"There's been a major shift towards acceptance of the Taliban,"

[leftchick]

sending more troops to fight the Taliban, who had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack on Sept. 11, is pure bullshit. What is the real reason? Oil? Pipelines? MIC/Corporate Profits? It is most certainly not for "our freedoms".



Obama's Yes-We-Can War: More Troops to Afghanistan

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880253,00.html


<snip>

Having watched rival armies fight their way back and forth across the country for the past 30 years since the Soviets invaded, Afghans have become adept at accommodating themselves with the likely winner at any given moment. Right now, the trends are not moving in Washington's favor, and that fact is recognized by the Afghan citizenry. "There's been a major shift towards acceptance of the Taliban," military scholar Anthony Cordesman told a congressional panel last week. He noted that polling in Afghanistan shows "the number of people who feel the United States has performed well in Afghanistan has been cut in half in the last three years," from 68% in 2005 to 32% now.

Hardly an auspicious moment, then, for Obama to put his stamp on the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, but a commander-in-chief doesn't always have the luxury of choice. As a senator, Obama had criticized the "surge" of nearly 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq two years ago. Now, as commander in chief, he has begun ordering what may turn out to be a similar increase into Afghanistan. Of course, he had maintained on the campaign trail that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the "right" place to wage war on terror, but his strategy review reflects the fact that many have begun to question the goals and focus of the U.S. mission there.

Obama began his terse statement Tuesday by acknowledging that "there is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way." He has been personally writing letters to the families of each U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, hand signing them "Barack." Such letters no doubt will become more difficult to write in the months ahead, when the casualties begin to include some of those he ordered into combat.

[FreakinDJ]

1. He is going after Osama Been Forgotten

and I think it needs to be done

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

2. I think bin Laden is probably dead

and has been for some time due to renal failure. It was an open secret years ago that he was sneaking into a major city in Pakistan for dialysis. Not many dialysis machines in the anus mundi of the PK/Afghan border.

[leftchick]

3. I keep hearing this

And it makes about as much sense as the bush initial invasion, it doesn't. The facts are, you do not stop terrorism with bullets. You stop it with the use of intelligence resources, which btw indicate if he is anywhere it is in Pakistan NOT Afghanistan. So my questions stand, why the fuck are we still there?

[FreakinDJ]

9. Osama's head on a stick paraded down the streets of Kabul

would have been the VERY BEST deterent to future acts of Terrorism against the United States.

Until then....

[leftchick]

10. yeah right

do you listen to rush?

:rofl:

[FreakinDJ]

21. We're all Very Glad your not in charge of any thing - n/t

[Forkboy]

23. Ahhh, justice.

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

44. How would bin Laden's head on a stick be unfair? n/t

[Forkboy]

98. If he's guilty don't you think he should be tried and convicted?

That type of barbarism is part of the problem in this world.

[EFerrari]

63. Afghanis would simply wonder why you're carrying that stick

down the streets of the wrong capitol and when you were going away. Sheesh.

[WCGreen]

4. The Taliban sheltered and aided Osama....

The Taliban are implicated by not turning Osama over to the US after te Towers were hit...

[biopowertoday]

7. We had our chance. The Afgan people are tired of war.

[scarletwoman]

12. The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden. A fact that many seem to have forgotten.

Posts like yours make me wonder if people were paying ANY attention to what was really happening back then. Or was everybody just too drunk on their bloodlust.

sw

[WCGreen]

29. They gave them a certain amount of time to turn him over and they didn't...

I was not for the war but given the attack and the mood of the country I can see why so many felt justified.

[scarletwoman]

33. Not quite. The Taliban asked for our proof that OBL was responsible.

Colin Powell had said the U.S. would present a "white paper" with the proof of Bin Laden's guilt. No such "white paper" was ever produced.

The Taliban were acting on the traditional code of honor that holds throughout the region, that a guest is sacred and cannot be harmed except under the most extraordinary circumstances. They asked for our proof before they would be willing to betray the traditional protection of a guest. Of course, since there never has been such proof, they felt no compunction to turn OBL over.

Their mistake was to assume that bushco had any honor.

sw

[geek tragedy]

41. Yes, those honorable Taliban. Go fight alongside your ideological

brothers.

Fucking Christ. They had been ordered to turn him over by the UN after he bombed the US embassies in Africa.

Honor. Amazing that some people can be so stupid as to believe that horseshit.

[scarletwoman]

45. Yeah, like anyone pays attention to what the U.N. "orders".

I didn't say the Taliban were honorable, I said they were honoring their cultural traditions regarding guests. It is a statement of fact.

Oh, and take your "ideological brothers" horsehit and shove it.

[geek tragedy]

46. They were sheltering a known terrorist and helped him in his

bid to wage his dirty, terrorist war against the United States. In defiance of international law.

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Afghanistan after bin Laden was indicted in the United States and they refused to turn him over.

And you call that 'honor.'

Sorry, but when you lick Taliban boots, I'm going to point out the shoeshine on your teeth.

[ConsAreLiars]

62. Thank you for understanding that distinction. It is missed not only by the morons on DU

and the morons who are known as neocons, but, sorry to say, some morons who hold high positions in the US government today. I've tried to help people "get it." This is the most recent try: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/ConsAreLiars/26

[scarletwoman]

102. Whew, what a relief that someone understands what I was talking about!

I just read your journal entry, very interesting. I hadn't ever thought before about the distinction between a "culture of honor" and "culture of law" in concrete terms like that, I just knew that other cultures operate out of different mindsets and worldviews. It's very useful to put it in the "nomadic" vs. "settled" anthropological context.

Xenophobic America blunders about, bombing the shit out of people around the planet without making the least attempt at understanding that not all the people of the world see things as we do, or value what we value.

And even here, on a supposed "liberal" board, some small attempt to put the behavior of a group into their cultural context brings howls of indignation and accusations of being "anti-American". It's pathetic.

Thanks for the kind word,
sw

[ConsAreLiars]

112. Sometimes this reality-based stuff gets obscured by the garbage tossing and shouting

by those who support US Imperialism. It's really not to hard to understand, once one takes the time and makes the effort and drops the preconceptions. Ideologies, like them or not, take hold only because they somehow work within the material reality of the society and the economic realities they live in.

My disagreement with the article is on the "nomadic vs. settled" contrast. I think a more accurate description would be "subsistence vs. settled-in" or something. Mobility doesn't seem to be a necessary part of it. But the main point, that the extent to which an ideology takes hold is dependent on the actual living conditions of the population, is absolutely accurate.

[L0oniX]

95. Ah ...you mean tha same honorable Taliban we gave arms and anti aircraft missiles to...

fight the Russians?

[readmoreoften]

109. Unlike though "honorable" warlords we've been funding and working with

who grow and run heroin, and kidnap/gang rape girl children.

[geek tragedy]

39. The UN had ordered the Taliban to turn him over in 1999.

The Taliban had no right to demand proof of his latest atrocity, and only a complete moron would find their offer to be credible.

[bigtree]

14. those aren't necessarily or even likely the ones our troops are facing right now

We're talking seven years after the principal Taliban accomplices fled Afghanistan or were captured or killed. Most of what we're fighting now is the specter of al-Qaeda represented by the numbers of those resisting our military advance who have joined their ranks or provide support or acceptance.

If you want to split hairs over the period before the invasion, the Taliban offered to turn bin-Laden over to the U.S. if we showed them proof that he was actually involved in the attacks.

How many of these folks who identify themselves as 'Taliban' do you believe were even remotely connected to those killings over seven years ago?

[WCGreen]

30. Actually we are probably fighting a narco war in Afganistan...

The "enemy" shifts and changes.

Believe you me, I wish we could give up on the country but I believe that if we did, we would end up regretting our decision.

[closeupready]

31. Nobody is saying "give up" on Afghanistan; rather, just the opposite.

Engage CONSTRUCTIVELY, NOT with bombs, bullets and death.

[FreakinDJ]

22. More then implicated and complicit with Osama

The Taliban were also supressing women's rights refusing to let them even go to school. Now we have some women here advocating for the Taliban

Stupid is as Stupid does

[geek tragedy]

40. Not all anti-Bush leftists are pro-America or even progressive. n/t

[MadHound]

86. Well if you want to get to the heart of the matter

Actually it was originally the CIA who aided OBL, back when Russia was invading Afghanistan. Hell, we thought he and his freedom fighting mujahadeen brothers were the shit, or at least Reagan and his crew did. Provided them with arms and other material aid.

The thing is, we could have prevented all of this back in the day, namely the day after the Russians pulled out, if we had started providing aid to Afghanistan to help it rebuild after being blown to hell and back by Russia. Yet even though we had OBL and his buddies fight our proxy war for us, we had the height of ingratitude to turn our back on them after that war was over. Well, that pissed off OBL and his buddies, setting in motion a chain of events that culminated in 911.

We're compounding this mistake even further, bringing the military to a War of Ideas. If we're out to get OBL and his small handful of buds, then what is more appropriate is a small group of people carrying out a police action. If we're out to win friends and stabilize the region, then we need to start coming up with better ideas. For instance, a few months ago there was a large earthquake on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Well within our range of control, we could have rolled in a convoy or airdropped in humanitarian aid to help these people who were without food or shelter with the winter coming on. Instead we did nothing, and let a local terrorist group associated with Al-Qaeda roll in with their convoy of humanitarian aid. Another battle in the war of ideas lost and gone forever.

More military isn't the way to win this. We lost the last War of Ideas in Vietnam, and we're going to lose this one unless we stop fighting with our military and use the rest of our abilities instead.

[NNN0LHI]

89. So did Saudi Arabia but we aren't bombing them

Something is funny here.

Don

[L0oniX]

94. How do we know that we are being told the truth about any of that?

[Mari333]

5. more appeasement to the warmongering right

and its all politics. sad thing is, they are playing politics with the lives of our troops, who have been deployed 5 and 6 times to these bullshit wars for corporate greed.
and its another way to justify the HUGE fucking military budget.
obama is appeasing again. I am disappointed in him on this . very.

[David Dunham]

6. Osama is married to the daughter of the Taliban's leader who supported Osama in 2001

[leftchick]

11. which wife?

he has about 12. :shrug:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Mari333]

64. wtf. nt

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

8. VetVoice, for a difference of opinion:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2475

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

[leftchick]

13. that is a ridiculous argument by them

if more than half of the population supports the Taliban, as it appears, NOTHING the US can do will change anything except creating more chaos, terrorist wannabes and death. Reality sucks to militarists.

I believe this is complete Fantasy, especially as we bomb Afghan civilians daily...

<snip>

More U.S. troops are absolutely necessary to turn the tide in Afghanistan, but American troops are a short-term answer to a lasting set of problems. Supporting Afghan and Pakistani governments that can meet the needs of their own people--including security--must be the long-term solution. The paradoxes of counterinsurgency detailed here, counterintuitive though they may be, provide the best guideposts on the rocky trail toward success. It will not be the death or capture of every last enemy fighter that wins this war, but creating a position of strength from which to negotiate a lasting political solution to a cycle of conflict with no other end in sight.

good lord this is complete fantasy! I wish SOMEONE would read a fucking history book instead of 'MILITARY MANUALS'!

:grr:

[babylonsister]

19. A Vet's voice is complete fantasy?

Well, seeing as they have firsthand experience, I defer to them.

I agree, I want out, but I'm willing to listen, read, and try to figure out why there are so many different opinions, without going off half-cocked.

[JackRiddler]

25. Why not defer to McCain's views on Vietnam then?

Veterans don't all agree, do they? That's also true of Sept. 11th families!

For McCain's view of Vietnam, there is also Kerry's. Which do you prefer?

Guess what, you're the one who has to choose, and a veteran doesn't necessarily know whether a war is right. In fact, you would think the veteran would have a strong bias either for or against (for example because they want their service to have been good and meaningful, or because they were traumatized by war and hated it).

[babylonsister]

32. Wow. McCain's views are equal. Wow. I disagree.

How do you know what is right? I agree, in case you didn't get it, that we need to remove ourselves. But I will also listen to other people who are a lot smarter than I am.

[JackRiddler]

36. No, the point is that one doesn't know the right course of action...

simply because one is a veteran. They disagree, so you can cite veterans all you like, in the end you've still got to decide what you think for yourself based on all that you can learn.

[babylonsister]

37. No kidding. That's what I'm trying to do.

I found DU because of the illegal occupation, I certainly don't want to continue another war I disagree with. But I will not throw away opinions that are knowledgeable because you say so.

These guys don't want war anymore than I do, but they are looking at the situation realistically.

I owe it to them to look at it the same way.

[leftchick]

71. half-cocked?

Nice. I get extremely frustrated when so called liberals/progressives defend any war. Here is a Vet's voice for you to "read" about the reality of war. Somehow I doubt you will. All of you 'Obama do or die' folks can't handle the fact that gee, he could actually be wrong.




http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm


CHAPTER ONE

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce , their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

[leftchick]

88. here you go

another 'vet's voice' you may like...


http://consortiumnews.com/2009/020409a.html

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, who played a key role in getting Gen. David Petraeus put in charge of the Iraq War and pushing for a U.S. troop escalation, is now working behind the scenes to force President Barack Obama to back off his commitment to withdraw U.S. combat forces in 16 months.

In this endeavor, historian/journalist Gareth Porter reports that Keane has conflicts of interest. Even as he promotes policies that expand the military budget, he also works for private military contractors that have fattened up their profits during the Iraq War.

[scarletwoman]

34. So, who are the "enemy fighters" really?

It's really quite a disconnect to call the native peoples fighting against you, the FOREIGN INVADER, the "enemy fighters".

sw

[geek tragedy]

47. Yes, we know, you side with the Taliban and not the US soldiers.

However, to most Americans--including all patriotic Democrats--the Taliban are the enemy.

[Mari333]

66. you need to enlist

most of the soldiers in my immediate family want both wars to end and think they are bullshit.
now, off you go.

[geek tragedy]

79. You need to stop paying your taxes and raise money

for the unfairly oppressed Taliban freedom fighters, who oh so reasonable offer to turn over their strong ally bin Laden if the US would just manage to share enough intelligence to convince them was the biggest joke since "compassionate conservatism."

[lonestarnot]

15. Sorry, but the Taliban as dead as dead and stinkin' is alright with me.

[leftchick]

18. with that logic

why are we not in Burma or a whole lot of destinations in the world suffering oppression? It is ALL SO MUCH BULLSHIT! The USA is NOT the world police force. Fuck! We can not even afford to be! I want an end to our occupations and to get a fucking Job in the USA so I can ensure that I have insulin for my child who is dependent on it. That is my reality, and I know I have millions of companions in suffering.

:(

[lonestarnot]

20. Death is not logical.

[leftchick]

81. neither is war

ever

[FreakinDJ]

24. An over whelming majority of this country feels the same way

Maybe the poster of this thread can go over there and teach peace - but I rather send a missle up his butt

[Life Long Dem]

16. Bush let this get out of hand.

I don't accept any of the Taliban.

[Politicalboi]

17. Osama bin Laden is dead

I hate when Obama talks about catching him. I hoped he'd be smarter than that. But I guess he has to still live the lie till something happens to prove other.

[shadowknows69]

26. Ok, I have to say it again

We've already lost. Get the fuck out now!

[rockymountaindem]

27. To say that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 is not exactly the case

They were asked repeatedly by the US and Saudi Arabia to turn over Osama bin Laden to one country or the other, and they refused, knowing full well what his ideology and goals were. Bin Laden and the Taliban were part and parcel.

[FreakinDJ]

28. Everyone in America agrees with you except "Radical Fringe"

And I don't at all like them representing theirselves as Democrats

[scarletwoman]

35. Funny, I feel the same way about you. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

42. Well, funny that every member of Congress

and every member of the President's national security team agrees with us and not the rest of you Taliban-humpers.

[EFerrari]

48. Wrong. The Out of Iraq Caucus just wrote to Obama and asked him

to rethink his strategy. There is no military solution in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. And the national security team that you think so highly of isn't talking about one, anyway. They are preparing for a political solution -- which makes them "Taliban humpers", too, I guess.

[geek tragedy]

49. Name one member of Congress who thinks that the Taliban

had nothing to do with 911.

Besides Dana Rohrbacher.

[EFerrari]

50. The Taliban is not Al Qaida. What are you going to do when Obama

makes a political deal with them? Have a stroke? Because that's where this will wind up -- if he's lucky.

[geek tragedy]

52. The question remains: is the author of the OP correct in her defense

of the Taliban's honor when she claims that they had nothing to do with 911?

[EFerrari]

54. The Taliban did not plan 9/11. They spent years in refugee camps

in Pakistan planning how they were going to control turf in Afghanistan. That is their only interest. They wanted nothing to do with the West, remember? They probably couldn't have kept bin Laden out if they wanted to.

And spare me the "Taliban humping" bs. I was protesting the Taliban with RAWA long before 9/11.

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

[geek tragedy]

56. Is it accurate to state that the protectors and shelterers of

Osama bin Laden from 1996-2001--who defied the United Nations in doing so-- and who provided territory for bin Laden to run his terrorist network had nothing to do with 911?

[EFerrari]

58. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they could control bin Laden

in any way? None. All you have is BushCo declaring war so he could get war powers. That's it.

[geek tragedy]

78. They refused to even ask him to leave.

Indeed, they did everything they could to shelter, protect, and aid him.

[EFerrari]

100. The Taliban wanted to see evidence and they didn't want to give him

to a Western country but to somewhere that had Islamic law. Not to mention, you don't ask guests to leave.

But there is no direct evidence that the leadership could even have delivered that. They are a militia that only rules by agreement with other militias and gangs. It's not like they had federal troops that could go round up bin Laden's camp even had Bush not done everything in his power to frighten and insult them and get them to refuse exactly as they did.

[geek tragedy]

106. "You don't ask guests to leave."

LMAO.

Yes, although things like international peace and security, preventing terrorism, and preventing large scale massacres are important, the #1 priority is to avoid offending guests.

I didn't think anyone could be so stupid. Thank you for correcting me.

[EFerrari]

107. You sound just like a freeper who can't understand that the default

of all cultures is not American.

[geek tragedy]

113. Culture is not relevant when the issue is international law

and the issue of terrorism.

There is no cultural excuse for aiding terrorists.

[leftchick]

72. defending their honor? wtf?

I was stating Facts! Here are some more for you...

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/afghanistan.php

2000-2001: US gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

In May 2001, US narcotics experts visited Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for the first time. They found the Taliban had followed through on Mullah Omar’s edict outlawing opium-poppy cultivation. In 2000, Afghanistan produced 75% of the world’s opium crop. The Taliban, which since coming to power had used the money from the opium to purchase weapons, had apparently stopped the poppy crop-all in less than a year and with the help of their harsh punishments for farmers found in violation of the ban. The Bush administration found this so satisfying that they immediately pledged an additional $43 million worth of aid to Afghanistan.

As the State Department reported on October 15, 2001:

"The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of American food sent to Afghanistan this year."

That’s almost $300 million in two years with the stated aim of feeding the starving Afghani people.

To put this in perspective, Bangladesh-population 133 million (compared to Afghanistan’s 28 million people)-an equally impoverished country facing similar catastrophic famines, received $100 million from the US in 2001. And that’s humanitarian and economic aid combined, whereas the significantly higher amount of aid given to Afghanistan ($6.57 per capita in Afghanistan, compared to $.75 for each Bangladeshi) is only humanitarian. Both these countries fall under the same watchful eye of the State Department’s Bureau of South Asian Affairs.

Of course, Bangladesh has a government that is already fairly open for foreign investment, and, until the United States replaced the Taliban with a government led by an oil industry insider, Afghanistan was led by a repressive regime totally isolated from the rest of the world. Perhaps that isolation is the reason the United States takes such pride in the help they’ve provided to Afghanistan. By helping them, we were isolated, too!

"- - In 1999 the United States contributed over $70 million in assistance to the Afghan people. This year's total of over $100 million covers food, housing, health and education programs, de-mining and refugee assistance. Of every two dollars of global assistance to Afghans, half is food aid; and of every ten dollars, nine dollars is a United States contribution."

[geek tragedy]

76. So, you bitch about humanitarian aid to poor people in Afghanistan.

You're not just anti-American, you're anti-America-helping anyone.

Not a progressive, but an anti-Western reactionary are you.

[leftchick]

82. who is providing humanitarian aid?

Oh I get it, the same folks bombing the crap out of civilians daily. Perhaps it is a pathetic attempt at compensation for wanton killing. The US has NEVER done anything to 'help' anyone without a motive. They certainly are not on the list of groups providing aid. You must be reading military propaganda.

What groups provide humanitarian aid to Afghanistan?

The people of Afghanistan have been suffering hunger and war for decades. Civil strife has torn the country apart and millions of Afghans are refugees in other countries. Humanitarian aid has increased following the events of Sept. 11 and the U.S.-led military strikes in Afghanistan meant to destroy terrorist camps. These are a few of the international organizations that are trying to avert a further humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Visit their sites for updated relief news.

* America's Fund for Afghan Children
* CARE
* Doctors Without Borders
* InterAction
* International Rescue Committee
* Mercy Corps
* Red Cross Red Crescent
* Refugees International
* UN High Commissioner for Refugees
* USAID
* U.S. Committee for Refugees
* World Food Program

AlertNet and ReliefWeb provide more news from humanitarian groups in Afghanistan.

http://www.givespot.com/ask/afghanistan.htm

[geek tragedy]

83. So, aid in 1999-2000 was meant to compensate people

for . . . ?

[leftchick]

84. 10 years ago?

The US has slaughtered several thousand Afghans since then. How does one compensate for that?

[geek tragedy]

85. I dunno, maybe helping the imperfect but sane government

hold power instead of turning the country over to the barbarians who ruled it until 2001?

[leftchick]

87. did you miss the part where the 'barbarians' were our friends

The US gave them MILLIONS of dollars before they became our new boogie men.

[geek tragedy]

90. How much of that money wen to the Taliban themselves

as opposed to the aid for starving people (that you think we should have just let starve to death--compassionate person that you are)?

[leftchick]

97. you are a trip!

:rofl:


Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan, as the U.S. prepared its massive military assault on Iraq in 1991.
"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
*
Since the Second World War, the United States has been the dominant world power in the Middle East. Every U.S. policy shift, every military intervention, every CIA plot has been carried out to secure one main aim: to ensure the cheap and plentiful flow of the world's most important energy resource--oil. Despite new discoveries of oil reserves in Central Asia, the Middle East still has two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves, and its oil is still the cheapest to pump and produce. As Lawrence Korb's statement about Kuwait and carrots makes clear, nothing that takes place in the Middle East today can be understood without first understanding the strategic and economic importance of "black gold."
The U.S. has relied on brutal, repressive regimes--Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, Israel--to do its dirty work. It has used the CIA to foment coups against "unfriendly" regimes. When necessary, it has intervened directly to punish regimes that have challenged its dominance in the region--as it did to Iraq in 1991. To this day, the U.S. spends billions annually to maintain a large military presence in the region. It provides billions in military hardware to client states, in particular to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel--which the U.S. carefully maintains as the region's most formidable military power.

<snip>


Though the U.S. now views Islam as a grave threat to its interests in the Middle East and the U.S. press regularly pumps out racist anti-Islamic stereotypes, Islamic Saudi Arabia remains completely unscathed. Ironically, at one time the U.S. actively promoted Islamic fundamentalism as a counterweight to Arab nationalism. The CIA, for example, cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Nasser's Egypt and provided Muslim movements with operating bases in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is a former U.S. ally, the product of U.S. efforts to arm and train Islamic fundamentalist forces fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Even Israel once funded the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in Palestine as a way of undermining the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO's) strength. Islam, now considered one of the most formidable threats to U.S. interests in the region, was once promoted by those same interests. What is consistent in U.S. policy is its need to strengthen its strategic, economic, and military control over the flow of oil. How it does this changes with the times.

<snip>

Conclusion
Hypocrisy has always permeated U.S. policy in the Middle East. While some regimes, such as those in Iraq, Iran, and Libya, are dubbed "rogue states," this has absolutely nothing to do with whether these regimes are repressive or invade their neighbors. When Israel--the only nuclear power in the region--invaded Lebanon in 1982 and killed 40,000 people in its efforts to smash the PLO, it had the backing of Washington. Though lip service is paid to helping the oppressed Kurds in Iraq, U.S. ally Turkey is given weapons to attack its own Kurdish minority. While Saddam Hussein is certainly a tyrant, he was every bit as much of a tyrant when he was Washington's friend. While his invasion of Kuwait was condemned, the U.S. supports Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. The coalition lined up against Iraq in 1991 consisted of countries such as Kuwait, a monarchy that still does not grant women the right to vote; Saudi Arabia, which publicly executes its critics; and Egypt, which outlaws opposition parties, and sometimes murders them when they protest.

U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been naked and brutal. It is primarily responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region. The struggle against U.S. imperialism in the Middle East is intimately tied up with the aspirations of the mass of Arab workers and peasants in that region, not only against the American "colossus," but against their own ruling classes.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Middle_East/Blood_for_Oil.html


VI. The Covert-US Taliban Alliance

Western motives become clearer when one recalls that it was the US that originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even “long before the USSR sent in troops” - which now constitutes the “leaders of Afghanistan”.<40> The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban. AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taleban”, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a “crucible of strategic interest” during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it “is the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the world’s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. Alexander the Great used it as a path to conquest. So did the Moghuls. An object of competition between the British and Russian empires in the 19th century, Afghanistan became a source of controversy between the American and Soviet superpowers in the 20th. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational corporations... Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot what happens there affects the rest of the world.”<41>

Raphel’s denial of US interests in the region also stands in contradiction to the fact that, as AI reports, “many Afghanistan analysts believe that the United States has had close political links with the Taleban militia. They refer to visits by Taleban representatives to the United States in recent months and several visits by senior US State Department officials to Kandahur including one immediately before the Taleban took over Jalalabad.” The AI report refers to a comment by the Guardian: “Senior Taleban leaders attended a conference in Washington in mid-1996 and US diplomats regularly travelled to Taleban headquarters.” The Guardian points out that though such “visits can be explained”, “the timing raises doubts as does the generally approving line which US officials take towards the Taleban.”<42>

Amnesty goes on to confirm that recent “accounts of the madrasas (religious schools) which the Taleban attended in Pakistan indicate that these links may have been established at the very inception of the Taleban movement. In an interview broadcast by the BBC World Service on 4 October 1996, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto affirmed that the madrasas had been set up by Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during the Jihad, the Islamic resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”<43> Similarly, former Pakistani Interior Minister, Major General (Retd) Naseerullah Babar, stated that “ CIA itself introduced terrorism in the region and is only shedding crocodiles tears to absolve itself of the responsibility.”<44>

In light of Brzezinski’s testimony, the establishment of this Western link with the Taliban - as well as other Afghan factions - was initiated even prior to the Soviet invasion. Similarly, Vidgen reports that “the corporate media have... remained silent in regard to America’s involvement in the promotion of terrorism. On the issue of right-wing terrorism, little has been reported. On America’s intelligence connection to ‘Islamic’ guerrillas (and their manipulation of Islam), nothing has been said. Yet, the truth is that amongst those who utilise religious faith to justify war, the majority are closer to Langley, Virginia, than they are to Tehran or Tripoli... In a move to recruit soldiers for the Afghanistan civil war, the CIA and Zia encouraged the region’s Islamic people to think of the conflict in terms of a jihad (holy war). Thus was fundamentalism promoted.”<45>

William O. Beeman, an anthropologist specialising in the Middle East at Brown University who has conducted extensive research into Islamic Central Asia, points out: “It is no secret, especially in the region, that the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been supporting the fundamentalist Taliban in their war for control of Afghanistan for some time. The US has never openly acknowledged this connection, but it has been confirmed by both intelligence sources and charitable institutions in Pakistan.”<46> Professor Beeman observes that the US-backed Taliban “are a brutal fundamentalist group that has conducted a cultural scorched-earth policy” in Afghanistan. Extensive documentation shows that the Taliban have “committed atrocities against their enemies and their own citizens... So why would the US support them?” Beeman concludes that the answer to this question “has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity - but only with the economics of oil. To the north of Afghanistan is one of the world’s wealthiest oil fields, on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian Sea in republics formed since the breakup of the Soviet Union.” Caspian oil needs to be transhipped out of the landlocked region through a warm water port, for the desired profits to be accumulated. The “simplest and cheapest” pipeline route is through Iran - but Iran is essentially an ‘enemy’ of the US, due to being overtly independent of the West, as shall be discussed later. As Beeman notes: “The US government has such antipathy to Iran that it is willing to do anything to prevent this.” The alternative route is one that passes through Afghanistan and Pakistan, which “would require securing the agreement of the powers-that-be in Afghanistan” - the Taliban. Such an arrangement would also benefit Pakistani elites, “which is why they are willing to defy the Iranians.” Therefore, as far as the US is concerned, the solution is “for the anti-Iranian Taliban to win in Afghanistan and agree to the pipeline through their territory.”<47> Apart from the oil stakes, Afghanistan remains a strategic region for the US in another related respect. The establishment of a strong client state in the country would strengthen US influence in this crucial region, partly by strengthening Pakistan - a prime supporter of the Taliban - which is the region’s main American base. Of course, this also furthers the cause of establishing the required oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea, while bypassing Russia and opening up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) bordering Russia to the US dominated global market.


http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html

[geek tragedy]

99. Lots of speculation, no facts. And, I guess you blame Bill Clinton for 911.

Typical from knee-jerk defenders of the Taliban like yourself.

[leftchick]

105. apparently

either you did not read the links, or you are completely lacking in reading comprehension skills. I am guessing both.

[FreakinDJ]

70. All 2 of them

[EFerrari]

101. As of 2007, there were 66. n/t

[Mari333]

68. ..

[leftchick]

73. lol!

spot on as usual Mari!

:)

[geek tragedy]

77. Not all of us are young and immature like you, sweetie.

Military service isn't an option for everyone, and especially since it was 10 times more likely that enlistees would get sent to Iraq than Afghanistan.

But, keep up with your advocacy on behalf of the Taliban.

[Prometheus Bound]

115. Excellent Mari. Some more "tough guy" war enthusiasts

[geek tragedy]

38. Ah yes, the pro-Taliban talking point claiming they had nothing

to do with 911 (other than providing the training camps and bases for the people who committed 911) and the childish, utterly ignorant claim that we invaded to build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

Thank god Obama doesn't listen to your crowd.

[MadHound]

96. Let's see, it was the Taliban who flew those planes into the Towers

It was a small group of people, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who were members of Al Qaeda, who flew those planes (we'll leave aside the LIHOP and MIHOP theories, since while many people consider them a valid explanation of events, I don't want to muddy the waters here).

The Taliban is a governing group, one that sprung up in the wake of our refusal to help Afghanistan rebuild after they got blown to hell and back fighting our proxy war. Gee, a little wealth spread around twenty years ago would have prevented that.

But history aside, what we're engaged in here is a War of Ideas. I'm not the only one saying this, many influential policy makers and shapers have said the same thing. Yet once again, as in Vietnam, we have brought our military to this War of Ideas. If we continue down this same path, we are doomed to defeat.

So what do we want out of Afghanistan? The capture of bin Ladin. OK, that's a police action, a scenario for a small group of specially trained soldiers, not for us to roll in the tanks and planes and batter the shit out a country. We want the Afghani people to see the wisdom of our ways. OK, well bombing the shit out of them and killing them by the thousands isn't going to win friends over there or influence those people. We need to show these people our better self. Have you ever read the book "The Ugly American?" The lessons in it apply to South Central Asia today just as they applied to Southeast Asia fifty years ago.

You don't bring a gun to a War of Ideas, you've got to bring better ideas, otherwise you're going to lose every time. Again, reference Vietnam on this.

[Prometheus Bound]

51. Dear Warmongers. Dick Cheney has retired. You should pack up his propaganda and do the same.

Same discredited neo-con talking points.

[geek tragedy]

53. Um, not everyone who roots for the US against the Taliban

is a Neocon.

Shocking, but true: the nutters who think the Taliban were aggrieved victims in 2001 are the same group of reactionary, anti-American idiots they were back then.

[EFerrari]

55. Right. And you support the troops by cheering them being sent

to get blown up in a foreign country for no reason in a conflict they can't win. USA! USA!

[geek tragedy]

57. Preventing the Taliban and by extension al Qaeda from

ruling the entire country of Pakistan is not 'no reason.'

But, people who find it odd to refer to bin Laden's allies as the 'enemy' reveal their biases.

[EFerrari]

60. There is no military way to prevent a fundamentalist take over of Pakistan

unless you nuke it off the planet.

[Prometheus Bound]

59. Anyone advocating war who doesn't at least try to sign up isn't worth listening to.

I just can't imagine pushing for a war and expecting someone else to fight it for me. What's the word. It starts with a 'C'.

[EFerrari]

61. I'm not cool with simply leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban.

They're criminals in religious drag. And it's pretty clear that the people we have in country already need help because they are dangerously shorthanded and getting hurt and killed.

But a solely American build up seems to me a very dangerous way to go. It's like a dare. We'd do better to enlist real international support -- which Obama is much more likely to get with a clear plan for stabilization and development. The world is still thrilled to be rid of our torture president. We might be able to get some real help for Afghanistan.

[Mari333]

65. its called a chickenhawk

seems to me there are as many on the left as there are on the right nowadays.
:)

[geek tragedy]

75. Chickenpeaceniks: Did you refuse to pay your taxes

to the extent they funded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bush's CIA extradition programs?

[pampango]

67. By that logic only young, healthy males get to have an opinion.

Only gays get to have an opinion on gay marriage, only immigrants on illegal immigration, only bank CEO's on financial bailouts? If you're not there or willing to try to get there, you can't express an opinion?

Do soldiers have an opinion on the war, I'm willing to listen to? Certainly. Do gays have an interest in expressing an informed opinion on the issue of gay marriage? Undoubtedly. Do immigrants have a story to tell? Sure do. Do CEO's have a "concerned" viewpoint of the bailout? Of course.

Ultimately everyone should be careful about recommending courses of action in which they don't pay the price. Cut off imports and those with export-related jobs lose out. Most actions have some form of "blowback". Sometimes it is easy to predict; sometimes not. We still get to have opinions and express them whether they are as "informed" as the next person's or not. I can comment on trade with China or the merits of Chavez without living in China or Venezuela.

[geek tragedy]

74. Oh, blow it out your sanctimonious, pro-Taliban ass.

Talk about an Orwellian, speech-suppressing concept.

[MasonJar]

69. The Taliban are evil, women-hating, poppy-growing monsters.

[L0oniX]

93. almost like the gay hating, supporters of the murder of Palestinian women and children...

religious assholes here in America?

[mmonk]

80. Americans are intentionally left ignorant of all the circumstances

surrounding Afghanistan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. It's all about falling dominoes..oops...wrong war, same dumb argument.

But, our military says they're a big, ferocious, bogeyman and they need more money and troops to save us.

[L0oniX]

92. Wonderful American hypocrisy ...the Taliban used to be our friends when they fought the Russians.

We sold them arms and anti aircraft missiles which took out the Russian helicopters ...just like Saddam was our friend when we liked that fact that Iraq was at war with Iran. The Taliban and Saddam did not attack us on 911. Our government keeps missing the target ...Osama ...and I seriously doubt that Osama is still alive. He's a prop for the MIC and the MIC stock holders ...our congressmen and senators. Our government is preying on us.

[Xenotime]

104. They will be our friends again. Obama will help mend all this global bad will

[bird gerhl]

108. Silly natives!

We'll show them what's good for them soon enough. :)

[G_j]

110. terse indeed..

such foolish people, brought to you by the same folks who gave us the world's greatest Ponzi game.

[MisterP]

111. "we know what's best" has the strong correlation of "the foreigners are deluded as to what they

REALLY want"
though in this case technically correct--as the sponge-headed compradores we put in Kabul are technically better than the Kalashnikov-bonkers Taliban--they're not good by any non-relative, independent measure
that the Afghans prefer the Taliban to the warlords testifies to how bad the Afghan political situation is--not to any ignorance, stupidity, intolerance of Western liberalism, or incapability on the Afghans' part
P.S.: Never EVER listen to Brzezinski--just look at what he did to Afghanistan! :crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. Fuck The Taliban Scumbags.

Obama's doing the right thing.

And are you really defending the taliban? How nice of you.

[fascisthunter]

116. It Appears Facts Do have a Left-Leaning Bias

I see many heads exploding today.

[fujiyama]

117. The simple fact is

that Bush never really gave Afghanistan the seriousness it deserved. It was a quick and easy side war - an appetizer, before the main course.

I agree with what seems like the minority here, that we should do everything possible - including military force - to stop the Taliban from gaining power again. But it requires some really difficult choices which won't make some on the far left very happy. It requires violating the sovereignty of other nations like Pakistan at times. They've been receiving a lot of aid and haven't delivered. They've usually just diverted their military equipment to their eastern border to fight India.

OK, say we left Afghanistan. It is a blood bath. It's not at all pleasant. And we are losing American troops at a pace rivaling Iraq. We also know that Bush and crew performed a hack job on the country. We've seen few improvements. No accountability from its neighboring country, and half assed cooperation at that. Instead, they've allowed the Taliban to regroup and start invading again. Do we simply let the region fall back to where it was? What we had earlier was not containment.

And please spare me the crap about the Taliban requiring "proof" before giving up Osama. It was a stalling tactic. I'm just amazed that anyone believes the Taliban would have been willing to negotiate anything in good faith! How fucking naive are some of you? You're smart enough to be skeptical of Bush, but you believe the fucking Taliban? They knew Osama was clearly responsible, if not directly for 9/11, then for heading the terrorist group that was. The Taliban sheltered them. Most countries have corroborated this.

The West has been responsible for a LOT of fuck ups over the years, but going after the Taliban was the right thing to do and it still is. It did however require a focus that wasn't given until now. Hopefully it's not too late. I'm glad Obama understands this unlike some on here.