't make that war right or moral. All one has to do is look at LBJ for an example of that. Instead, what we should all be doing, rather than excusing Obama and his war is once again working towards persuading him to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops, all the troops home.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. LOL @ Codepink.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. If you're ridiculing them

they must be doing something right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. Yes... Yes...

Because what little ole me thinks determines the true validity of their actions...

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Hissyspit]

110. You signing up to go to Afghanistan any time soon?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Are You?

:shrug:

[Hissyspit]

119. Didn't think so.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. Didn't Think So.

:hi:

[Cherchez la Femme]

156. Oh, but she's not defending that war

now is she?
Therefore you have no reason whatsoever to query her on the subject.


Funny how you go on & on & ON, especially with that interesting screen name, yet it's A-OK for you to judge other's thoughts/opinions (their mind).

Or is that a Code Name so you could pick out and pick on people who commit what you consider Mind Crimes?

Oh, the irony!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

204. Why Isn't He Signing Up To Bring Aid? To Try And Wager Peace?

It's called hypocrisy. It's also called sheer stupidity to have a mindset of "you support the war so you should sign up and go there". :hi:

[Cherchez la Femme]

231. How

or what do you know, definitively, what he does to advance his cause?
I'm not being flip; it's a calm, legitimate question.

Beyond that, why does he owe you any explanation at all?


I wouldn't call it sheer stupidity to have the mindset you mentioned, yet I do agree with you to a small extent that those who fully support war should put their money where their mouth is, to quote a well-used phrase.


Personally I'm torn in my feelings. I think the Iraq war is completely unnecessary and a disaster: we never should have invaded those poor people.
The war in Afghanistan, however...

well, I feel we should have gone in there. It was the highly oppressive rulers (way moreso than Saddam) of Afghanistan --the Taliban-- who gave Bin Laden full support for his terrorist training camps when even Saudi Arabia (Sharia rule/law & all) kicked him out -- and that his home country. Those Afghanistani terrorist camps led directly to both attacks on the World Trade Towers and the other 9/11 attacks along with many other horrific terrorist bombings, attacks, etc. such as the Kenyan Embassy bombings.
The Kenyans, even though many Muslim, wouldn't have it and kicked his ass out too. Bin Laden was a pariah with only one truly friendly country/rulers left to him: Afghanistan and the Taliban, of course.

That's not to mention he is and has been most definitely looking for an atomic bomb and would not hesitate to use it. He doesn't have to worry about mutual destruction as he belongs to no real country so any nuclear attack would be condemned ...besides, he's highly mobile

& even if he was on the business end of a nuke, hell, he would welcome it. Such are Fundy psychos.


HOWEVER

the Afghan war should have been #1 priority for the U.S., we should have gone in strong, gotten Bin Laden instead of letting him escape through Tora Bora and with that strong, focused force we should have quashed the Taliban for good -- which was doable because we had the full cooperation of other Afghanistan 'warlords'.
Nah, they weren't as good as we would have liked but a definite improvement over Bin Laden.

So. Now what? We fucked up good because 'there weren't any good TARGETS in Afghanistan', as 'Rummy' said so we left a skeleton crew and in the WISDOM :puke: of Dummy & Deadly we went after oil-rich Iraq while letting Bin Laden get away.
IMO it WOULD be a waste to let Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, which will again become a haven for Al Qaeda. If we can get our people completely out of Iraq (which is unlikely, no matter what pre-presidential promises were made) it would be worth a strong but (temporally) limited push to quash the Taliban once and for all.

& mind you, we don't have near the number of deaths there as we do in Iraq. So it may be worth a try.


Sorry to talk your ear off OMC, I didn't intend to write such a long post but I'm telling you this because this is my opinion (unsure & tepid as it may be) ...yet under your criteria I would be also a hypocrite.

Now I'm a post-40 woman on disability who, although gay and therefore supposed to be "rich", as assume all, I cannot even make my monthly bills

The upshot is I cannot enlist nor even 'put my money where my mouth is'. Nor would I, even if I HAD money, contribute to the Afghanistan war effort because I am lukewarm in these opinions (re: fuck-ups mentioned above). IMO if it was handled right from the beginning we would have gotten Bin Laden and gotten successfully out of Afghanistan YEARS ago, hopefully leaving a fledgling Democracy monitored by the U.N.


I didn't owe you an explanation, but I wanted to give you my reasons for my current (always subject to change) opinion on this subject;
I had mentioned it in passing a week or so ago, but never got a chance to explain it.
I can guarantee you one thing: if, after a 'surge' of no more than 5-6 months we are no further in Afghanistan than we are now, I will be 100% for complete & immediate withdrawal. "Cut & run"? Pfft, these puke idiots have no presence of mind to even realize that the "cut" in said phrase derives from cutting one's losses. :eyes:


With all this information, I am interested to know if would you still call me a hypocrite?

LOL I think I know the answer... but going to ask you anyhow, otherwise I wouldn't have typed all this out. :D


Take care, dude; hope there's no hard feelings on our 'debate'...


edited for grammar

[arcadian]

260. Hissyspit has been signed on to "wager the peace"

If you can't tell that by his many posts then you haven't been paying attention to DU.

[fuggbush21]

187. Been there.

Would love to go again.

[mudesi]

170. I'm With Ya OMC

They're a bunch of ignorant zealots.

[Mari333]

112. anyone who supports the surge in Afghanistan

should be willing to enlist immediately
should demand their children enlist
should support a draft
or should stfu
nothing more tiresome then armchair warmongers sitting in their moms basements.
go codepink.

[TwilightGardener]

124. I support it--even if my husband has to deploy to that region (yet again).

He supports it too.

[Mari333]

130. and i have sons who are in the service who dont support it.

i wouldnt support it if bush was in, and refuse to support it just because its obama. hugs.

[Yukari Yakumo]

138. May I suggest you go live in Taliban's Afghanistan.

Some things I suggest you stop doings:

If you a woman, stop working.
If you have any daughters, take them out of school.
In fact, any women in your house cannot leave unless escorted by one of the men of the house.
Got kites? Burn them, along with all of your musical instruments, most of your books, and many other things.

And that's only the tip of the iceburg.

[TBF]

144. Maybe you should go live in Rwanda. Why is it that when we are interested

in oil, or building a pipeline, or some other natural resources a country has - we suddenly become all interested in the lives of the indigenous people there & decide we must "fix" them?

There are many, many areas of the earth where people are living lives that we might consider less than perfect. But we don't talk about those areas because there's nothing we want there.

This has been going on for centuries in this country.

[Mari333]

200. its not americas job to save the world

nor do I want my tax money being used to save the world. the same atrocities against women are found in saudi arabia and many other mideastern countries. do you want to save them too?
just dont send my kids over there to fight for oil companies who want to protect a pipeline. cause thats all this is all about. send your own kids.

[bdab1973]

165. I support it...

...and I've been there. Probably go there again. Demand our kids enlist? Hmmmm, last I checked, THEY had to sign, not me. The whole notion of "making" anyone's child enlist is ridiculous.

As for the draft...I'd prefer volunteers, but if you insist...perhaps your family members will be among those drafted?

[JackRiddler]

117. I see a few volunteers to sign up for Afghanistan on this thread! Go, people! Liberate!

[TwilightGardener]

125. Fucking stupid. Who do these ladies suggest we conduct "diplomacy" with?

How do humanitarian groups work in those regions with any measure of safety, if we pull out all NATO troops and there is no one to protect them?

[G_j]

132. of course, one could always pay attention to what the ppl in Afghanistan think..

(& RAWA are not fucking stupid)
www.rawa.org/

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/03-13

Published on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 by The Nation

Helping Afghan Women and Girls
by Katrina Vanden Heuvel w/ Kavita Ramdas

As the coalition I'm working with--Get Afghanistan Right--continues to make the case that the Obama administration would be wise to rethink its plan to escalate militarily in Afghanistan, I've tried to engage the arguments made by some feminists and human rights groups who believe that such an escalation is necessary to protect Afghani women and girls. I share their horror when I read stories like this one by New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describing an acid attack against girls and women--students and their teachers--at the Mirwais School for Girls. But how will escalation or increased US troop presence improve their security or make their lives better?
I thought it would be important to speak with someone who has experience working on the ground with Afghan women's organizations. Kavita Ramdas is President and CEO of the Global Fund for Women. For 15 years she has worked with groups like the Afghan Institute for Learning--which serves about 350,000 women and children in their schools, health care centers, and human rights programs.

This is what Kavita said:

We're hearing from groups we've worked with for over a 15 year period now, on the ground inside Afghanistan and with Afghan women's groups and Pakistan as well.

First, I think it's remarkable that our approach to foreign policy --not just for the last eight years, but with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan in general over the last thirty years--has been almost entirely military focused. There hasn't been any willingness to take a cold hard look at how effective or ineffective that strategy has been in whether or not it has helped stabilize the country. And there has been much less attention paid to whether this militaristic approach has done anything positive for the women of Afghanistan. It's doubtful whether America's foreign policy has ever had the welfare of Afghan women at heart. As many Afghani women have said to us, 'You know, you didn't even think about us 25 years ago,' and then all of a sudden post 9-11, we're sending troops to Afghanistan and ostensibly we're very concerned about women. But there's very little willingness to really look at the implications of a military strategy on women's security. It is very important to begin with the following question: If the strategies that we used up to this point have not succeeded in ensuring the safety and well being of women and girls, what makes us think that increased militarization with 30,000 additional US troops is somehow going to improve the situation and security of women in Afghanistan?

The second question is, what has been the role of the existing troops in Afghanistan with regard to the situation and the security of women? In general, what happens when regions become highly militarized, and when there are "peace-keeping forces," militias, as well as foreign troops--which is NATO and the United States, primarily? In most parts of the world, highly militarized societies in almost every instance lead to bad results for women. The security of women is not improved and in many instances it actually becomes worse.

What do I mean by that? Take for example Afghanistan. In 2003, almost every woman's group I met with in Afghanistan, which was already a few years after the initial invasion, said that although they were very grateful for the fact that the Taliban was gone, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan in general and in Kabul in particular had highly increased the incidence of both prostitution as well as trafficking-- it's not one in the same thing. Prostitution in the sense of--being something "voluntary" because very poor women and girls would come down, particularly from the countryside where villages are in a state of absolute dire impoverishment...there's very little to eat, very little production...I talked to so many women and women's organizations who've said, young girls sleep with a soldier in Kabul for $40, $50, which is more than their mothers could make as a teacher in a full month. That's the incidence of prostitution as a function of--people call it in the women's movement "survival sex." The trading of sex for food on a survival basis.


..much more..

[anaxarchos]

146. By all means, the missionaries must be safe...

How will the heathens ever be converted without soldiers?
These people have a totally unrealistic view of Brazil... err, Guatemala... err, the Congo... err, Ethiopia, err Iraq...

Whatever...

[Cherchez la Femme]

157. and don't forget

the Native Americans!
Not even so long ago as it was still the 70's (or even later) that the government was taking their children away from their families and giving them to "good Christian families" to raise.
:cry:


edit: To be more specific, as I see your pic indicates the S.American indigenous people, who I meant to specify were the North American "Indians".

[TwilightGardener]

250. WTF does this have to do with "missionaries"?

[anaxarchos]

147. duplicate...

[EFerrari]

162. Do you seriously believe there is no political leadership in Afghanistan?

Who the do you think is in the Loya Jirga? :wtf:

[anaxarchos]

254. Your words...

"How do humanitarian groups work in those regions with any measure of safety, if we pull out all NATO troops and there is no one to protect them?"

"Humanitarian Groups", "Missionaries"... same shit, different century.

How is it that "Humanitarian Groups" need "protecting"?

Perhaps you can create armed humanitarian groups like the armed religious orders of the medieval world... kill two birds with one stone.

"The Brothers of the Blackwater"?

[arcadian]

259. Ohhhhh, so now Afghanistan is a humanitarian conflict.

I love how righties change the rule of the game in midflow. What happened to smokin' Bin Laden out of caves, that was supposed to be the reason why we are in Afghanistan.

[creeksneakers2]

126. Negotiations and Marshall plans won't solve Afghanistan

The US backed government there is corrupt. Its lost all its support among the population. Its about to collapse.

Putting more troops in is counter-productive in the long run but is essential in the short run to keep the country from collapsing before we can come up with a better solution. What the country needs most is new elections and a crackdown on corruption.

Code Pink is welcomed to opine and debate as long as they aren't shouting out others who also would also like to speak.

[EFerrari]

167. The country collapsed a long time ago. n/t

[bdab1973]

169. You are mostly correct...

The government there is corrupt...welcome to this part of the world. I haven't been to a middle-eastern nation that doesn't have a corrupt government yet. It's part of the society here...those in a position to do so, skim from the top. It's seen as "normal".

The troop surge hopefully will serve to push the Taliban from the battlefield and into the political process, much like Sadr was forced to lay his cards on the table last year in Basrah (Iraq).

As for sending in humanitarian teams...does Code Pink NOT remember the recent past? Afghanistan, pre-9/11, was essentially closed off to the rest of the world. They REFUSED humanitarian workers and aid, because they were so paranoid that the outside help would destabilize their hold on the country. The Taliban needs to either be destroyed or it needs to be pushed into a political force. They have no business running a country. For all of you out there that howl at our own religious zealots, you'd think the idea of marginalizing the Taliban to be a necessary step. But for some reason, people like Code Pink folks seem to feel if we just leave, and let the Taliban back in control (they will take control if we leave), then all will be better, women can come to the table (despite the Taliban treating women like animals), and everyone will be happy.

Please read books like the Kite Runner...very good read, and a very good insight into their culture. Theirs is a harsh world, the the Taliban being among the harshest groups in the country. They need to be suppressed so other political avenues may take hold. Already there are two serious contenders to replace Karzai...let's give them some breathing room instead of pulling the plug and ensuring a Taliban victory.

[earcandle]

133. We captured some footage on Code Pink. For those who don't know them.

They care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yyhhKWk1N8

[rhymeandreason]

134. :(

[bread_and_roses]

136. much of the rest of the world seems to have wised up on this

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/20-3

Europe Ignores Obama's Demands for More Troops in Afghanistan

by Matthew Day / Ben Farmer /James Kirkup

Washington has long been frustrated at Europe's lackluster response to repeated American calls for greater assistance.

With public opposition to the Afghan war hardening across Europe, and disquiet in many European capitals over a command structure in Afghanistan that keeps the vast bulk of the 55,000-strong American force separate from NATO, few expect any member to commit significant additional forces.

Maybe Obama will wise up too.

[n2doc]

139. Graveyard of Empires...

[Cherchez la Femme]

160. Uh, what was that adage

...something about history, learning from and repetition?

I forget. :(

[bluestateguy]

145. Obama does not owe his election to Code Pink

I bet most of those people are Nader or McKinney voters anyway, in perfectly safe blue states like California and New York.

Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do in the campaign. Obama has to clean up Bush's mess in Afghanistan. But it's not a mess because we went in. It's a mess because Bush screwed it up and prosecuted the war poorly. We were attacked on 9/11, and we have the right to strike back against the people who hit us. Even countries like France and Sweden (countries that Code PInk I'm sure would like to see us emulate) would do exactly the same thing.

Obama said he would refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. He is now doing that as he said he would.

[LWolf]

155. True. Of course, the other side of that coin is that

Code Pink, 3rd party voters, and anyone left of center doesn't owe any support to Obama and his administration.

If that's the way you want to play it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

262. He has shown that he can get electede without pandering to the fringes

[EFerrari]

164. The people of Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11. And France and Sweden

also lost citizens on that date.

[Taverner]

173. Yep - the CP folks I know (granted not a scientific sample) all supported McKinney

I love em, but they're batshit crazy on the other hand

[EFerrari]

176. This one voted for Obama and you better put that broad brush down

before you hurt yourself along with offending a bunch of us who post at DU. :)

[Taverner]

181. Did I accuse you or CP for being batshit crazy? No - then stop putting words in my mouth

Read my post again

Take note the "them" refers to my friends, who are indeed batshit crazy. One of them thinks Obama is a Republican plant, and the other thinks the NAZI's have been running the US since they lost WWII (big Dave Emory fan)

Now you tell me, are those the ravings of sane people

Oh, and keep in mind I ALSO said this was not a scientific sample

OK, the podium is free - feel free to grandstand now

[EFerrari]

182. Whatever. n/t

[Taverner]

183. Jeez - why do you always get on my ass? WTF did I ever do to you?

Normally I wouldn't think anything of it

But with you, its almost like its personal...

[EFerrari]

185. I had no idea you thought that, Taverner.

It's not personal in any way. Maybe I'm just a bad reader of your posts.

[G_j]

228. then by your reasoning, we should have attacked the Saudis. I suppose

because, (extra, read all about it!) NO citizens of Afghanistan (or Taliban) attacked the US, or didn't you know that?

[earcandle]

232. There is no proof that Afghanistan caused 9-11. If there is, show it to me.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

151. I'm wondering: why now?

I was heartbroken and discouraged when I realized that he would win the nomination, because he'd long made it clear that he had a commitment to continued aggression in Afghanistan, and to the war on terror no matter where it took him.

Medea Benjamin is smart enough to have known that.

So, why now?

[EFerrari]

161. New deployment announced last week, maybe mid-week.

Iirc, 17,000 troops.

Eta: Take that number with a pillar of salt until I find confirmation. :)

Eta2: Here --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3749851

[LWolf]

163. Yes, but that misses the point.

Why be surprised and disappointed that he actually does what he's been saying he would do all along?

[EFerrari]

166. Did the release say "surprise"? I don't think it did.

:)

[LWolf]

172. No, I don't think it did.

So why now?

If there is no surprise, why wait until now to be heartbroken or discouraged? Why not express those things 2 years ago, or more?

[EFerrari]

174. Hissyspit posted some earlier statements up thread.

This isn't the new, just the latest. Maybe someday CP will run out of ways to say, "We don't agree with this" but I doubt it.

ETA: Here's one of those:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5105573&mesg_id=5107484

[LWolf]

178. Thanks. nt

[Hissyspit]

168. Sigh. O.K. One more time...

Nowhere in the press release does it say that Code Pink is "surprised" or "disappointed." Quotes from Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin upthread show that she was well aware of Obama's indications with regards to Afghanistan. News headlines over the past two weeks or so indicated that Obama might be rethinking his campaign position on Afghanistan.

[LWolf]

175. No, it doesn't say "surprised" or "disappointed."

It says "heartbroken," which is a little stronger than "disappointed." And it says "discouraged."

Strong enough for me to infer some surprise. If it wasn't a surprise, why did it take so long for the metaphorical heart to "break?" Why be "discouraged," if you knew it was coming?

[EFerrari]

180. Because people in it for the long haul will be discouraged at times?

Because it's more diplomatic than any number of other phrases?

Are you surprised that CP continues to oppose this war?

[LWolf]

190. No, of course I'm not surprised that CP continues to oppose this war.

I'm thankful that they do.

You've really defined my issue though. For CP, it's a diplomatic thing. It's one political statement in the long haul.

For me, it was personal, not political.

While I'm still here, still a voter, will still act for the change I want to see, "discouragement" doesn't really cover my own loss of hope. Hope that I will see the change I want to see in this lifetime, when it can make a difference for my generation, and for those in the next generations that I've nurtured and sent ahead.

I don't think that's going to happen. I think we've got 4-8 years with a centrist/corporatist/3rd way democrat that will impede more change than he ushers in, and that those he now seeks to include will regroup and come back fighting, moving the nation even further into theocratic fascism than the last round when this president's term ends.

I can hope I'm proved wrong. But, like I said, it's personal, not political.

Code Pink's rhetoric is political, not personal.

[EFerrari]

221. I waffle back and forth, as if I could separate the two.

Code Pink doesn't always separate those two realms of experience.

Sometimes I can go with that kind of compartmentalizing, but not always.

Peace, my friend.

[Hissyspit]

184. You can be heartbroken

when something is now actually happening. It breaks your heart. Whether you saw it coming or not. Until it ACTUALLY happens, your heart will not respond the way it will, even if you imagined how it would be IF it happened.

You can be discouraged that something actually happens. Whether you saw it coming or not. Until it ACTUALLY happens, there is always some possibly that it might not.

And, anyway, as I said before, LAST WEEK, there were indications Obama might rethink his Afghanistan policy. In fact, he apparently did, changing the amount of troops he is sending from what he earlier indicated, the best I can tell.

[LWolf]

189. If he's considering changing his position,

I sincerely hope it amounts to substantive change, like deciding to end the bogus "war on terror," bring the troops home, and commit our attention and resources to the many domestic crises we are facing.

It's true that your heart can be broken when a foreseen event occurs.

Mine was broken even before that; when I realized that there would be no place for my hopes for change in the '08 replacement of GWB. That was in January of '08.

Which is where my personal wondering comes in.

[MrPerson]

193. Fasting and Demonstrations

This guy has some ideas:

http://dohiyimir.typepad.com

[paulk]

198. codepink's solution is unworkable

"a surge in diplomacy and humanitarian aid and an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan."

Or does that aid go to the Taliban, who would re-exert their control if all US troops were pulled out? And I don't see how you do "diplomacy" with a bunch of right wing religious fanatics, which is what the Taliban are...

[EFerrari]

225. Code Pink's solution is the only workable one.

It's the one we will finally implement. I hope not too many of us or "them" get killed in the interm.

[cali]

263. it's ridiculous. and so is the president's.

I'm heartbroken about Afghanistan period. The increase in troops is unlikely to improve life for Afghanis and the Taliban certainly won't do that. There is no way to surge humanitarian aid and diplomacy with the Taliban. If you haven't, I suggest reading Ahmed Rashid's book on the Taliban.

[progressoid]

199. Sooo...they were asleep during his campaign?

:shrug:

[Hissyspit]

203. Did you read ANY of the posts upthread???

[spoony]

258. I think that's the only "point" they can make

is that "Obama said he'd do it, so he's done it." They can't argue that the war is good, or that continuing on that path is good, so they just attack the messenger for being "emotional" or "naive".

[Odin2005]

202. Nothing new with the Naive Pacifists being naive and out of touch with the real world.

Because anyone who thinks diplomacy can solve everything is out of touch with the real world. You can't have rational discussions with people who want to shoot at you (or fly jets into building where you are working) instead of being convinced by your arguments. The Taliban are not like other Islamist groups. Groups like Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, Hizbullah, etc. can be reasoned with. The Taliban are a bunch of theo-totalitarian fanatics that can't be reasoned with.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

253. What

about the CIA?

What about the naive war mongers?

Seems you are pretty selective in naming your terrorist outfits. Should we do the whole list of State sanctioned terrorism?

Don't think you want that. The dirty truth might upset your capacity for selective history.

[pasto76]

207. Um Codepink needs to check the geo-political situation over there

most american believed, and ALL republicans, that Afghanistan was a done deal. "coalition" forces have never controlled more than half of the geography of the Big A since we invaded in 2001. Sure, we displaced the Taliban and chased off Al Quaeda....right back into their homeland of Waziristan!

The current Al queada leader has amobitions to overthrow the pakistani government. They did seize control of Afghanistan in the 90s.....so the possibility of them accomplishing this must at least be acknowledged. Pakistan has about 50 nuclear weapons?

Afghanistan was and is a just fight. The people who coordinated and funded the Sept 11 attacks were there. harbored by a regime of similarly minded people. We went after them. And then we stopped. Bush had his own ambitions, as we found out.

Out of Iraq now! I served my tour over there, and at this point dont beleive that it is worth any more US lives. If something else happens down the road, then maybe it will be again. Hey, a "reactionary" policy worked for Bush, why not for Obama!

Afghanistan, I feel, is like an apple to Iraqs orange. Freepers wanna talk about that smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, it will probably come from Pakistani weapons.

SGT PASTO

[RollWithIt]

209. Afghanistan is not Iraq....

Simple as that. We should have never gone into Iraq. We should have gone into Afghanistan and kept our forces up there.

[MadBadger]

216. Thats why I dont understand people lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together..

Yes, I would consider one an illegal occupation, but not the other.

[EFerrari]

227. How many Afghanis rammed into the the World Trade Center?

None.

A few corrupt assholes leased land to bin Laden and you think in return, the Afghani people should pay for it?

Are you serious?

[EFerrari]

226. There where no Afghanis on those planes.

But, congratulations. You just justified bombing a civilian population for what a few criminals did.

That would be like bombing San Francisco for the Zodiac Killer or bombing DC for the crimes of the DC sniper.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MarjorieG]

219. Obama is doing lots at once, first getting objectives, plans. Too dangerous not to send troops now.

Moved from Iraq.

[Coffee and Cake]

222. Obama escalating the war in Afghanistan without a timeline is no surprise.

Obama and his cabinet are not exactly anti-war. He made it explicit that we was going to transfer the war into Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan with no promise of a deadline, even though he criticized Bush of going to war with Iraq with no timeline.

Obama believes that he can continue the war at a lower cost. Perhaps he is correct, but we'll see. Our military along with our economy is strained and Afghanistan is tough territory. If history teaches us anything, its that a guns and butter strategy is bound for failure and Johnson didn't even cut taxes.

[earcandle]

233. WTF did Afghan do to us? One person, they say, Osama Bin Ladin might have been there?

And wasn't it all Saudi's on the planes?
WTF is going on anyway. Are we a nation of
genociders? We gotta have a war?

[vaberella]

237. I agree with leaving Afghanistan but we're not leaving it the way we did Pakistan 20 years ago.

I think this aggression is a limited time because our resources won't allow an extension. He already said military force is not enough. I think people need to take a step back and give the man some time in making some decision. This is the first to quell something down but everyone around him and even Brezinski said that Obama will have to make some deals with the Taliban and I think he's coming to terms that he'll have to do that.

Everyone is expecting a miracle change or Jesus Christ here and he's not that to expect that. He feels Afghanistan is the problem but if it was anyone else and especially McCain we'd have the draft reinstated and he'd probably even force Obama to join that war. That being said, he needs some time but as well as lessening the violence a bit in Afghanistan. I'm a bit wary of what's going on and I agree that we need to get out. But I see this "surge" as a small movement to serious and drastic change.

[rhymeandreason]

252. But we already triumphed in Afghanistan,

vanquishing the Taliban and setting a magnificent example of Democracy in action, why do we have to do it again?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/15/karzai/index.html

Bush: Afghanistan is a victory over terrorism
Hamid Karzai thanks U.S. for aiding his country

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 10:13 PM EDT (0213 GMT)

excerpt:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday claimed victory in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and announced what he called five new initiatives to strengthen the links between that country and the United States.

Bush praised the visiting head of Afghanistan's interim government, Hamid Karzai, as a man of "honor, courage and skill helping to build a new and democratic Afghanistan."

"That journey to democracy and peace deserves the support and respect of every nation," he said at a Rose Garden news conference after a meeting with Karzai, "because free nations do not breed the ideology of terror."

"Coalition forces, including many brave Afghans, have brought America, Afghanistan and the world its first victory in the war on terror," the president said. "Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world."

Even earlier Bill Kristol, Neo-Fascist mastermind mind, proclaimed victory in Afghanistan:

From the April 28, 2003 issue: The era of American weakness and doubt in response to terrorism is over.
by William Kristol
04/28/2003, Volume 008, Issue 32

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/564ueebn.asp

The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.

:wtf: ????



That would be October, 2001

[G_j]

256. mission accomplished!

not