More Afghans killed by U.S./NATO than militants.
By on Jun 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
More Afghans killed by U.S./NATO than militants.
“U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year — surpassing the 178 civilians killed in militant attacks, according to an Associated Press tally.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
81 Responses to “More Afghans killed by U.S./NATO than militants.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Okay, cons - explain to us how this is acceptable - and don’t give us your usual nonsense about you have to sacrifice for “war”. Not like this. The bottomline is that we’ve become the very thing we claim to detest. And now the rest of the world sees us as the biggest terrorists of all. You can justify that with your own afraid-of-your-own-shadow mentality all day long, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can’t be against murder while you’re murdering…
June 24th, 2007 at 9:53 amAll “Just Wars” unfortunately have collateral damage.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:53 amAll “Just Wars†unfortunately have collateral damage.
Comment by Jake — June 24, 2007 @ 9:53 am
All ‘wars’ have collateral damage - regardless of their validity. It doesn’t make it acceptable.
What is so wrong with you sociopathic freaks of nature that you can’t solve your problems without killing innocent people?
I call bullshit. You’re not fooling anyone one with your empty terminology.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am#2-”Collateral damage”. What Jake conveniently neglects to mention is that the targeting and killing of civilians is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, which probably explains the reason why the United States has decided not to become a member of the International Criminal Court. American Exceptionalism forbids any American from being tried for war crimes and being held responsible for their transgressions.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:03 amAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List” (for resorting to personal attacks when I don’t resort to such attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions when I answered all of your questions) want to discuss the topic?
June 24th, 2007 at 10:03 amI don’t agree this is a Just War, Jake.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:05 amTranslation of Jake:
I cannot debate this issue on its merits, so today, everyone is on the Ignore List.
I’ll just make general and random comments at will while pretending to be ignoring everyone, but not actually fooling anyone but myself.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:09 amBill:
Let me know which of the following criteria you think you can make your strongest case, based on information known BEFORE the war, not 20/20 hindsight.
1) Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong;
2) Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
3) Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;
4) Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
5) Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Remember that the U.S. went to the United Nations repeatedly — Saddam refused to comply — even if we later found out he was bluffing, that does not impact the rationale for invasion under these criteria. Remember also that the United States, as a sovereign nation herself, counts as legitimate authority as well. I would be happy to discuss any of these specific criteria as long as you answer my questions in a civil manner.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:15 amThis is precisely why “war” should ALWAYS be the very last alternative.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:17 amJake - cutting and pasting is not only NOT debating, it’s plagerism.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:18 amDon’t feed the trolls posing as knowledgeable posts here. They are far from knowledgeable but great with the BS.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:18 amNone of the TP “regulars” would ever engage in repartee with this troll so effectively we are all on the ignore list. This troll is definitely on OUR ignore list, that’s clear.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:19 amBesides, Trolls know zippo about and would like to believe that the Geneva Conventions do not exist…hahahaha! Perhaps in their “alter-world” this is possible but when it comes to intelligent repartee regarding laws which exist, they haven’t a clue…..perhaps it can even be said that they are, indeed, “clueless”???
Comic relief in the form of trolls - now what could be better for a bit of levity on a Sunday morning.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:21 amClueless/Trolls - new entry in the book of Synonyms and Antonyms??
June 24th, 2007 at 10:21 amAnyone else? Bill, I am ready, willing, and able to discuss any of those criteria (I got them from Wikipedia FYI) in a civil manner.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:22 amDon’t feed the trolls posing as knowledgeable posts here. They are far from knowledgeable but great with the BS.
Comment by veritas — June 24, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Not feeding - exposing. When we ignored them in the past, our silence made it appear like we could not debate them or that we agreed with them, and it’s how they wound up in control of our country. After all, most people in this country don’t have critical thinking skills and are therefore willing to accept an opinion posed by someone like Jake if it seems reasonable, and stands unopposed by something even more reasonable. It’s why I, and those who agree with me on this debunk their garbage. Think of it like free public education :D
June 24th, 2007 at 10:29 amIn the meantime, a short musical interlude on Criteria #5, courtesy of Don Henley and Glenn Fry:
She came from Providence, the one in Rhode Island
Where the old world shadows hang heavy in the air
She packed her hopes and dreams like a refugee
Just as her father came across the sea
She heard about a place
People were smilin’
They spoke about the red man’s way
And how they loved the land
And they came from everywhere to the Great Divide
Seeking a place to stand or a place to hide
Down in the crowded bars, out for a good time
Can’t wait to tell you all what it’s like up there
And they called it paradise; I don’t know why
Somebody laid the mountains low while the town got high
Then the chilly winds blew down across the desert
Through the canyons of the coast to the Malibu
Where the pretty people play, hungry for power
To light their neon way and give them things to do
Some rich men came and raped the land
Nobody caught ‘em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes
And Jesus, people bought ‘em
And they called it paradise - “the place to be”
They watched the hazy sun sinking in the sea
You can leave it all behind and sail to Lahaina
Just like the missionaries did
So many years ago
They even brought a neon sign: “Jesus is coming”
Brought the white man’s burden down
Brought the white man’s reign
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
‘Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
And you can see them there on Sunday morning
June 24th, 2007 at 10:29 amThey stand up and sing about what it’s like up there
They call it paradise; I don’t know why
You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye
The topic is Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein. And it is NOT a legitimate use of military force to “[punish] people who have done wrong.” That’s what police and the courts are for. And our president must have Congressional authorization for the sustained use of military force; it’s not his military to command, it’s ours. To suggest that a nation may not defend itself with force just because it would appear to be futile is childishly ridiculous for an old man. It is in keeping with a frightened little boy’s way of thinking. And military force should only be used as a last resort and when all other forms of war prevention have been seriously tried, which wasn’t the case with Iraq, BTW. Other forms of non-lethal force (financial, etc.) are perfectly legitimate.
Satisfied? Now stay on topic and discuss Afghanistan ONLY. DO not try to co-mingle the use of force in that country with the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq.
Thank you. I’ll go back to ignoring you now. Goodbye.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:33 amChimpy never went back to the UN for that second resolution.
Instead, he sent Colon Bowel to LIE to the UN.
The invasion and occupation of Itaq is ILLEGAL.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:34 am(I got them from Wikipedia FYI)
Comment by Jake — June 24, 2007 @ 10:22 am
See, you don’t actually ignore anyone, ever… You just make seemingly random comments, thinking you’re fooling us. You’re not. There is no ignore list except when it suits you because you don’t have a talking point memorize, or can’t google one.
You are supposed to post your source with your comments, otherwise, TP can delete your post (ahem TP, Faiz deleted one of mine yesterday inspite of it being shorter that Jake’s here and actually having a reference included).
June 24th, 2007 at 10:35 amthe only difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber is
a stealth bomber kills more civillians than a suicide bomber then goes home for his dinner
both are acts of terrorism
June 24th, 2007 at 10:36 amSorry I broke the “ignore” rule, but I just got out of bed a short time ago (up late last night), and I got pissed when I saw that idiotic post. My reaction was emotional, not rational. if I gave it a little more thought, I would have deleted everything I wrote before hitting “Post - I agree”.
I won’t let it happen again. He goes back on ignore list.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:36 amExcellent post Wayne!
I can’t believe how many poeple still believe that 9/11 and Iraq have anything to do with one another.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:37 amJake, you are so full of sh!t. Like a typical neo-con troll, you don’t know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. This thread is about Afghanistan. You are a Joke, Jake.
As for your list, I take it in reverse order.
Saddam did not refuse to comply with the UN order. He let the UN weapons inspectors in and did not obstruct their search. Ask Blix or ElBaradei. You seem to have this bit of history as mixed up as Mitt Romney. But it was Bush who obstructed the UN and ordered the inspectors out. And the US did not go repeatedly to the UN –well, they did if you count all the unsuccessful attempts– they got one resolution and promised to return for a second, which they never did.
Last resort??? Don’t make me laugh. When has Bush ever tried negotiation. He was Mr Impatient pumping his fist and demanding things happend in weeks not months. And then, when he’d gone in and screwed up, he pleaded for time, more time. The fruitless search for WMD only ended this year after 4 years. What a jackass!
Probabilty of success. Gosh! Bush had known this would end in disaster from the beginning. Every war simulation at the Pentagon ended in disaster, his father had been warned about disaster, and, with regard to Afghanistan, he had the history of the Soviet experience and two British occupations before that. And sane leader would have said, “Not going that route.”
Right intention. Oil. That’s been the attention. Oil, oil, oil.
Legitimate authority. His Fraudulency wasn’t even elected President. He was appointed by the SCOTUS and, if that failed, his idiot brother.
Just War. Iraq was not a Just War. And that was known by all before hand. If you didn’t live the media bubble of the USA, you’d have heard most of the doubts and arguments against war that have now been revealed to have been known by the WH. As for Afghanistan, the Taliban and alQaeda are not the same organization. Bush pleaded with the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, but he also refused to make the case against bin Laden and wouldn’t accept the ICC as the legitimate court. When the US invaded, they chickened out and allowed the Nothern Alliance to do the grunt work –against Colin Powell’s advice, since the Northern Alliance was infamous for murdering, raping, and plundering. And growing opium.
Anyone who thought that the GOP had any intention of bring Democracy, Freedom, or Women’s Rights to Afghanistan or Iraq had only had to look at Kuwait. The Sultan of Kuwait, in order to get Congressional approval for the 1st Gulf War, had to promise to restore democracy, free speech, and enfranchise women. Bwahahhahahaha. Fooled you once, shame on me. Fooled you twice…Fooled you three times!?!?!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:40 amboth are acts of terrorism
Comment by Dopey — June 24, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Absolutely!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:41 amUnbelievable: And if anyone can slay these trolls, it would be you. Your posts are always articulate and provide resource links for others to learn something. What works for me is to simply ignore them and, as they so conveniently do, skip over their posts. However, someone with intelligence can and should debate them. I just fear that someone new to the threads will get totally turned off when they succeed in hijacking our conversations.
Gotta love the MSM’s predictability - total coverage (every footstep) of the missing pregnant woman and then the imminent completion of Hilton’s prison terms….such relevant information, wow! Do they really believe that they are distracting americans from the conversation at hand?? Can they be so totally out of touch??
It’s clear that americans are onto the mainstream media’s propaganda tactics and are simply laughing at them at this point. It’s also clear that the topic of conversation everywhere (and incredulity) is how far this administration drops every week in terms of overt corruption. It’s what best sellers are made of, that’s certain!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:43 amYou still around, Bill? I assumed you don’t dispute Afghanistan was a “Just War” but let me know if that’s what you were referring to.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:44 amDavid: The probability of “real success” was clearly not in the picture but that was not the “real agenda” of the Bush Cabal either - don’t take you eye off the ball - it’s all about the criminal “WAR PROFITEERING” and that success cannot be debated.
So, essentially, this war has been a raving success for the crooks who LOVE war so they can stack up the dinero in their personal accounts.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:45 amThanks, David. I’m still a little too groggy to go into that much detail. I just wanted him to STFU and take his RNC talking points where they would be appreciated, like Freerepublic.com.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:45 amGENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:55 amGENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! GENERAL STRIKE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
And if anyone can slay these trolls, it would be you. Your posts are always articulate and provide resource links for others to learn something. What works for me is to simply ignore them and, as they so conveniently do, skip over their posts.
Thanks… You’re too kind. I was one of those who was fortunate to have been born first (studies show this trend) to parents who loved and wanted me. My parents loved to read and encouraged us to do so. It’s also why I became a liberal in my 30’s - because I learned that not everyone has the benefit that I did.
I agree that skipping over the one-line insults generated by people like Flaco or the five-mile long plagerized rants by people like Jake are convenient, and I rarely read anything by VV myself :D.
However, someone with intelligence can and should debate them. I just fear that someone new to the threads will get totally turned off when they succeed in hijacking our conversations.
I hear what you’re saying - but none of us did :D In fact, it was a troll that actually inspired me to go from lurker to commenter, because he made some sexist comment that was completely ignorant and oppressive :D.
And you’re one of more intelligent people here, so you should, even if it’s just general commentary, refute the neocon talking points too - when you want, of course. :D
Gotta love the MSM’s predictability - total coverage (every footstep) of the missing pregnant woman and then the imminent completion of Hilton’s prison terms….such relevant information, wow! Do they really believe that they are distracting americans from the conversation at hand?? Can they be so totally out of touch??
They must be really frightened by the strength of the internet for informing people. It’s the modern version of pampleteering that worked so well for our forefathers in their drive for liberty.
I’m actually surprised they haven’t managed to shut us up yet. But, I think they know that doing that would be worse than allowing us to congregate… We’ve rejected t.v., so without the internet we’d, have time to actually plot a revolution, and considering there are 300 million average citizens, they really don’t want us doing that.
It’s clear that americans are onto the mainstream media’s propaganda tactics and are simply laughing at them at this point. It’s also clear that the topic of conversation everywhere (and incredulity) is how far this administration drops every week in terms of overt corruption. It’s what best sellers are made of, that’s certain!
Comment by veritas — June 24, 2007 @ 10:43 am
We need the masses to wake up if we’re going to take back our country. 50 of us writing Pelosi aboutIimpeachment isn’t monumental, but if 50,000 would write her, it might just be enough to get her attention… I just think it’s what BnF said yesterday - without a major crisis that impacts their reality-television way of life, there is no impetus to get them to write to her.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:59 amYou still around, Bill?
Comment by Jake — June 24, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Bill doesn’t want to talk to you Jake. He probably has better things to do like take out his trash or blow his nose… Stop begging. It’s pathetic. And it’s your own choice to limit those with whom you’ll openly converse.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:01 amI won’t let it happen again. He goes back on ignore list.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Actually, I thought it was quite fantastic, Wayne. You’re WAY too polite most of the time. :)
June 24th, 2007 at 11:02 amAfghanistan was a Just War, at first, Jake. If the US took that seriously, all would be well. But Bush did not. He fumbled the attack on bin Laden and let the mastermind of 9/11 and the bulk of his fighters escape the battle of Tora Bora.
The US then proceded to rig the election of Hamid Karzai, a CIA operative, and allow thugs, warlords, and opium dealers to run the country. why? Well, Bush’s friends did want an oil pipeline built.
By your own definitions, Jake, the war in Afghanistan is no longer a Just War. It’s a occupation. And Oil and Heroin are the real reasons investors are backing the war on Terror.
As this thread has noted, the occupying forces have killed more civilians than the Taliban. I’m not surprised. The first four Canadian troops killed were killed by Americans. Let’s face it: America has the greatest military equipment in the world, but the worst trained troops. Even they acknowledge it with phrases such as “Spray and pray”.
Collateral damage doesn’t wash. America’s military equipment is very precise. The truth is the occupation wants to pacify the civilian population. There is to be no democracy. (Consult the stories of the Grand Jirga to see how the USA subverted genuine democracy to set up Hamid Karzai as their puppet. The man is useless, except as a model for GQ.)
So, NO JAKE. Neither war is a Just War. The Afghan War had good intention, but they were quickly squandered through greed and incompetence. And Iraq has always been unjust. BTW, statistics reveal that the Americans haved killed far more Iraqi civilians that would have died under Saddam. No wonder they hate your freedom to live in peace and security with clean running water, reliable electricty, safe streets, and working schools & hospitals.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:03 amHow many here believe WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolitions?
June 24th, 2007 at 11:04 amIf anyone else wants to debate how “you are so full of sh!t” is NOT a personal attack, please let me know.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:07 amJake - when you change the subject, you admit that you can’t debate the topic at hand. The subject is Bush killing innocent people Afghanistan.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:11 amI don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, Jake. Although I will be reading the synosis of the CIA’s Family Jewels.
Saying you are full of sh!t is not a personal attack. It’s an accurate description. And you should be flattered. Napoleon described the great diplomat Talleyrand as ” shit in a silk stocking”.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:11 amGood Morning poster’s, Thank’s for addressing the black hearted troll..Off to rent boat’s and run the Bear, he’s still suffering from leg a troll fart’s this morning…LOL…Have a blessed day, will hug some trees for ya all, may even plant a few more…..Blessings
June 24th, 2007 at 11:17 amI will be over on the Cheney conspiracy threads if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” needs me.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:17 amAt first, I supported military action in Afghanistan. Like all Americans, I was hurting, especially being from NY and an AF vet. I wanted someone to pay for what had been done, and in my emotional state, I thought that our armed forces were the surest way to give them payback. I came to realize much too late that I was not thinking clearly then. I was wrong.
I came to believe that no matter what al Qaeda said or did, their “declaration of war” was an illegitimate excuse to use our military in such magnitude. Perhaps a small strike force penetrating the hills and seeking out bin Laden might have been acceptable, but a full-scale military invasion was not a proper use of force for this particular issue.
The use of terrorism, however high on the list of deplorable activities it may be, is still a crime, not an excuse for all-out war. With the possible exception of the killing of Zarqawi, every “success” at defeating the terrorists has been through good old-fashioned police work, not the use of our military. I call it “success” because many of those efforts may result in failure because our government mishandled the situation, and the people arrested may have to be let go. Mission NOT Accomplished there.
Military force should only be used a last resort, but that list of options should be very, very long. In the case of Afghanistan, it was probably only two items: 1) Turn over bin Laden, now! NO? 2) Send in the military. Even though the world was behind us at the time, it was thought that this military action might achieve its goals quickly and decisively. (After all, ours is the greatest military force in the history of mankind, isn’t it?) But the chances for success were turned into almost certain failure when we did not go in and finish the job ourselves. As has often been pointed out, anyone who can be bribed once can be bribed again. We bribed the Northern Alliance to go in and get bin Laden. Bin Laden bribed them again to let him go. Again, Mission NOT Accoplished there.
But terrorism is a crime with no military solution. It can only be solved through education and cooperation among nations. Children around the world are being taught, at an age when they want to believe everything their elders tell them, that it is okay to kill people to achieve your goals. Sadly, Co-Presidents Bush and Cheney (see previous thread) do not believe in either education or international cooperation. Plus, being business opportunists, they saw a chance for people just like them in mind and spirit to make a boatload of money, which has always been their goal in life. I do believe it was their goal here.
We need to educate people everywhere in the world about how and why these despicable people use terrorism as a tactic. They have grievances, I don’t doubt that. But somewhere along the line (for some, their childhood) they were told that violence is a legitimate way to resolve disputes, even when other means have not been tried first. Violence can be used in self-defense, but not as pre-emptive action. This is why I deplore Bush’s pre-emptive strike foreign policy. It is illegal, and it is inhumane. Only a small number of well-financed people want to do us harm. Killing innocent civilians in an effort to prevent the terrorists from killing innocent civilians is simply unjustifiable. No two ways about it. How long can we continue saying that the killing of 3,000 of our citizens justifies the killing of an even greater number of innocent civilians elsewhere in the world? Actually, I think we’re long past the point where this war is in any sense justifiable.
I remember watching Nightline years ago during the Iran-Iraq war. Ted Koppel had both of their ambassadors to the US on his program and he asked one of them (I forget which), “If (the other nation) agreed to just lay down their arms and talk this situation over, would your government do the same?” The ambassador’s answer? “They started it.” I could see Ted’s face just drop in exasperation. There’s just no getting through to some people.
It’s time to pull all of our troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq and face up to the fact that we are doing more harm (on so many levels) than we are good by remaining there. Support the troops by taking them out of a militarily unwinnable situation. Diplomacy with the nations who fund and support terrorists (like Saudi Arabia, our so-called “ally) is the answer.
Sorry for the long post, but I guess I’ve said everything I have to say about this subject, so I’ll leave and go post elsewhere.
Peace on earth.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:20 amBlessed are the peacemakers . . .
June 24th, 2007 at 11:26 amWow!…Great post’s Wayne, Thank you…Blessings
June 24th, 2007 at 11:32 am(of course, I maintain that Harry Truman was a “peacemaker” when he dropped two A-bombs on Japan ; )
June 24th, 2007 at 11:32 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Nice one, Wayne. Well done.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:36 amThank you. I’ll be here all the week. Try the veal.
And your posts were great, David.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:52 amA great post, Wayne.
What annoys me about the American media is that they have done a rotten –just rotten- job of explaining who the players are and what their goals are. Indeed, this was part of the MSM propaganda after 9/11 that said anyone who explored Root Causes was a treasonous liberal and terrorist sympathizer.
Instead, we are given this Hollywood version of the World, where knights in shining armour do battle with unspeakable villains. “The surge will work” because that’s what happens in the movies –John Wayne & the US Cavalry always arrives in time. And the Media keeps hiding the dirty truth –of even the paradoxical truth, namely, that the enemy may have some justification.
What is bizarre is that the USA, with the world’s largest and most sophisticated military, was attacked by 19 Saudis using boxcutters and four passenger jets and the military response was as if the US had been attacked by a normal military power. If one needs an example, I’d offer the American Revolution; the British Army was defeated by Americans using unconventional methods. And the objectives of bin Laden were never to conquer the world.
Now that we know the Cheney is the de facto President and W is the puppet, we can see that this has really been a war about OIL and making sure America controls the energy resources in 21st century. We can see that this is also why Cheney has fought the idea of Global Warming tooth and nail, since his whole theory of world dominance through oil would vanish if America ditched fossil fuels.
Personally, I do think the US means to kill civilians in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There were high civilian casualties in Vietnam as well, but we know now that was part of a pacification campaign intended to quell any populist movements. The major enemy of any imperial or colonial power is Democracy. Britain learned that during the American Revolution. India & Pakistan were freed by Labour government; Churchill’s Conservatives would have slaughtered thousands to maintain the Jewel in the Crown.
The hardest thing for Americans to realize is that they are living a lie. The ideal America of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Peace Corps, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and JFK is not the real America. The real America is the one of Secret CIA prisons, foreign coup d’etats, the illegal arms trade, torture, illegal wiretaps, corporate malfeasance and human rights abuses.
That America has the Greatest Military in the history of the World is not something the Founding Fathers would have liked to hear. There opinion was that Standing Armies lend to tyranny and the suppression of Freedom and Democracy. And I believe they were right.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:53 amAnd this must really be winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
So, multiply that 203 by maybe 4 and you have the number of new “terrorists” we have created by killing innocent civilians. Now their loved ones hate us as much as all the “terrorists” out there (you notice I put ‘terrorist’ in quotes since many people call people fighting the people occupying their country ‘terrorists’).
To Jake and his ilk: There is a special place in hell waiting for you when you meet your maker. You will love it there because you will be joining the Bush Crime Family and all their friends like O’Reilly & Malkin. You will be able to whine for eternity about how those “libtards” defeated you and took back the country, spoiling all your grand plans. Here’s hoping that you are there soon.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:54 amWayne, to be blunt - that was f*cking brilliant.
You’re a modern JFK or MLK when it comes to motivational speeches. Really.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:55 amWhat we have created in our occupation of Afghanistan is a feudal society where warlords reign with impunity, getting rich off the opium trade they control.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pmThe weak central government of Kabul can’t do shit without the express written permission of Nato, the US, the warlords and major leage baseball.
We kill more of the civilian population than the Taliban, and this isn’t a big deal to asswipes like J**e.
Another great post, David. It raises a question for me (and, yes, I promised to go away, but I guess that was more of a “desire” than a “promise”).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
I agree that we’re not supposed to have a “standing army” (as incomprehensible as that may seem to people, it is what our Founders wanted), so how is it that I was able to sign up for the Air Force to a four-year commitment if the constitution only authorized a standing military to exist for two years at a time?
We, as a nation, have beciome WAY too complacent to our own continued violations of the constitution. Perhaps that’s why Bush and Cheney feel they don’t have to follow it. We haven’t always done so.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pmThanks, unbelievable and Zooey. I’ve written something similar before. At least this time there weren’t tears in my eyes as I wrote it.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:03 pmThanks, unbelievable and Zooey. I’ve written something similar before. At least this time there weren’t tears in my eyes as I wrote it.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
There were tears in my eyes as I read it….
June 24th, 2007 at 12:26 pmWayne,
You’re welcome. Just calling it like I see it :D
Honesty and humanity are always refreshing in editorials - especially these days when the White House is filled with emotion-less gelatenous goo shaped into human form, but never able to truly feign compassion or concern for others.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pmExcept that I don’t cheat on my wife. ;)
But, thank you, really. That was kind of you to say.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pmYou’re a modern JFK or MLK when it comes to motivational speeches. Really.
Comment by unbelievable — June 24, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Except that I don’t cheat on my wife. ;)
But, thank you, really. That was kind of you to say.
(That’s what was supposed to get posted. Sorry for ruining it. I have to be more careful with the italics mode.)
June 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pmExcept that I don’t cheat on my wife. ;)
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Oh yeah, I forgot about that… Odd sometimes how someone who can fight to defend against the pain of one group can then inflict pain on a totally different group (for this I credit the patriarchal religions those men followed).
June 24th, 2007 at 12:38 pmComment by david — June 24, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Greg Palast made the persuasive argument that the war in Iraq was not about getting the oil, but about controlling the supply of oil. Oil production in Iraq, he says, has dropped from about 4 million barrels per day pre-invasion, to about 2+ million barrels a day post-invasion. That extra 2 million barrels thatwould have floated around the amrket helped to keep the price down (demand would not be surpassing supply so easily).
http://www.gregpalast.com/ the-best-thing-in-the-world-for-big-oil/
June 24th, 2007 at 12:54 pmComment by unbelievable — June 24, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I’ve felt too much pain myself to want to inflict it on others.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pmI’ve felt too much pain myself to want to inflict it on others.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Know what you mean… Which was even more odd in MLK’s case… But I think it proves that no one is either just good or just bad - but a true dichotomy of both… Well, except maybe Dick Cheney. That man is e-v-i-l through and through…
June 24th, 2007 at 12:58 pmWayne and David, great posts.
David, it is amazing the difference between World POVs from a US citizen in comparison with a non US citizen.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pmWayne, as always, brilliant job. I disagree with you in one respect. I think the only way to fight terrorism is to understand what causes it. We hear that it’s western ways, jealousy of us, etc., but I think terrorism is caused by poverty - often abject poverty, oppression, hopelessness, and fear. When you have nothing - and I am talking the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs type of nothing, there is nothing to lose.
The only way to fight terrorism is to fight its roots. Unfortunately, most of the world has or is going to the American version of capitalism which translates to overwhelming greed. This is not to be confused with, say, overwhelming drive to succeed. I am talking the Dick Chaney kind of greed where you have millions and billions of dollars and it’s not enough. Where you have a win at all cost type of capitalistic mindset where someone HAS to lose when you win. And if you couple that with not helping others who need help, who have nothing, who have no hope or no prospects for a better life, who are ruled with an iron fist and no compassion exists in that ruling.
Ron Paul was right in his assessment of what caused 9/11. Israel continues to cause terrorism in its region. You can’t treat people like animals - especially for generation after generation - and expect them to not become animals.
The saddest thing is that we are seeing that same thing that causes terrorism taking place here. How long before we breed our own batch of terrorists?
I never thought it possible that the US could be considered a rogue state. How proposterous is it to think that our own won’t turn to desperation?
And it’s impossible to fight terrorism militarily. It only fuels the problems that feeds terrorists. What happened in Iraq is the ultimate example. Iraqis like America. Iraq was a peaceful country ruled by a horrible person. But their needs were met - albeit poorly, but they had food, water, etc. How many of those Iraqis are now going to become terrorists because of what we have done; what our country has done.
The MSN (now) talks about American deaths, but they still rarely talk about the hundreds of thousdands of innocent Iraqis who have died, lost their families, lost everything. They still, after five years, don’t have consistant electricity, gas, jobs, a life. How is THAT going to affect us for years to come?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pm” How many of those Iraqis are now going to become terrorists because of what we have done; what our country has done.”
Comment by MsJoanne — June 24, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
You mean, out of the Iraqis who survived?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pmAnd while we’re talking about ramifications, we should keep in mind the tens of thousands of returning vets who are not getting the kind of mental health care they need. There are Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who will never be able to work (either for physical or mental damage). What is going to happen to them? We didn’t care too well for our returning Vietnam vets and there will be many, many more returning now due to improvements in medicine.
That alone is a powder keg in the making. These poor vets have to fight and fight for care. Many are uninsured and will never get the care they need.
What is that going to do to our country?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm“We didn’t care too well for our returning Vietnam vets and there will be many, many more returning now due to improvements in medicine.”
Iraq vets are returning from an urban warfare situation, and have witnessed atrocities perhaps more frequently than Vietnam vets.
I am not seeking to diminish the fear and stress they endured as soldiers beset by an enemy hiding in a jungle…
In this urban conflict, the soldier has no way of determining an insurgent from the everyday citizen in the street, and he or she lives expecting every paper bag or trash can to blow up in their faces, and at least maim if not kill them…
Every ride in a vehicle for them is an opportunity to go up in a ball of flames.
These factors will all combine to create a true nightmare world for soldiers returning to our own cities and towns.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pmThank you, MsJoanne. Actually we’re not that far off on your disagreement. When I spoke of educating people, I should have mentioned educating people about the causes of terrorism which, you correctly point out, have their roots in poverty. At least, poverty on the part of the people actually committing the acts, not of the people who order it done.
I agree that those who commit these acts are desperate and feel they have nothing to lose. I wonder if any promises of taking care of the family members they might leave behind are ever followed through, assuming such promises are made. How else do you convince someone to sacrifice his life in such a violent, useless way.
And I appreciate the compliments. I decided to take what I wrote, fix it up a bit and post it to my blog. That will take a while. People can enjoy the silly songs in the meantime. :)
June 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pmWhat is there to debate about news like this? We know what to do but we don’t do anything except endlessly engage in Anti-Bush diatribe. We don’t want to risk anything so as a result the death toll and suffering grow. So the only ones taking a stand are the Bush Team and they are simply capitalizing on our sloth.
When will we organize a coalition of citizens who desire peace and are willing to cease involvement with the Plutocrats?
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
June 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pmSUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
SUPPORT A GENERAL STRIKE TO EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
No matter what our ‘good’ intentions in Afghanistan, it’s as doomed to failure as Bush and Cheney’s rekless effort to bring democracy to Iraq. We and the Brits have learned less then nothing from history. The Brits had their adventures in Afghanistan in the 19th century and they were thrown out because eventually the Afghans always resent an occupation. You could fill the Afghans pockets with all the money in the world etc but soon enough they want you to leave and if you don’t, God help you. The various tribal chieftans there want power for themselves and they won’t share it with anyone. Foreigners become hated and the results are what we see happening today. Success in Iraq is dead. Success in Afghanistan has one foot in the grave.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pmOn a related matter - in Iraq - a liberal blogger today pointed out something which has only recently become pretty obvious to news-junkies like myself.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pmThere are no more reports of Sunni insurgents or Shiite insurgents in Iraq, or even insurgents of any stripe — everyone has somehow morphed into al qaeda operative, ranking al qaeda leader, al qaeda sponsored, al qaeda one and all.
Is this to gradually sway the public away from the civil war that we are supporting on both sides, and subliminally turn the minds of the public into supporting justification to remain fighting in Iraq for the foreseeable future? (at least until we can control their oil )
“…everyone has somehow morphed into al qaeda operative, ranking al qaeda leader, al qaeda sponsored, al qaeda one and all.
Is this to gradually sway the public away from the civil war that we are supporting on both sides, and subliminally turn the minds of the public into supporting justification to remain fighting in Iraq for the foreseeable future?
Comment by Marie
yes.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pmComment by Marie — June 24, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Yeah, they’re framing it so that ALL Iraqis are “the enemy” so that ‘Merkans don’t care how many die. So we’ve gone from “Liberating” the Iraqi people, to “Obliterating” the Iraqi people.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pmComment by Marie — June 24, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Now that I think about it, you’re right. While I don’t often catch the “news” itself, I do watch a lot of political talk shows, and they haven’t been saying anything about insurgents, just al Qaeda. Thanks for pointing that out. It’s someting else we can question our “leader beans” about.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pmHey, is Marie amazing, or what? TP just posted a new thread on this exact same subject! Way to go, Marie!
June 24th, 2007 at 4:02 pmcosmic!
June 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm73 and 74
I can’t take credit — I was only THINKING those thoughts; it was someone else who actually blogged them.
Hmmm — maybe it IS cosmic!
June 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pmIt is something I’ve noticed over the last week or so, the US led offensive against aQ operatives in Baqouba.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pmread:
Laying waste to another Iraqi city (just like Fallujah)
References to Shiite and Sunni factions have been dropped because of the mosque bombings.
Wash, rinse, wash, rinse,
repeat procedure until all traces of culpability are removed.
No one in this Administration has said “ALL Iraqis are the enemy.”
June 24th, 2007 at 10:04 pmOkay, cons - explain to us how this is acceptable - and don’t give us your usual nonsense about you have to sacrifice for “warâ€.
Comment by unbelievable — June 24, 2007 @ 9:53 am
We all know that this happens because the cowardly terrorists hide among civilians. Very, very lame argument.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:39 pmI’m actually surprised they haven’t managed to shut us up yet. But, I think they know that doing that would be worse than allowing us to congregate… We’ve rejected t.v., so without the internet we’d, have time to actually plot a revolution, and considering there are 300 million average citizens, they really don’t want us doing that.
Comment by unbelievable — June 24, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Sounds like you are saying being on the internet keeps you from plotting a revolution, you know this and yet you continue to post away. ??????
——–
(for this I credit the patriarchal religions those men followed).
Comment by unbelievable — June 24, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Here’s a novel thought for ya: personal responsibility. It means that we are all responsible for our own actions. Yeah, you read that right, responsibile for our OWN actions. It wasn’t religion’s fault or their mother’s fault or anyone else’s fault but their own. They chose to cheat on their spouses, yet you want so badly to worship them, you have to make them victims instead of holding them accountable for their own actions. Oddly enough, you don’t extend that grace to those you oppose. Bush is a Christian just like MLK and JFK, so you ought to be saying that he is a victim and not responsibile for any of his actions either. How bout a little fair and balanced treatment here. ;)
June 24th, 2007 at 11:48 pmWow, does this mean the average of ‘America’s best’ are actually worse of a shot and kill more innocent bystanders than the improvised bombs that the militants come up with? Who are these soldiers…. all of Stevie Wonder’s kids? …the US team for the special olympics? Who said again that power is nothing without control….
June 25th, 2007 at 3:47 amWould someone please explain the “U.S. led” part in the oft-used phrase ‘U.S. led NATO air strike/operation/etc.’…..how does the U.S. lead NATO? thank you, Donna
July 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am