Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan Kills up to 90
KABUL - A NATO jet blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, setting off a huge fireball Friday that killed up to 90 people, Afghan officials said.
Members of the security forces at the site of a NATO airstrike in Kunduz on September 4. A NATO airstrike Friday destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in Afghanistan, igniting a fireball that officials said killed between 50 and 90 people -- mostly insurgents. (AFP) The NATO command said a "large number of insurgents" were killed or injured in the pre-dawn attack near the village of Omar Khel in Kunduz province. An Afghan police officer said the 90 dead included about 40 civilians who were siphoning fuel from the trucks.
He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
The top NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has ordered curbs on airstrikes after a strong backlash among Afghans against the high number of civilians killed in such military operations.
Police Chief Gulam Mohyuddin said Taliban fighters stopped the vehicles as they were about to cross the Kunduz River.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officer, said NATO warplanes attacked and destroyed the two tankers after determining that there were no civilians in the area.
She said that NATO and the Afghan government are investigating reports of civilian casualties.
Another NATO spokesman said one reason the fuel tankers were targeted was they are frequently used in suicide attacks.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said insurgents hijacked the trucks as they were headed from Tajikistan to supply NATO forces in Kabul.
When the hijackers tried to drive them across the Kunduz River, the vehicles became stuck in the mud and the insurgents opened valves to release fuel and lighten the loads, he said. He said about 500 villagers swarmed the trucks to collect the fuel despite warnings that they might be hit with an airstrike, he said.
Mujahid said no Taliban died in the attack.
Kunduz Gov. Mohammad Omar, who also gave the 90 deaths figure, said a local Taliban commander and four Chechen fighters were among those killed.
Many of the bodies were burned beyond recognition.
Humanyun Khmosh, director of the Kunduz hospital, said 12 people were being treated for severe burns. He could not say whether they were civilians or insurgents, although one was a 10-year-old boy.
He said the hospital had only one confirmed death - a truck driver.
In Kabul, the deputy chief of the U.N. mission, Peter Galbraith, said he was "very concerned" by reports of civilian casualties in Kunduz and that all efforts must be undertaken to care for the wounded and compensate families of the dead.
"Steps must also be taken to examine what happened and why an air strike was employed in circumstances where it was hard to determine with certainty that civilians were not present," he said, adding that a U.N. team would be sent to Kunduz to investigate.
Kunduz province had been relatively peaceful until violence began rising earlier this year. German forces who are based there come under almost daily attack, including rockets and mortars at their bases and small arms fire against patrols.
Violence has soared across much of the country since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, shifting the focus of the U.S.-led war on Islamic extremism from Iraq.
Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.
Rising casualties during this summer's fighting have undermined support for the war in the U.S., Britain and other allied countries.
On Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said Obama's efforts are "only now beginning" to take effect and should be given a chance to succeed.
"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said. Later, he added: "I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
Associated Press writers Amir Shah in Kabul and Frank Jordans in Kunduz contributed to this report.
- Posted in
44 Comments so far
Show All"I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
Gates is right. There are still a few remaining dollars that the MIC can drain from the treasury, and there is still oil and gas to be piped across Afghanistan. Once those two small matters are taken care of, we can leave.
Call it the George Will Memorial airstrike, as this is exactly the kind of operations that would continue if his recent call to remove ground forces and continue the air war were to be heeded. With McChrystal "banning" such strikes and Gates trying to decide how many ADDITIONAL troops to put into Afghanistan, no wonder that news media are saying the Obama administration is weighing its options on Afghan policy. Is the field commander running the show? Is the Secretary of Defense? Is the Commander in Chief? Is George Will?
It is under great debate how many civilians were killed and yet the AFP photo is captioned as if it is known that 50-60 Taliban nationalists were slaughtered rather than unarmed civilians.
But drones are always "suspected" USA drones.
Let's force Obama to do at least one thing correctly and have him end this utmost cruelity known as the Afghan occupation.
Gates and Obamination should move to Afghanistan, with their families.
Is this more of that "Change We Can Believe In?"
Actually, the slogan should have been "Continuity you can count on"
oh , all the right wingers are now coming out of the woodworks to protest obamas afghan war, but when it was bushys war, all was just peachy keen.
or were they afraid because bushys peace busting stazi were using force and unchecked powers to arrest dissidents.
you right wingers know exactly what i am talking about, its the stazi mouth pieces causing trouble at town hall meetings now.
welcome back, join the watch lists, its fun to be gang stalked , followed, harrassed, wire tapped, house bugged, tortured, slandered, by fellow so called constitutional patriotic Americans.
bornfreemen: the other side of course of this hypocracy of the right wing is that those "left wingers" who thundered so eloquently against "Bush's war" are now in a state of near stony-silence since Afghanistan has become "Obama's war." They are giving the "guy every chance" to come up finally with an exit strategy from what I call the "operation" there because "war" implies there is some kind of reasonably strong enemy. So far he's fumbled every chance, how many more will he get?
There are plenty of so-called "lefties" who are speaking out against Obama's militarism, just as we did against Bush's.
Obama has blown his presidency, as far as I can tell. He does nothing but pander to the corporations and the republicans. It's pathetic.
any babble is good babble as long as the underlying desired actions continue...one can argue position after position if ongoing distracting discussion is the goal...a timetable continually under revision is no such thing...
"Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August", AP reports.
51, in August, alone? Only counting U.S. troops?
Impressive.
And how many troops from other countries in the "coalition of the willing" were killed there in August, or over the past several months?
79-ish i had to count them. heres a list
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/2009.08.html
The question that many of us should have jumped on with this let the military lead tactic is: "is this an irreversible strategy?" Some of you more hardened doubters may need to excuse the more hopeful among us who have paused in our anti-war vigilance, but now we all need to step up and broaden the anti war movement.
Robert Greenwald and his Brave New Films Foundation are giving us a great tool for public education with the completed version of his Rethinking Afghanistan series. Entitled "Rethink Afghanistan", they are making copies available for public screening thru the following website. Set up an event in your town, school, or wherever. This this organizing time, war must be by diplomacy, and one of the tools to do this is education.
https://bnf.democracyinaction.org/o/552/p/10040/rtadvd?utm_source=bigbutton
Hey America,
That the concept of killing innocent individuals while 'killing many insurgents' is acceptable is so far into the absurd as to be criminal in and of itself---without the action and the results. But, thought and concepts are actually harmless; until they are placed into action.
If there are enough people in the USA who see that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan are all, illegal wars of aggression then the only alternative they have is to take the proper actions.
The American people do not need any other authority than being members of the human race (well some of them anyway), and accepting these and so many other incidences of the shedding of innocent blood is contrary to acceptable behavior; now and all throughout history.
All the American people need to do is seek assistance through the UN to apprehend and hold for trial, the Bush administration members, the high command of the US Military, especially the Generals such as Powel, and the others such as McChrystal, all professional 'soldiers' who have become internatonal criminals through their own actions.
These crimnals can be held for trial, and easily replaced by other professionals who refuse to become criminals (actually they are better choices anyway).
This would be a remarkably powerful statement to the world.
It would show American integrity (for the 'first' time actually since 1776).
It would show American 'devotion' to the 'rule of law' (hey another 'first')
It would show that the American people are true leaders who lead by example, making no exceptions for their own errors and taking positive action to remedy the results of those errors ( yet one more 'first')
Almost over night the world would have a 'true leader', and in most cases would 'scramble' to 'imitate "American Integrity", and devotion to the 'rule of law', and the strength to admit an error and make it right"------------
Unfortunately most Americans do not even have the ability to admit that their country can be wrong, or the courage and dedication to the rule of law to assure that it is followed.
This alone will lead to their extinction.
"If the USA were another nation, the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Settle down. These Arabs don't have white skin. "We reserve the right to bomb niggers." How come our vaunted soldiers, special ops teams et al never ENGAGE these dangerous insurgents? We can airlift anyone anywhere? Cowardice? A desire to avoid US casualties?
Cowardice. These Hoo-Ra American cowboys got no guts, no pride, no will to engage fighters who SHOOT BACK! At night? Eff that! When it comes to fighting, they call in the Air Force! But TORTURE? Enthusiastic volunteers TRIP over themselves for the chance to hurt and maim people in handcuffs and cages. The Rot of Empire in it's Last Stages is always reflected in the actions of it's individual cops, soldiers and jailers; they become executioners and torturers as power hangs on for it's life.
But good hearts and minds still live and call the US home. Revolucion. Seeds Of Hope. Love.
I dont think the Taliban are Arabs. As I believe to have correctly gathered, Arabs are of the Middle East and Afghanistan is not quite there, but east and (for part of the country anyway) north of the M.E.; bordering part of the M.E., but without actually being part of it. Writers refer to the Taliban as Pashtuns and somehow related to the or some of the population of Pakistan; and Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Al Qa'ida, the or some of the leaders of it anyway, are Arabs, but not the Taliban. Pakistan was part of the larger India before the split that the UK caused to happen there, and I doubt that the population of the previous northern India, today's Pakistan, were Arabs; although some Arabs may have immigrated there.
Some, if not many, Afghans against the Taliban have said that the Taliban aren't even true Afghans (while omitting that plenty of these people against the Taliban come or descend from origins in neighbouring countries, such as Uzbekistan, f.e.). And I think these people said the Taliban were Pashtuns originally of Pakistan.
Similarly, Iranians aren't Arabs. They're Persian. There are Jews and Christians in Iran and maybe some aren't of Persian ancestry, but I guess that some probably are, and Iran historically is known as Persian. Articles referring to both Iraq and Iran have sometimes stated that Iraqis were or are Arabs and that Iranians are Persian, not the same.
I don't know if they have visible or physical differences, but the above is what I've gathered from various articles about all of these populations. Another bit of what I read says that Arabs are semitic; genetically anyway. They apparently wouldn't be identically semitic when we consider Jews or people descending from the Jews of ancient Israel, but they're nevertheless semitic, Semites. If this is true, then the Arabs would genetically differ, a little, from Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, ..., but maybe not in a way that I could visually distinguish.
For me, enough Chinese and Japanese people look enough the same that I can't really distinguish if one is Chinese or Japanese, but I believe some people of China, some parts of it (I guess, anyway), don't differ a lot, but still enough for me to be able to immediately guess that they're Chinese, instead of Japanese. There may possibly be some noticeable physical differences between people of different parts of HUGE China, too; but I'm far from expert about this.
There's my non-scholar understanding, so far.
Chinese and Japanese look a lot different to me, particularly the men, but oddly, less the women - I assume this is due to the Japanese borrowing a lot of their aesthetics on feminine beauty from the Chinese. And in China itself, the Tibetans and Uighurs of Xixang province look a lot different than eastern Chinese.
Pakistanis, who are hard to distinguish from Indians, look completely different than Arabs. The Urdu alphabet, which when spoken is the same as Hindi, looks a lot like Arabic though. I haven't met enough Afghans, but from the photos, they look different from either group.
And then there are the Ainu people, Caucasians indigenous to Japan.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Pashtuns are the core of Afghanistan and the Durand Line expired in 1993 and the rest of Pastunstan was to revert back to Afghanistan.
Pastuns are mostly Persian and Aryan with a litte Mongol and Greek plus others.
Mr. Gates: I absolutely do think it is time to get out of Afghanistan! Mr. Gates, how many more must die before you think it is time to get out of Afghanistan? 50,000!!!
NATO plane my ass--it was an amerikan fighter jet--that murdered many civilians--just out-smarted again by the Taliban to get the whole world to hate us more--if that's possible?
Continuing to win the minds and hearts of the Muslim world?
-Another NATO spokesman said one reason the fuel tankers were targeted was they are frequently used in suicide attacks...
-An Afghan police officer said the 90 dead included about 40 civilians who were siphoning fuel from the trucks
So, to recap, you killed these people, desperate enoung to risk their lives siphoning off petrol from a hijacked truck...so as to prevent a suicide attack that might kill, who? these desperate people who were siphoning the petrol?
Wouldn't it be easier to just napalm the whole village and then take the rest of the day off?
I don't believe we are EVER going to leave Afghanistan or Iraq. How many bases have we there now? Bases that include Burger Kings, Starbucks, bowling alleys and movie the-aters. I suppose there are even bars with "happy hour?"
The question that remains, is how many more innocent Iraqi and Afghan men, woman and children must be killed and maimed, and how many more of our brave troops have to die needlessly, before the credulous American sheople understand that these illegal wars aren't about revenge for what occurred on September eleventh, two thousand one, and everything to do with Middle East hegemony? When will they say ENOUGH! And demand an end to this utter madness? When are they going to demand their "CHANGE?"
Meanwhile, America and it's infrastructure continues to crumble in this jobless recovery.
Deepa
Racial profiling in the US has helped not only to stoke hatred towards Muslims, but also to fuel the already rampant ethnic and religious scapegoating.
The power of "scapegoat mechanism" lies in its deception and concealment. On the one hand, it deceives by depicting those who established "scapegoat mechanism" as righteous and innocent, and the "other" as cause of violence. Thus, it legitimizes all forms of violence (violence as violation of one’s human dignity, value and rights) against the "other", and portrays this violence as a "sacred" act. On the other hand, it conceals the innocence and plight of the "other", and the violence of those who scapegoated the “other”. It transforms the violence against the "other" as "good violence". Thus, the cycle of scapegoating the weak and vulnerable continues.
Racial profiling has, in a way, secured support of majority of Americans for the US’ global war on terror. Moreover, Muslims are perceived by many in the US as "the other", a perception that allows them to be treated inhumanely without mass protest. It is similar to what US did during World War II to Japanese, leaving out those of German or Italian heritage.
With the overwhelming public support US, along with its allies, launched global war on terror, disguising its real economic and political agenda. Racial profiling, with its skewed up morality, perverted the integrity of human conscience, head and heart. It has helped to deflect not only sympathy from the victims of US’ genocidal violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but also public focus from “normalized” US’ human rights violations in those countries. American public is benumbed to the US’ atrocities and plunder, incarceration of hundreds of Muslims, destruction of life and property in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and other secret prisons, and extraordinary renditions.
Robert Fisk said:
"Do we in fact really understand the extent of injustice in the Middle East? When I finished writing my new book, I realized how amazed I was that after the past 90 years of injustice, betrayal, slaughter, terror, torture, secret policemen and dictators, how restrained Muslims had been, I realized, towards the West, because I don’t think we Westerners care about Muslims. I don’t think we care about Muslim Arabs. You only have to look at the reporting of Iraq. Every time an American or British soldier is killed, we know his name, his age, whether he was married, the names of his children. But 500,000-600,000 Iraqis, how many of their names have found their way onto our television programs, our radio shows, our newspapers? They are just numbers, and we don’t even know the statistic."
Moreover, the American public has been blinded to acknowledge that US’ unlawful use of force against people and property in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve its political and economic objectives is nothing but terrorism.
Ole.........who in the world are we fighting? You start by calling every muslim that is killed a terrorist......then you change it to every muslim is an insurgent. There once was Al Qaeda, but now there are The Taliban....Once we were after Hussein (Recruited by the CIA in 1959 and waged a "Proxy War" for the United States for 8 years against Iran.), but once he was tried and executed, we declare anyone who looks cross eyed at an American is the enemy. Once we were after Osama Bin Laden, but many CIA believe that he has been dead for years (And, he was CIA too.).....
Yet, "The Power Elite" keep "THE MYTH" burning......Some mediocre guy that raised funds for the CIA and lived in a cave was able to visa 19 terrorists into the United States, have them train at some local flight schools and fail the training, then have them hijack four planes and have NORAD stand down while the hijackings occurred.....Oh, and the same guy was able to plant explosives in three different buildings (Yes, there were loads of eyewinesses to explosions and thermite was found in the ashes.) And, don't forget, the same cave dweller was able to destroy all video tapes of the attack on the Pentagon.......and he kept appearing on different video tapes, (sometimes with a different face and beard), after he was long gone!!!!!
"As long as you control the money, you control the government." Thank you Henry and Zbigniew for your wonderful policies of the past 40 years and for the groups that you convinced, "World Hegemony is our Destiny".......So what if 3.8 million Vietnamese died. So what if 1.5 million Iraqis are dead. So what if over 70,000 American Soldiers died. So what if millions more have died from cancers from the chemicals Dow Chemical provided. You and "The Power Elite" have your TRILLIONS of dollars and control of the flow of the world's oil.
No, the American People will never be told the truth.
There is a lot of talk about "insurgents" vs "civilians" as if it is ok to kill "insurgents". Just what crime did the "insurgents" commit, anyway?... Hmm... maybe it is not about "insurgents" at all. Maybe the goal is keeping the country in chaos rather than let a stable government emerge that might sign over the pipeline routes to Russia and China.
http://freepublictransit.org
Insurgents are anyone that does not agree with U.S. foreign hegemony and aggression and is willing to fight and die for their beliefs. In 1776 Americans would have been labeled Insurgents by the British. How can we murder them unless they are demonized as bad people? Lets face it, if they were called freedom fighters and patriots how could the U. S. government condone their murders!
This should win over the Afghans. If my kid was burnt to a cinder by foreigners while trying to nick some fuel for my family I'd be really smpathetic towards the foreigners' cause.
A message to our governments: bring them back - now - they are hurting people, innocent people, and some of us are hurting too.
I expect that that sympathy you'd express is really sarcasm, and I doubt that the perpetrators who burned your child or loved one to ... ashes would need to be a foreigner for you to be "sympathetic" with regards to them killing your child or loved one.
Similarly, I don't think Afghans really care who kills or harms their loved ones; whether it's U.S. or other NATO forces, or other Afghans. They just don't want violence against their loved ones and would like to live a life without too much suffering in all other senses; such as economically, oppression of women's rights, which the U.S. ruling elites don't care about at all, really, and so on.
I doubt that I'd hate a foreigner more than a local for killing or harming anyone I personally, intimately cared for; and I also don't like it when total strangers who are innocent are attacked or harmed by others. Why would or should I discriminate?
Otoh, I might have a tendency to discriminate. F.e., a person is killed by a wealthy or economically "well-to-do" criminal would cause more anger than if the person was killed by a person who's on really "hard luck", had a brutal childhood, etcetera. Such sociological and economic factors would likely or surely have some influence on my perspective or perception. When the rich rob the poor, then it causes real anger, but when the poor rob the rich, then I wish them luck with not getting caught.
Yah, so I discriminate, a little.
genicon
Lets see, we are over there to steal oil and they get killed for stealing oil from us. Don't seem fair.
So simple but so true!
Some people write an essay and say little.
You write two short sentences and say it all.
For those who missed it or have forgotten, may I remind you that Obama spoke of expanding the war into Pakistan before he was ever elected. All talk of ending the war and bringing the troops home had already ceased in those last exciting days of hope and promise. I, for one, however, took him at his word. I long ago made it a policy to never vote for anyone who thinks war is a good idea and a war of aggression against an impoverished country already reeling from years of assault from another preditory nation is an abomination as well as a crime. I grieve for all those faceless, nameless human beings sacrificed so carelessly and casually for the inhuman lust for power and stolen resources. Has any good ever come of doing such evil?
Obama already illustrated during his years as a Senator that he was unfit for this position, so also the U.S. presidency, Congress, ... pretty much any and all political leadership positions; but he did make his threat regarding escalation of the war in Afghanistan by expanding it into Pakistan known during his last year before becoming U.S. president; and that's if he hadn't made this known earlier, during his years in the Senate. Enough people, including myself, warned that he should not be supported for the U.S. presidency because of his years in the Senate, but a lot of his supporters for the presidency kept repeating the claim that he had opposed the war on Iraq back in 2002 and without ever quoting the words he stated at that time. I didn't believe his 2002 so-called opposition to the war on Iraq was a valid reason for electing him to the presidency and this was confirmed when I did finally come across quotes of what he said in 2002. He wasn't truly against the war; not in any honourable terms. His then words were still war-maker ... enough, and clearly enough.
Re. your reference to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, which is what I think you're refering to wherein you say, "an impoverished country already reeling from years of assault from another preditory nation", one thing people must not forget about this is that it's the U.S., during the President Jimmy Carter administration and "thanks to" Zbigniew Brzezinski, very much due to him anyway, that provoked the Russian invasion. From what I've read about Russian involvement in Afghanistan, Ru. or the USSR did a lot of good for human rights, which is something the U.S., U.K., Canada, ... have rather never really done; except when it was for goals of profit. What I read tells of a Russia having done real good for human rights in Afghanistan and for good reasons; not material gain, profit. I think it was during the 1970's that Russia seriously helped the good government in Afghanistan, and the U.S., et al, worked against this good government. As always, good and reasonably good governments are not profitable to the U.S., et al, so they work on getting such governments overthrown, and resort to assassinations when electoral outing and bribes don't work.
I have come to view the Cold War of the U.S. against the former USSR as being based on the U.S. ruling "elites" aiming to strengthen and expand their superpower status gained with WW II. At the end of WW II, the USSR had been heavily damaged, say, but it was still a strong power and if it wasn't weakened, totally broken down, then the ruling "elites" of the west would have an increasingly strong opponent with the USSR. By working on breaking it down, the U.S. became a stronger superpower than it was due to WW II. Otherwise, the USSR would've worked on strongly recovering from the heavy toll the Nazi invasion caused there with WW II, and the USSR would've surely been a very strong force for the west to deal with, or against.
Well, President Putin strongly helped Russia to be put back "on its feet", but they haven't yet been able to fully update their anti-missile defence systems; unless they finally did over very, very recent years. It hadn't by the time President Putin became no longer President though, so Russia probably still has serious work to do to update its defence system, which, he and other Russian officials stated over recent years, could treat missiles launched at Iran as heading for Russia and then react by kicking into retaliatory mode, including, I think, with nuclear missiles; some of which might be aimed at the U.S.
He and, I believe, other Russiain officials carefully warned about this problem with their anti-missile defence system a number of times during Putin's last years as President. Under his presidency, Russia has seriously worked on their military capabilities, so it's definitely a strong power again; but the U.S. had severely weaken, broken Russia with the Cold War.
Anyway, Russia apparently did real good for human rights in Afghanistan when there was a good government there and the U.S. destroyed this progress. The Pakistani ISI was involved, but it was evidently not acting without the U.S.
I'm pretty sure that it was a www.globalresearch.ca that I had read these or most of these articles, but am not recalling any of the titles, so can't specify anything more about them. They may possibly be in the "Russia and FSU" index at GR and the index is linked in the homepage.
If you were referring to Pakistan or its ISI instead of the Russian invasion, however, then the above evidently is off-base regarding your post. But it's also not the ISI that was really responsible for the years of conflict in Afghanistan. The U.S. was keyly responsible.
While what Russia did in Afghanistan in apparently greatly supporting the good government there in the 1970's was stabilisation, in a sense, and stabilisation, human rights, ... aren't in the interests of the racketeering ruling "elites" of the U.S. who seek to be as dominant, globally, as they can achieve; and like Prof. Peter Dale Scott recently enough wrote, these "elites" realise that they can't achieve their goals through conquest, so they create severe destabilisation and profit through this means.
"The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War",
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott, Aug 11 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14672
It's "standard" of the U.S. "elites". They've been doing this for over a century, already. They hegemoniously, ..., conquered in the U.S. and then, as we can see today and from other periods of U.S. history, they destabilise the U.S.; the destabilisations always being for profit, racket.
The U.S. itself is a destabilised society. Consider, f.e., the lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the international laws, conventions and treaties that the U.S. is co-signatory to. Consider the [fact] that the U.S., as unfortunately is also true in Canada, does not have a real, true democracy and that the mentally destabilised population is much to blame for this, but while the ruling "elites" are the real orchestrators and "achievers".
There was a discussion or debate on a Quebec, Canada, tv channel affiliated with a Qc university over the past year and the topic was democracy here; whether it exists here, or not. There is a democracy ... on paper, but it's very absent in terms of social reality. And this is much due to rotten, lousy, incompetent, ... political "leadership", but it's very much also due to the population of electors, who are very irresponsible with the common complacency that exists in society; complacency, and electoral incompetence, as well as malicious will, greed, ....
If it wasn't true of electors, then they wouldn't elect candidates who already are provably rotten or incompetent, but electors keep electing and re-electing such candidates; in Ca, the U.S., etcetera.
There's little that's stable about such societies; except for perhaps being stably incompetent, irresponsible, insane, delusional, ....
Destabilisation is very much what the U.S. history in South and Latin America has been about, and it's not over; it's seriously continuing. The U.S. "elites" haven't given up using their instrument, the government of the U.S.A., for this. The same applies in the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia and other south-Asian countries.
In Russia having helped human rights and respect to exist in Afghanistan while it had a good government, Russia was effectively helping stabilisation. Russia may possibly have done some wrong things there, but evidently did some really serious good. And I don't know that Ru. did real wrong there; only saying it possibly may have, because it is possible.
Let's not demonise until we know enough of the full story, but if you weren't meaning Ru., then this should be explicitly stated. After all, it's broadly known that Russia invaded Afghanistan and that a serious war with the U.S., the Pakistani ISI, and their mujahideen in Afghanistan followed; the U.S. and ISI in covert terms. It's apparently much less known that the U.S. provoked the Russian invasion, though. And, afaik anyway, Russia doesn't go around destabilising nations or countries, doesn't go around committing wars of aggression, while the U.S. has history of only this kind, really. Sure, there may have been a [few] okay years in U.S. history, but they'd be very, very few, relatively speaking; and that's if any really occurred.
It's too easy to simplistically demonise others, while it requires much more serious work to know and recount a [whole] story and to do so without bias, prejudice, .... What I've now posted about Russia and Afghanistan is based on some good articles by good authors I've read, and I believe them. They didn't provide absolutely every detail, but nevertheless provided important history. The Russian invasion into Afghanistan didn't cause the war; the U.S. provoked it.
And speaking of the U.S. provoking others, it seems that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was not an act that Japanese leadership chose to commit out of mere heinousness or siding with the Nazis. The U.S. had committed a few or more serious hegemonious acts of strong nature against Japan for ..., I think, months, and this caused the Japanese leadership to decide to retaliate. I forget which article this was stated in, but it's from this year and (I believe) it was posted at www.globalresearch.ca; or maybe CD.
Hegemony is illustrated by rather [all] of U.S. history.
Let's simply tell the true history(ies), which we of course need to first learn, but while it's not easy to learn them. Our societies are "full" of liars and when not liars, then people who inadequately refer to parts of history; omitting important aspects and thereby leaving false impressions or understandings of history.
F.e., Abe Lincoln apparently wasn't really against slavery. Instead, he would have been against the "money changers" sort of ways of corrupting the economy in the U.S. and his actions against their ways caused problems for slave owners in the U.S. The latter "people" traded with Europe and their European cotton buyers were opposed to the economic corrections Lincoln was implementing or going to implement. That's according to the very interesting documentary entitled, "The Money Masters".
Part 1 of 2 (1:43:15),
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204
Part 2 of 2 (1:45:37),
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683
For short clips, there's part 1 of 22 from some user at Youtube linked in the above Part 1 of 2 page.
Who's telling the truth and enough of it for it to be really useful education? A lot of academics, PhD's, ... write, but they're human and many of them often fail, err; sometimes due to their own biases that are kept secret until they become obvious.
Russia's a rival power for the west, so we are lead to demonise it. We need to stop supporting such ways.
And China's a rival power for the west, but it didn't invade Afghanistan, which is what you evidently were referring to.
Swell, now America has caused another Holocaust.
I'm sure that "oil and gas [yet] to be piped across Afghanistan" is one reason for the occupation; still, aren't the critics who constantly bring up "oil" diminishing the essential lunacy of our being there through pat reasoning, and contrary to their intentions, explaining things away?
Of equal importance is the American hysteria which permitted a security/securities guard by nature to become and then remain our president. And now, it would seem, we have another security guard. Shouldn't both have tried for Pinkerton man rather than president?
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated yesterday that the withdrawal from Afghanistan idea followed by a counter-terrorism program from home "has no connection to reality." Which is a euphemistic way of saying we doubters of the Afghan occupation are complete loonies. Could I restate the proposition one more time? Either I or Secretary Gates is a complete looney but not both.
Secretary Gates and Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton (apparently) and President Obama (apparently) are out of touch with reality. They either have not read their history books or could not learn from them. Secretly, I think, they want to stare
dolefully into a camera some day decades in the future and say like Robert MacNamara, "I was wrong. We were war criminals."
Eight years is more than enough futzing around in Afghanistan. And if indeed 42 nations are now involved in running Afghanistan, why not reduce the number to an even 40? The two nations with the worst reputation in Afghanistan should be the first to leave-- the United States and Great Britain.
Afghanistan has always been a vacuum, whirlpool, quicksand, graveyard or quagmire for the sucking down of the world's worst meddlers and probably always will be-- unless the meddlers finally wise up and leave the poor place alone.
There is a chess-playing aspect to this. We in the U.S. have accepted the George W. Bush precedent that pre-emptive war is just dandy. Is that decision enough for American renunciation of any claim to be a democracy? I think so. Once you destroy a central ideal of our democracy, another and then another follows. Do I have to present the list and name the items? Everybody knows the ideals we've compromised.
And why? Whatever the question, a posting person recently wrote at The Daily Beast, the answer is fear.
We need to be much less fearful and neurotic, more tough-minded and brave. We need to keep our chess pieces together, not spread them all over the globe like Napoleon or Hitler in the depths of Russia. We need to accept that far more people are killed by car accidents every year in this country than by 9/11 or something similar.
We need to learn how to take a punch, to be more resilient, and not always to panic. I could go on.
The ingrates don't appreciate that we're trying to save them from the Taliban...er...al Qaida...um...the Pashtuns...no...Islamic extremists...or Iranians...ya know, the bad guys...
The math:
Killed 90 (supposively 50 bad guys and 40 good guys)
Each of the 40 good guys had perhaps 10 family members and relatives. Each now hates the US. 40 x 10 = 400 new enemies of the US.
As a result, before there were 50 bad guys, now there are 400.
Not bad guys, but 400 who have a good reason to hate what we do.
Joe
I see. So now it's NATO this and NATO that. The NATO commander, not the AMERICAN US ARMY GENERAL who is commander.
And those jets, did they have NATO insignias? Were they F16s made by General Dynamics? Do you work for or own stock in General Dynamics? You helped.
If this was a bad thing, then we will suffer for it. Thanks a lot, GD.
No, I do not see how this bombing helps anyone but the undertakers and war profiteering goons.
You had better check your own 401K, pension, or any other investments, I am sure that you will find a lot of defense and oil companies in your portfolio. The bank where you keep your money, where is their, your money, invested in?
I don't have a 401K or a portfolio. I personally own no stocks. Even my pension is old style, defined benefit type. However, your point is valid. Every time I pay taxes I am "helping". The system is gamed so we are all complicit. But some are more complicit than others. And that's my point. We do what we can. Do you?