7-Year Anniversary of US Invasion of Afghanistan

g under p

7-Year Anniversary of US Invasion of Afghanistan

And today marks the seventh anniversary of the US attack on Afghanistan. An internally displaced Afghan man reflected on the date, saying the US occupation has brought disunity and hardship.

Afghan resident:
“After the arrival of the Americans in Afghanistan, we can see they have brought disunity. They have made each part of Afghanistan a battle field. We want unity between the people and stability in our county. None of these are possible as long as the Americans are present. The Americans say ‘we are fighting the Taliban,’ but we see them continuing to kill and bomb civilians. Why?”

.....And now the US are sending in more troops, another war that may never see an end.

Peace

the wolf

g under p wrote:

7-Year Anniversary of US Invasion of Afghanistan

And today marks the seventh anniversary of the US attack on Afghanistan. An internally displaced Afghan man reflected on the date, saying the US occupation has brought disunity and hardship.

Afghan resident:
“After the arrival of the Americans in Afghanistan, we can see they have brought disunity. They have made each part of Afghanistan a battle field. We want unity between the people and stability in our county. None of these are possible as long as the Americans are present. The Americans say ‘we are fighting the Taliban,’ but we see them continuing to kill and bomb civilians. Why?”

.....And now the US are sending in more troops, another war that may never see an end.

Peace

this is sad. but at least its the right geographical place we should be to "destroy terror" i think we should have gone in there full boar, and it would be over now, and Iraq wouldnt have even had the chance to be what it has become.

g under p

the wolf wrote:

this is sad. but at least its the right geographical place we should be to "destroy terror" i think we should have gone in there full boar, and it would be over now, and Iraq wouldnt have even had the chance to be what it has become.

We must remember Afghanistan was NEVER THE intended target fot this war on terror. That's why we never went in there full bore with everthing we had.

It was clearly Iraq. The war on terror is a war that will never have an end.

Peace

the wolf

g under p wrote:

We must remember Afghanistan was NEVER THE intended target fot this war on terror. That's why we never went in there full bore with everthing we had.

It was clearly Iraq. The war on terror is a war that will never have an end.

Peace

oh i know. let me re phrase that. had we gone into afghanistan after bin laden full on, we would be done there now. i know that afghanistan is not the "target". and i do agree that the war on terror is awar the will never end. it will only get worse. sorry for any confusion on my stance on this.

im pretty sure we agree here.

Cosmo

From the 2000 Presidential Debate:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

MODERATOR: "The use of the military, there (Kosovo) -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?"

BUSH: "I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."
...
Are we Nation Building? Yes? No?

g under p

Study: US Lags in Compensation Payments to Afghan Victims

Yesterday marked the seventh anniversary of the US-led attack on Afghanistan. A new study says the US-led NATO occupation has killed up to 3,200 Afghan civilians since 2005. According to the Afghan Victim Memorial Project, a comparative tally shows the US is at the low end of compensation payments to Afghan victims up against other global cases.

After Denials, Pentagon Admits 30 Afghan Civilians Killed in US Attack

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is now backing off a nearly two-month-old denial of a mass killing of civilians in an Afghan village. Afghan officials, local residents and UN investigators say up to ninety civilians, including sixty children, were killed in the US attack on Azizabad on August 22nd. The Pentagon has repeatedly insisted the bombing only killed up to seven civilians and two dozen militants. But it now says thirty civilians were killed. A Pentagon investigator concluded many more civilians were buried in the rubble than the Pentagon had claimed. The reports of a ninety-person death toll have been backed by cell phone footage taken by local residents of scores of bodies, witness accounts and freshly dug grave sites.

...from Democracy now and civilians are still dying.

Peace

Commy

60 children killed in 1 horrible event. And we're "fighting" terrorism in Afghanistan?

xavier mcdaniel

there was an interesting segment on sixty minutes the other night about the commander of the delta team and how his suggestions when he was close to bin laden was often disapproved. interesting stuff to say the least.

Commy

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

there was an interesting segment on sixty minutes the other night about the commander of the delta team and how his suggestions when he was close to bin laden was often disapproved. interesting stuff to say the least.

perpetual war seems to be a goal of US policy planners. The military industrial complex needs food, and conflict. Take out the figurehead and the wars over yeah? I'm speculationg here I don't know if that is why Bin Ladin wasn't taken out, but who knows?

Maybe he's a friend of the same warmongers that operate out of Washington.

g under p

g under p wrote:

After Denials, Pentagon Admits 30 Afghan Civilians Killed in US Attack

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is now backing off a nearly two-month-old denial of a mass killing of civilians in an Afghan village. Afghan officials, local residents and UN investigators say up to ninety civilians, including sixty children, were killed in the US attack on Azizabad on August 22nd. The Pentagon has repeatedly insisted the bombing only killed up to seven civilians and two dozen militants. But it now says thirty civilians were killed. A Pentagon investigator concluded many more civilians were buried in the rubble than the Pentagon had claimed. The reports of a ninety-person death toll have been backed by cell phone footage taken by local residents of scores of bodies, witness accounts and freshly dug grave sites.

...from Democracy now and civilians are still dying.

Peace

Is this what Obama was referring to when he was talking about the US bombing villages and civilians being killed?

Peace

g under p

US Report: Afghanistan in a “Downward Spiral”

The New York Times reports a draft report by US intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral” and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban’s influence. The Times also reports the Bush administration is considering arming tribal militias in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban in places where Afghanistan’s army and police forces have been ineffective.

Peace

Commy

g under p wrote:

US Report: Afghanistan in a “Downward Spiral”

The New York Times reports a draft report by US intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a “downward spiral” and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban’s influence. The Times also reports the Bush administration is considering arming tribal militias in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban in places where Afghanistan’s army and police forces have been ineffective.

Peace

The US, they divide and rule, only in this case, the people of Afghanistan are sick of that shit. Its not working. Send in more tanks, more guns more troops. ITs how to make peace.


Yeah.

g under p

Residents: Up to 35 Afghans Killed in NATO Attack

The US-led NATO occupation force is being accused of another mass killing of civilians in Afghanistan. Local officials in the town of Lashkar Gah say between twenty-five to thirty people were killed in a NATO air strike on Thursday. The attack came one day after NATO commanders said they would implement a new policy for reducing air attacks to avoid civilian casualties. Residents said at least eighteen bodies were pulled from the rubble, with another twelve said to still be buried underneath. A BBC correspondent reported seeing eighteen bodies, ranging from six months to fifteen years old. NATO has confirmed a strike took place but isn’t acknowledging causing casualties. It took nearly two months for the Pentagon to acknowledge a mass killing of Afghan civilians in an air strike in August, and even then the US has acknowledged killing thirty civilians while residents claim it was around ninety.

....And the civilian deaths continue.


Peace

g under p

US Admits to Killing 37 Afghans in Attack on Wedding

In Afghanistan, the US has admitted to killing thirty-seven civilians and wounding dozens more in a military attack last week. The victims were bombed as they attended a wedding party outside the city of Kandahar. The Pentagon says the US bombed the area after coming under fire from nearby militants. It was the Pentagon’s quickest admission of a mass killing of Afghan civilians to date. It took nearly two months before the US admitted killing up to ninety civilians in a similar attack in August.

Peace

g under p

Report: Bush Authorized US Attacks Anywhere in the World

The New York Times has revealed the US military has waged nearly a dozen secret attacks inside Syria, Pakistan and other countries since 2004. The assaults were approved under a classified order signed by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and authorized by President Bush. The order authorizes US military attacks anywhere in the world if they can be linked to targeting al-Qaeda. Last month’s US attack inside Syria appears to be the latest known instance under the policy. Syria says eight civilians were killed. The attacks have often been carried out in collaboration with the CIA.

I gather there's no need to attack in Afghanistan even though citizens there are being killed.

Peace

MrBrian

g under p wrote:

US Admits to Killing 37 Afghans in Attack on Wedding

In Afghanistan, the US has admitted to killing thirty-seven civilians and wounding dozens more in a military attack last week. The victims were bombed as they attended a wedding party outside the city of Kandahar. The Pentagon says the US bombed the area after coming under fire from nearby militants. It was the Pentagon’s quickest admission of a mass killing of Afghan civilians to date. It took nearly two months before the US admitted killing up to ninety civilians in a similar attack in August.

Peace

Yeah, for some reason the US admits it quicker when the world is shown video evidence or pictures.

Weird how that works.
--

But America did say "sorry", so I think it's fair now.

PJ_Saluki

g under p wrote:

Report: Bush Authorized US Attacks Anywhere in the World

The New York Times has revealed the US military has waged nearly a dozen secret attacks inside Syria, Pakistan and other countries since 2004. The assaults were approved under a classified order signed by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and authorized by President Bush. The order authorizes US military attacks anywhere in the world if they can be linked to targeting al-Qaeda. Last month’s US attack inside Syria appears to be the latest known instance under the policy. Syria says eight civilians were killed. The attacks have often been carried out in collaboration with the CIA.

I gather there's no need to attack in Afghanistan even though citizens there are being killed.

Peace

I saw that earlier today and it made me think of something I remembered Obama saying when he was trying to out-big-swinging-cock McCain on foreign policy:

Rueters, August 7 wrote:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government..."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Obviously Musharraf isn't around anymore, but Obama is now in the White House. I hope he rethinks this thing. Bush's policies have been brutal and this arming-the-warlords thing is going to be just as bad.

Here's something from:

http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/10/top5.htm wrote:

Christine Fair, a senior political analyst at the RAND Corporation, said she had strong doubts about copying the Iraqi model in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In an interview to a US media outlet, Ms Fair said that even in Iraq, this policy was already having “unintended consequences.”

“I am an opponent of this because it never works. In fact, in the case of Afghanistan, we are where we are today because we choose to outsource securing Afghanistan to [people who are] basically warlords. There is no reason to believe that it will be successful, except in a very short-term definition of success.”

Do any of Bush's policies ever work? Will Obama make the same mistakes? I sure as hell hope not.

catefrances

so has the objective been achieved yet?

g under p

Defying US, Afghanistan Signs Cluster Ban

Afghanistan has defied the Bush administration and signed a new international ban on cluster bombs. The last-minute decision came as more than ninety other governments also ratified the treaty Wednesday in Oslo. The US has led a group of large nations refusing to adopt the ban. It bars use, stockpiling and trading of cluster weapons and requires signatories to clear contaminated areas within ten years. The White House reportedly urged Afghan President Hamid Karzai not to sign the treaty. Thomas Nash of the Cluster Munition Coalition welcomed the new signatories.

Cluster Munition Coalition Coordinator Thomas Nash: “When we banned landmines in ‘97 they had already affected more than eighty countries. We have actually only had thirty countries affected by these weapons so far. So we’re actually acting before the problem gets out of hand.”

According to the group Handicap International, 98 percent of cluster bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children. The US has played a central role in two of the world’s worst cases of cluster bomb attacks. The Nixon administration dropped millions of cluster bombs on Laos during the Vietnam War. And the Bush administration provided critical support to Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon that also left millions of unexploded bomblets on the ground. In Washington, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino laughed off a question from veteran correspondent Helen Thomas on the Bush administration’s refusal to sign the ban.

Helen Thomas: “Is the President going to sign the anti-cluster bomb treaty? Apparently this is—"

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino: “Right, this is a treaty that was passed out of the UN Security Council several months ago. We said then that, no, we would not be signing onto it. And so, I think that the signing is actually—we did not participate in the passage of it, and therefore we’re not going to sign it either.”

Thomas: “Why not?”

Perino: “What I have forgotten is all the reasons why, and so I’ll get it for you.” (Laughter)

It amazes the direction of world correctiveness this country is headed yet the US holds the world to such tight discretions of war.

Peace

Commy

I think in WWI the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed was 10/1. Now, with all of the military technology and all of our precision bombing and advanced weaponry, the numbers reversed.

Though it hasn't been calculated, its been estimated that for every 10 civilians killed, 1 enemy soldier is killed. With the numbers coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan that's pretty hard to imagine.