Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghan War Questioned as More Bodies Flown Home
LONDON - Most Britons believe the increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable" and want troops pulled out, an opinion poll said Tuesday, as more soldiers' bodies were flown home.
Mourners gather to pay their respects as a convoy of hearses containing the bodies of four British soldiers killed in Afghanistan passes through the village of Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire. (AFP/Carl de Souza) The dead servicemen were honoured a day after Britain announced the end of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan and outlined a change of strategy following a sharp spike in deaths.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband signalled Monday that Britain would back talking to moderate Taliban representatives in a bid to isolate militant insurgents who have killed 191 British troops since 2001.
A total of 22 have been killed this month alone after British forces went on the offensive in Operation Panther's Claw, just weeks before crucial presidential elections.
Four more fallen soldiers' bodies were flown home to RAF Lyneham, southwest England, before a solemn procession through the nearby village of Wootton Bassett.
The ceremonies in the town -- which has become a focus of grief and support for British troops -- came after two more soldiers were killed Monday in Helmand province, the front line in the battle with the Taliban.
The surge in deaths has sparked a political row over resources for troops in Afghanistan, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown forced to defend Britain's strategy after calls for more equipment and more boots on the ground.
But according to the opinion poll in the Independent newspaper Tuesday, more than half of Britons now think the war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable" and want to see an immediate troop withdrawal.
Fifty-eight percent see the offensive against the Taliban as a lost cause. Only 31 percent disagree, according to the ComRes telephone poll conducted for the newspaper between July 24 and 26.
Fifty-two percent of the 1,008 Britons polled want the troops out while 43 percent want them to stay put.
Britain has around 9,150 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in Helmand.
In a speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Monday, Miliband stressed the need for the Afghan government to engage with moderate Taliban elements.
"We need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan constitution," he said.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai welcomed the British move, saying it was "a confirmation of the rightful position of Afghanistan".
But a Taliban spokesman reiterated there could be no talks without the withdrawal of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
"The problem in Afghanistan cannot be overcome by such statements by Miliband or Karzai," Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP.
"This problem can only be solved if the foreign countries withdraw their forces from this country and Karzai leaves (office) and repents -- then we will be ready for talks and this issue will be solved."
There are 90,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan helping local forces, with thousands most recently deployed to the south to try and secure the restive area ahead of presidential polls on August 20.
Karzai is favourite to win a second term, but has come under fire from his rivals for not doing more to improve security in the country since he assumed office after the 2001 fall of the Taliban.
- Posted in
30 Comments so far
Show AllI got the link for the following piece at Uruknet last week.
"More than 150 UK casualties in a week in Helmand
• Figure in addition to 17 soldiers killed this month
• Field hospital has to break rules to treat wounded",
by Richard Norton-Taylor, July 21, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/record-uk-casualties-helmand-taliban
QUOTE:
Recent fighting in Afghanistan led to a record number of British casualties since the start of the war against the Taliban, with more than 150 badly wounded within a week, defence officials said yesterday.
The figures are in addition to the 17 soldiers killed this month so far. The latest, the victim of a roadside bomb while on foot patrol near Sangin on Sunday, was Corporal Joey Etchells, 22, from 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. It was his third deployment to Afghanistan. He told his local paper, the Oldham Evening Chronicle, last month: "It's a great job and a big responsibility to have out here, but I really enjoy it. I can't see myself ever wanting to do anything else."
His death takes the British toll in Afghanistan since 2001 to 186.
More than 157 soldiers were treated at the field hospital at Camp Bastion in Helmand province last week, according to army medics. Numbers were so high that medics have been forced to break their own rules by accepted more wounded than the hospital is designed to take.
"The last few weeks have been an extremely busy period. There have been injuries like you've probably never seen or experienced," one medic told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, referring to the horrific wounds explosions roadside bombs can inflict.
The latest figures officially published by the Ministry of Defence reveal a significant increase in the number of wounded even before the latest fighting, which has produced the highest recorded so far. Forty-six soldiers were admitted to field hospitals in Afghanistan in June, compared with 24 in May and 11 in April. The figures are to some extent seasonal, they were higher last summer than in the winter.
...
The MoD's figures do not give a detailed rundown of the severity and nature of the injuries to British soldiers. But they say that 13 were "very seriously" or "seriously injured" last month, descriptions which include life-threatening injuries and amputations. More than 200 soldiers have suffered such injuries since British forces began their campaign in Helmand three years ago.
Most of the deaths and serious injuries in recent months have been the result of roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices becoming increasingly sophisticated and deadly.
...
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, who retires next week, said last night that, despite the casualties, coalition forces needed to stay.
"If we were to walk away, Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban, with devastating effect for the people there – women in particular," he said in a speech to the thinktank Chatham House, adding: "Pakistan would suffer the consequences, with all that implies for international security."
END QUOTE
Now how's that closing pair of paragraphs for blatant hypocrisy, heh? What a damn hypocrite, liar, .... It's not like he possibly doesn't know that he's lying, .... He's the NATO SG, so he certainly knows he's lying and that he should therefore be put on trial at the Hague and convicted, firmly, for a LONG time. He's clearly no better than the Nazi senior officers were, the ones who were the most guilty of all because they knew the crimes committed under their senior ranking command.
Imo, anyway.
If our pulling out of Afghanistan means the certainty that it will fall to the Taliban after all these years of occupation, first by the Soviets, then the USA and the Coalition, then it will ALWAYS fall to the Taliban if we aren't there, so it means we ALWAYS HAVE TO BE THERE. Unending Occupation! Fuck That! and Fuck Them. Once these next elections are held, we ALL need to get the hell out of there, and use the money for the good of the world, not its destruction. Those "women in particular" who have been killed and maimed by drone attacks and accidents don't give a shit what we do or when we do it! Neither do the children suffering the same fate. We have created more enemies than we have made friends. People who heard only propaganda about us before, now know us and our ways first hand.
"Those "women in particular" who have been killed and maimed by drone attacks and accidents don't give a shit what we do or when we do it! Neither do the children ..."
NO, not quite. They do care very much about what the U.S., NATO, and their puppet ally Afghan Northern Alliance and puppet Afghan government do. They deseperately want the U.S. and NATO to withdraw and certainly don't want the Norther Alliance to mainly be in charge of the central government in Afghanistan; although, if they did remain in charge, then the Taliban evidently would still control much, if not most, of the country anyway.
It's not like those women and children don't have serious views about this war, for they do and the views couldn't be more serious.
I believe to have known what you meant, but figured to clarify the logic, a little.
The US and Britain are an utter disgrace for prosecuting this illegal war!!! End the war, end the insanity!! Vote out the existing corrupt politicians and get fresh and uncontaminated blood into our political offices!!!
But don't worry folks, NAZI Germany's on the way to rescue its allies in Afghanistan. Oh, and I got this link at Uruknet, btw.
"The German offensive in Afghanistan",
by Ulrich Rippert, July 27, 2009
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j27.shtml
QUOTE:
The German army has dramatically intensified its intervention in Afghanistan in the past few days. In the course of a major offensive in northern Afghanistan, it has deployed heavy weaponry including ....
For the first time since Hitler’s troops laid waste to large parts of Europe, the German army is again conducting major military operations against “rebellious elements.” ...
The decision for the latest deployment was not made by the German parliament, but rather by the army high command itself. With unprecedented arrogance and self-assertedness, Brigadier General Wolfgang Schneiderhan announced ....
The weaponry had been transported to the war zone some time previously. The military leadership in the field had the responsibility for deciding if and when the weaponry would be used, ....
German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung (Christian Democratic Union) has sought to play down the significance of the latest deployment. It was, he said, merely an operation conducted by the Afghan security forces in the struggle against the Taliban, involving 800 Afghan soldiers and 100 Afghan police officers with “300 German soldiers supporting the offensive.”
This is why, he continued, it was not necessary to obtain an extension of the existing mandate for the German army, or conduct any debate in parliament. The current deployment is “entirely in accordance” with the mandate already agreed by the German parliament, he claimed.
Jung added that it would be no problem to send a further 1,000 soldiers to Kundus in order to expand the German contingent to 4,500. The security situation had worsened considerably in the past few weeks, but there is no need for a new mandate, Jung stressed.
Jung’s comments make clear the worthlessness of the claim that the modern German army is responsible to parliament, unlike its predecessor, the Wehrmacht. The repeated claim by politicians that one of the most important lessons to be drawn from German history is that German military policy must no longer be determined by the German high command, but rather by elected representatives of the people, has proven to be ... deception.
...
The government is well aware that an overwhelming majority of the population is opposed to the war. Nevertheless, the government is ready to agree to the deployment of heavy weaponry and is planning to extend the operations of the German air force — accepting the high levels of Afghan casualties, the deaths of more German soldiers and the increased danger of terrorist reprisals within Germany .... ...
Some of the most ferocious proponents of war are to be found in the Social Democratic Party (SPD). In the tradition of the SPD leader Gustav Noske, who built up the mercenary Freikorps at the end of World War I and was responsible for the shooting down of thousands of revolutionary workers, social democrats today are demanding the suppression of opponents of the war.
“I am angry about the fact that the Germans are so unwilling to support this war,” commented former SPD Defence Minister Peter Struck .... He added, ....
This demand for the government to proceed in a more authoritarian manner against the population is tantamount to an appeal for repressive and dictatorial structures, and is not restricted to the issue of war. In light of the dramatic consequences of the economic crisis — growing unemployment and increasing poverty — there is a growing fear in ruling circles of social unrest. In response, Struck and other politicians are calling for authoritarian measures to be undertaken by the state in order to maintain law and order.
There is a growing opposition to the war in Germany. One of the latest polls puts popular opposition at 85 percent. The close connection between the issue of war and the social questions, however, means that no establishment political party, nor any trade union, is willing to call for protests against the war. ...
Although the Left Party has called on a number of occasions for the withdrawal of German troops from Afghanistan, its main orientation is towards political collaboration with the SPD — one of the main proponents and defenders of the war.
... However, the current offensive makes a mockery of government propaganda about a deployment based on “aggressive humanitarianism.” The roads that have been built in the name of humanitarian aid are now being destroyed by tanks and armoured carriers, while many of the recently constructed buildings lie in ruins as a result of the latest escalation of the war.
With every day that passes, it becomes increasingly evident that Germany, which has the third largest military presence in Afghanistan after the US and Great Britain, is directly supporting the colonial war of conquest .... In so doing, the German ruling elite is pursuing its own interests and drawing on a long-standing tradition of Great Power politics.
...
END QUOTE
I hope it's okay to quote in this above manner, given it's for non-commercial, ..., being only for educational, ... purposes. The article's too long to fit in a single post here.
The following is an interesting complementary video.
"Taliban issues new code of conduct - 27 July 09" (3:02), AlJazeeraEnglish, July 27, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBEazSQlTg
QUOTE:
Al Jazeera has obtained a copy of the Taliban's new military code of conduct, approved by their Afghan leader, Mullah Omar.
The document outlines the use of suicide bombings, guidelines on the treatment of hostages and how to win the battle for the hearts of the Afghan population.
As Al Jazeera's James Bays reports from the capital, Kabul, the book offers rare insight into how the Taliban is evolving in Afghanistan.
END QUOTE
It "outlines the use of suicide bombings", but not really in a CRAZY way. What's shown of the text of this new Taliban code is actually refreshing when juxtaposed to what the U.S. and NATO have been doing since the start in Afghanistan, to Afghans, to the Taliban, and now to Pakistan; in addition to Iraq, and more. It's also refreshing compared to the conduct of the Afghan Northern Alliance, in which there's nothing of real honourability, at all.
The Taliban only need to let up with the oppression of women's rights and some other harsh ways they have or impose, but they're otherwise far more honourable than the West is. The West has no honourability. Ha.
But a Taliban spokesman reiterated there could be no talks without the withdrawal of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Then there won't be any talks. Obimbo has already chosen to do an LBJ. There may even be a McNamara in his group confidentially telling him that "Victory" is completely impossible. No matter. Obimbo put his dick in the Afghan vice long before he was ever elected president. Frequently, during the Vietnam war, when Johnson realized he was trapped in the hopeless situation of his own making that made him a pariah and would eventually lead to his not seeking reelection in 1968, he would go get a pack of cigarettes and start smoking again. Obimbo is about to experience precisely the same thing.
Actually there are talks and a small area with a ceasefire.
The USA has been talking to the Taliban since before the USA invaded.
The USA used to ask the ISI to put the USA in touch with moderate Talibs and then the ISI informed the extremist Talibs who then murdered the moderates speaking to the USA.
The USA was only recently pressurring Karzai not to cut deals with the Talibs.
how many times must you bash your head against a brick wall to realise it hurts????...................
Our oiligarch masters want us there, so we obey.
They didn't have to wait till more bodies of young men and women were shipped home. Everyone that knew anything about the region warned against this war.
It's not only unwinnable, it's the wrong approach to containing terrorism. The program should have been rebuilding the infrastructure and economy, not kicking in doors and bombing weddings. It would have been cheaper and effective. But that's not the goal. The goal is big bucks for a handful of people.
The public overwhelmingly do not support any of the Middle Eastern wars. The problem lies with the leadership. They are tools of the war machine and big energy. They won't stop until there is a full scale rebellion.
"It's not only unwinnable, it's the wrong approach to containing terrorism. The program should have been rebuilding the infrastructure and economy, not kicking in doors and bombing weddings."
IN PART true, but not wholly. The program should have been to never launch this war that was never justifiable to begin with. People can argue all they like to the contrary, but would not be able to win such an argument while doing so in really integral, non-hypocritical, non-hegemonic, ... terms. They might not realise this, but that doesn't make the contrary argument any more integral, ....
And the war was never really about terrorism. Bush publicly said, prior to the launch of the war on Oct. 7, 2001, that the Taliban had had [nothing] to do with the 9-11 attacks, and Usama Bin Ladin, during this period, DENIED responsibility, which is something that counterterrorism experts found very striking and odd; because if he had really been responsible, then acting for political terrorism is what it would've been about and he would have therefore declared that he was responsible. After all, people who commit acts of terrorism for political purposes, because of real grievances that are constantly rejected, ignored, ... by the group, government or people that the terrorist attacks are committed against, well, such terrorists are politically motivated and need to make sure that the others, the adversaries and others who act as middle and relevant parties know what the terrorist strikes were or are about. It's the only way for them to try to draw serious attention to their unresolved grievances; and this is not nice or fun, but is logical.
Usama Bin Ladin did not change his position until November or December 2001, when he decided, for unstated reasons, that he was going to declare that he had been responsible. That, we need to realise, doesn't prove that he was responsible; for, again, he inititally said he wasn't responsible, which is not something political terrorists normally do, some or many counter-terrorism experts said ... years ago, during fall 2001.
All we know about UBL's responsibility in the 9-11 attacks really is the above; and that Bush, Cheney and others claim that Usama Bin ladin was responsible, but without providing any real proof of this. Normally we want courts of law to convict only when there is sufficient proof and all we have had are the [words] of Bush, Cheney, ... these extreme war criminals, pathological liars, etcetera.
In [theory], UBL had cause to want to attack the U.S. because of it's relationship in corrupting the government of Saudi Arabia; but this does not prove that he's responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
We, however, have strong circumstantial evidence indicating that 9-11 was very likely an inside job, but it is less strong in terms of precisely who the inside group of people are. There is some, or even much, of this evidence that certainly lends suspicion about Cheney, while none about Bush Jr, and a little about Rumsfeld; while it's strongest against Cheney, if I recall correctly. However, it's not as strong against any of them as the evidence simply indicating that inside job actors were involved. The WTC Towers didn't collapse or implode because of being struck by the airplanes and jet fuel burning; definitely not. They imploded due to [demolition], with very serious explosives placed in key parts of the building, including at one of the three basement levels (see William Rodriquez, who appears in the documentary for which there's a link in my post for completing this one. It's how WTC 7 was also destroyed, except the difference is that it hadn't been hit by any airplanes and it was shorter, though that doesn't technically matter for what I'm saying. And the Pentagon very credibly was not hit by any 757 airplane, but by something much smaller and which evidently didn't have wings. Etc.
A lot of research and analysis has been done on the 9-11 attacks by many qualified people, but their findings aren't published in msm "news" media, which is certainly aware of the findings of the independent 9-11 researchers and analysts; referring to the honest among them The msm "news" media are surely also aware that most of the 9-11 Commission inquiry officials or officers have since denounced that inquiry; variably, but some very strikingly. It's very much because of all of the Bush administration's blatant or flagrant obstructionism and withholding of necessary documents; probably especially, given it did not permit to conduct a proper inquiry. The NIST came out with a bogus "analysis" and report, and gradually made corrections to it that point in the same direction as the findings of the independent 9-11 researchers and analysts, the honest ones; but the NIST still isn't thorough.
The Towers were [demolished]. Even Bush came to eventually say that explosives had been pre-planted in the WTC Towers, 1 and 2. He didn't use the word 'demolished' or 'demolition', but nevertheless said explosives had been pre-planted and went off after the airplanes hit the Towers. And that is [not] something Al Qa'ida did!
There are some videos of Bush saying that, but I don't have a link handy and won't do a ...; well, I did a quick Web search and the following video does show Bush speaking and saying that the people responsible for the destruction of the towers planted explosives in the towers. He only says high enough so that people on higher floors couldn't escape, not mentioning explosives that were located much lower in the towers, although he doesn't specify any particular floor level, either. That's not part of the "official story" from the White House; it's a later addition that Bush provided and evidently because momentum for or behind the theory of demolition and inside job had considerably built up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I
This'll be continued with the next post.
'but their findings aren't published in msm 'news' media, which is certainly aware'
etc.
do you think mike that if these findings are published in the 'msm' that it would make a difference?...............
i'm asking a serious question here..........
do you believe that it would make any kind of impact on the general public who read the 'msm'? that might lead to 'questions being asked in parliament' (as the brits like to phrase it)............
This is to complete my prior post made at 7:44pm and subsequently edited, so the time stamp on it now is 8:19pm.
The following documentary film provides plenty of important information, but what I'm specifically referring to in it now is wherein it shows Bush lying a number of times. I don't know that it shows all of the occasions during which Bush blatantly lied and in ways that permitted well read or informed people to quite immediately discern or know that he was lying, but the following video does quite clearly show Bush lying a number of times. It's a documentary, a research one, done because of families of 9-11 victims, aka 9-11 Families.
"9/11: Press for Truth" (1:24:23)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481
It's not credible that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I believe that the above documentary provides a good statement by Robert Bowman, a U.S. Col. or Lt Col. and one with years of relevant piloting experience, but if he doesn't appear in the above film, then he does in other videos. The following video is retired U.S. Army Major General Albert Stubblebine, who, in his last position while active, was in charge of all U.S. Army intelligence work worldwide; and he's very lucid, sober, ... in this video in which he explains his findings about the so-called airplane hitting the Pentagon, telling us what his findings are and explaing how he well arrived at them.
"General of all American Intelligence - 911 was a fraud!" (5:16), Jun 28, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
In the following video, U.S. Army Major Doug Rokke, who's very well known, states that the WTC Towers were [demolished] and that no airplane hit the Pentagon.
"9-11.. Hello! - Major Doug Rokke" (10:35), Apr 19, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGVSHGWZ3JM
This war on Afghanistan involves terrorism, but it's not the political kind, it's not the Taliban. The terrorism is by the U.S. and its NATO allies in the war on Afghanistan, or simply the GWoT wars, and now Pakistan. There may have been real Arab or Saudi Arab or ... hijackers on the airplanes used as "missiles" on 9-11, but there was a hell of a lot more to those strikes than these box-cutter-knife wielding delinquants.
It was not them who placed explosives in the WTC Towers. That could not have been done without (minimally) concrete assistance from the security company that was supposed to be maintaining security in the Towers. "9/11: Press for Truth" does address this interesting part of the story. Security, [all] security, was totally shut down during the weekend preceding the 9-11 attacks. One guy or man who worked for a company, financial, insurance, or ..., some company located in one of the two WTC Towers had been working in a European country and had to be urgently brought back to do some computer systems work for the office(s) at the WTC Tower. To be able to get this rush job done without delay, he spent the whole weekend at this. And during this time, he heard ... if I'm recalling correctly, explosions on adjacent floors, or if not explosions, then loud noises like from heavy drilling, perhaps jackhammer-like drilling, and these loud noises he describes (it's also in 9/11: Press for Truth) were definitely [not] normal.
If some of what I say appears in that documentary doesn't, while it does, however, show Bush blatantly lying a number of times, then it's probably in the following European documentary. I believe Lt Col Robert Bowman definitely appears in this next documentary, which some Americans may think of as rather "eclectic", say, but I appreciated it; although we need to overlook some of the "kiddy" sort of manner that Lt Col Bowman uses when explaning how heavily protected the Pentagon and White House are. He puts on a kiddy-like shoot'em cowboy expressionism, which would've been better to omit, but he otherwise gives a very serious explanation about how mightily the protection is against aerial attacks.
"ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11" (1:44:54), Sep 18 2008
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739
I believe the following is him speaking possibly entirely on the 9-11 attacks, but he might also add mention of the Federal Reserve, disagreement with Dem. and/or Repub. Parties, ... The symposium, if I'm recalling correctly, was about the 9-11 attacks, and the following is a three-part video with him speaking for roughly 27 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thm-Kusrmcw
Much more can be said on this topic, but this suffices for me, given it's taken long enough to write up these two posts; and, besides, my real point is only to say that what I quoted from your post is mistaken in three ways.
1) It doesn't matter if the war is winnable or unwinnable; it was always criminal, throughout, start to finish, will always remain criminal.
2) The war is not about containing terrorism.
3) The program should have been to never launch the war. Now the program should be to WITHDRAW and stop committing this supreme international crime.
The Bush Regimes from father to son, plans were to overpower the Middle East and put in the oil pipe line. Bin Laden refused, and was told we will bury you. I believe still 9/11 was an inside job, to blame Bin Laden out of spite, invade Afghanistan, and then lie to rush an illegal invasion in Iraq, to oust Saddam out of revenge, back to Afghanistan to control them, and be closer to invade Iran. To be able to overpower Iran is mostly to please Israel. The bottom line, is, it was not freedom for the people, or to rid the Taliban, it's the oil pipe line they want to run from Alaska, and onward. We must remember, it was the Bush regime that created this for years, but Obama should not have followed, by keeping the Bush's bloody war happy generals, and his father's long time friend,-Gates.
Thousands have died because of Greed for oil, and Power. hitler set out to conguer Europe, Bush-the Middle East. It takes courage to stand up and admit we were wrong, and bring our troops home. Then put Bush and Chaney in prison for war crimes. If Obama keeps firing drones he will be in the same boat .
"The Bush Regimes from father to son,", with their friend Bill Clinton inbetween!
The oil pipeline is not for the Middle East, btw; it's for Afghanistan, Central Asia. They're neighbours, but not quite the same.
I don't know that Usama Bin Ladin rejected, terminated the oil pipeline talks, but do know the Taliban did. Maybe he was with them at the time.
"To be able to overpower Iran is mostly to please Israel."
Apparences can often be deceiving. I doubt it's for pleasing Israel.
Israel wants to expropriate and expel all Palestinians and wouldn't "mind" doing the same to the Lebanese or at least Hezbollah, but it doesn't want Iraq for itself and Iran's even further away.
Israel's really working for the U.S. ruling "elites", who have to concede some "favours" to Israel, so they let Israel do as it wishes with Palestine; and now that it's been known since the discovery in 2000 that Gazan offshore gas fields contain a LOT of MONEY in natural gas, heh, there's nothing to hold them back now. BP's already there.
"The bottom line, is, it was not freedom for the people, or to rid the Taliban, it's the oil pipe line they want to run from Alaska, and onward."
What have you been drinking? Alaska, Taliban; when did they move there?
"If Obama keeps firing drones he will be in the same boat."
Actually, and to be integral, he already is in the same boat; and, intellectually speaking, more dangerous than Bush.
Mike your correct Maddy has the gist of things but is a little sloppy with history and geography.
One thing I disagree with is you Mike is the israeli situation.
The USA definitely wants Iran in it's pincers and isreal definitely wants to destroy any country that might impede israel agression and genocide.
Thus israel's nuclear armed mini fleet stationed off Iran at the moment.
And it is only the USA that has prevented israel from bombing the Pakistan reactor decades ago.
From my perspective israel does more controlling of the USA than the USA controls israel.
The pipeline is several pipelines none of them are for Afghanista or central Asia they are in and from those areas but they are for the USA ,Europe, India and China.
Are Britons surprised? Having died in Afghanistan once before, they should know what the outcome of a second venture into that country should have been. Sorry but I can't feel any kind of sympathy for them. They're just fools and if they continue to blindly follow the US on her warmongering and expansionism, this will be nothing compared to what's in store.
Extremely few youth and perhaps relatively few older people knew about the first British invasion and war in Afghanistan. However, the British political and military leadership definitely knew. And most people in the West, young to old, naively, uncritically believed that the 9-11 attacks justified this war on afghanistan. They're more culpable for having supported the war on Iraq, for while they had to be uncritical to think 9-11 justified the war in Afghanistan, 9-11 makes their error understandable. It's regrettable, but nevertheless understandable. Support for the war on Iraq, however, now this is very different.
The British leadership, Blair et al anyway, perhaps also knew that 9-11 didn't justify the war on Afghanistan, but wanted to get as big a piece of the profits they all anticipated to gain from this war as they could get.
The troops, probably most of them, truly thought they were honourably following orders, and it's not the fault of the youth if society dumbs us down.
It's long past due time for waking up though.
Maybe the Brits recall their 1842 Retreat from Kabul. Only one tin soldier came marching home.
The problem with the British public is the same as with the Americans--they are arguing over management of the conflict instead of the immorality and lawlessness of any war of aggression initiated for the purpose of acquiring that which does not rightly belong to the aggressor.
Poet
amen.
It is a shame that real Brit troops have to die in combat while they still have the Gurkhas and Fijians on the payroll and in the forces.
Wars will end when there is no one left to pull a trigger.
Talks with the Taliban, while the Afghan government is run by all kinds of crooks and gangsters? It's piss or get off the pot now; get out of that country or send in enough troops to do a thourough clean-up (hundred of thousands, maybe?).
People have been told about the achievements in Afghanistan, but there's nothing to show for it.
Hars David 8:49 --- What needs to be cleaned up? Did someone track mud on the floor? Why so many maids? Is it because the country is so dusty?
Perhaps your country could use a thourough cleaning also? Shall we send a couple hundred thousand maids to remove the trash from your homeland?
Fallen soldiers ? ---- Are they baby birds?
Restive? --- Is that similiar to Festive? Oh ! Thats why we bomb wedding parties !
At least the Brits are dicussing Afghanistan.
Not so the USA.
Collin Powell in a meeting with the Pakistanis did not know the difference between Pastuns and Taliban.
This is a war of ethnic cleansing against the Pastuns.
If the USA had any intention of winning hearts and minds, they would not be using the Nothern Alliance Militiamen to suppress their ethnic rivals the traditional rulers of Afghanistan , the honorable Pastuns.
"At least the Brits are dicussing Afghanistan."
Absolutely right. You don't see pictures of funeral processions like this in U.S. papers. And we have many more dying and wounded over there. All you seen in our papers is a little line on page 17, "four soldiers killed in Afghanistan". There's no dignity in that. You almost get the feeling the powers that be are ashamed of their nasty, stinking little war. And well they should be.
It would be nice if the war was reconsidered for the fact that thousands of innocent Afghani and Pakistani citizens have been killed. Nato countries should force their citizens to get married in Afghanistan. Then we'd see some REAL reconsideration.