the war, my worst fear

[rawker79]

being a guy who almost lost a good friend in the wtc attacks, i don't think i take what happened on sept 11 lightly. it was the worst atrocity on U.S. soil in history. i have given far more money than i can afford to the relief effort, and wish i could give more.

however. from the beginning i have been against the tactics we have used in afghanistan. why? well, because we "burned down the haystack to find the needle", and DIDN'T FIND THE NEEDLE. now, i am completely for going after osama and company, but i truly am wondering along with many people on the ground with the UN if we are going to end up killing more civilians than the people we are going after. there have been numerous mainstream media reports that many taliban and al qaida foot soldiers have been released to go back into circulation, not only by the interim gov. but by our own military leaders in the region.

meanwhile, on the homefront we have shredded the bill of rights (you know the piece of paper our boys and girls are over there defending?) with the ironically named "patriot act". you should really read it. it's chilling. under this new law, search warrants can be issued with out probable cause for any case, including cases UNRELATED TO TERRORISM. this sort of stuff has been unheard of since Hoover's cointelpro program. scary shit.

something that also makes me sad is that any sort of questioning of what our government is doing in this "war to rid the earth of evil" (what am i in a superman comic?) has been deemed as unpatriotic. i'm sure that many people who read this post will probably accuse me of the same thing, but i couldn't differ more. i know that everyone out there that feels they need to whole heartedly support our government in this war have the best of intentions. however, i feel it is truly patriotic to try to protect the ideals that this country supposedly built on, even if that means criticizing the government. administrations change, but without the founding principles of our people what is left?

i actually wish these questions were being asked from the very beginning, but i'm glad some in our government (though their criticism is transparently politically motivated) are starting to now. these questions are vital to insure that we realize the magnitude of our government's actions now, not 30 years down the road.

thanks everyone. had to say it. now those who wish can commence with the "pinko", "commie", and "faggot" insults.

[Yerdaddy]

Hey Pinko, I agree with you 100%. I work here in Washington DC on foreign policy and I think the idea that we need blind patriotism after an atrocious attack like this is unhelpful and unpatriotic. Yet that is what we are being asked by the Bush administration and many other powerful segments of society.

It is our responsibility to ask hard questions of our elected representatives, especially when we have been attacked. We have to know what role we play in the world, what policies are carried out in our names, and if they don't conform to our values, to let our voices be heard.

It seems to me that what we are being asked to ignore is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan grew out of the proxy war we fought there against the Soviets in the 80's. Prior to that war Afghanistan was a stable, moderate Islamic country, without any particular animosity toward the West. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, has acknowledged publicly that he convinced Carter to begin sending military aid into Afghanistan in order to draw the Soviets to invade and thus "deliver to the Soviets their Vietnam." Then we funneled $10 billion in weapons, (including 900 Stinger missiles that we tried unsuccessfully to retrieve after the war), to the Mujaheddin over the course of the war. We convinced Saudi Arabia to match those funds, and the Pakistani military created its ISI intelligence branch to funnel the aid in and deal directly with the Mujeheddin. (The ISI became the Taliban's strongest ally, has become the strongest political organization in Pakistan, has overthrown two civilian governments in Pakistan now, and is the main supporters of extremist groups in Pakistan and Kashmir, which brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war in the last few months. In fact Gen. Musharraf took power in Pakistan in a military coup in 1999 precisely because of his fears that the ISI was leading the Islamic fundamentalists toward taking over the country.) With allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt, we organized the networks of fundamentalist recruiters, and the madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan that, after the Soviet war continued to feed the Taliban and Al Quaeda with poor, young men and boys from throughout the Islamic world. This network is where Bin Laden was recruited into the Afghan war, and where he began to create the Al Quaeda network.

Let me say that I don't think that Bin Laden was "created by the CIA" or had a particularly strong relationship with any US agency. But because he was loaded with Saudi Oil money, (which comes from US gas pumps), he was able to maintain the networks of madrassas, recruiters, weapons trade, black markets, and the ties to the Pakistani ISI, and use them to wage war on US installations in Africa, Yemen, and finally in the US.

Afghanistan was able to be his home base because it was abandoned after the war and left armed to the tits and with a culture of war that has meant that whoever has the biggest gun has power. Eventually, we did try to deal with the Taliban, briefly, in order to facilitate Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, but the Taliban were so outrageous in their fundamentalism and their treatment of women, that we just couldn't deal with them. (Had it not been for women's organizations in the US and around the world, we probably would have supported them.)

So what's my point? It's that in the name of "American interest" our government has carried out policies that the public would never approve of. We were told that we were in Vietnam because Russia and China were fueling a revolution there. But in Afghanistan, that's exactly what we were doing. It was wrong, and, had the government been honest with the public, the public would have never approved of it. When we were done with Afghanistan, instead of saying "thank you for fighting for our interests, let us help you rebuild a stable society" we said "you can keep the guns."

The US public needs to pull its head out and involve itself in our foreign policies,

[Captain Rooster]

And your point?

If we do not react to the events of 9/11 with overwhelming force and rage we will set a precedent that we will allow the slaughter of American civilians.

This war is just. If we react and anger arabs that are uneducated and kept ignorant so their leaders can control them, so be it. We need to slice the jugular vein of the opposition and destroy their capability to continue the acts of hatred that they have begun.

If we settle to do nothing now, we settle for nothing later. That nothing will be the end of America. These animals will not cease until every single breath-drawing American is dead. Deal with the changes and thank God that you live in this country.



<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

WWWEEEEEEEE!



This message was edited by LTRooster on 3-8-02 @ 3:47 PM

[chefpitt]

Wow I just lerned more from you two guys then I ever could from public press......

[Yerdaddy]

I need a point? Damn!

OK. My point = Fudge is yummy!

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be in this war. I'm saying that how we conduct this war, and what we do afterwards matters. If we destroy Afghanistan in order to kill a few Al Quaeda guys, and say fuck the civillians, then we will leave behind refugee camps filled with children that will grow up with nothing better than to get back at us. But if we leave behind a stable, democratic Afghanistan, then terrorists and extremist Islamic groups will not be welcome there.

And if we coddle Pakistan for some other strategic reason, then winning any war on terrorism is IMPOSSIBLE.



<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Captain Rooster]

and say fuck the civillians


When have we done that?
We have sent more food to those civilians than we have sent food to the homeless of NYC since 9/11.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

WWWEEEEEEEE!

[Yerdaddy]

And tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes. Aid agencies that were in Afghanistan before the war aren't able to transport the food and medicine everywhere it needs to go. There is still the risk of up to a million people dying of starvation of disease.

But in the bigger picture, after the war, we still have a responsibilty to aid Afghanistan in building a civilian infrastructure in order to prevent warlord feudalism from continuing to destroy the country.

We need to control the flow of weapons in the region instead of lifting the weapons sanctions on Pakistan, which still faces the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism destabilizing the country or provoking a war with India. Ect. etc. etc.

It's much more than kicking ass and taking names. The whole world does not hate us. But those that do can only threaten us by exploiting places like Afghanistan, (like we did in the 80s). Now if we change the way we treat places like Afghanistan, then we can drive terrrorism out of business. Carrot AND the stick, as a matter of pragmatism.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Captain Rooster]

And tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes. Aid agencies that were in Afghanistan before the war aren't able to transport the food and medicine everywhere it needs to go. There is still the risk of up to a million people dying of starvation of disease. <P> <P> Don't you think that warlords and tribal leaders are the main reason that relief organizations cannot deliver food to needy people? <P> quote: after the war, we still have a responsibility to aid Afghanistan in building a civilian infrastructure in order to prevent warlord feudalism from continuing to destroy the country. We have already sent Green Beret advisors and diplomatic advisors to create an interim government there. Why do you doubt that we will not help the oppressed people of Afghanistan to be led by legitimate leaders? The British soldiers are peacekeeping in Kabul and we are fighting in only limited engagements outside of major urban areas. We are meeting responsibilities that we never asked to take on. <P> This country loves to question the decisions of a government that is almost as socialist as it is democratic. Our social programs in America are testament to the fact that we are concerned with the needs of the downtrodden. We are an extremely altruistic society. Most countries would just destroy Afghanistan and let them starve. <P> Look at what we have done in Bosnia. We are still putting soldier's lives on the brink while saving the lives of the Muslims there that were being slaughtered. <P> We need to stop the B.S. and realize that we are the greatest, most benevolent country on the face of the earth. We need to stop comparing the U.S.A. to the Roman Empire and the dominance that it had over the known world during its existence. The Roman would have slaughtered every breathing Arab and would have sewn salt into their soil. <P> We will not. <P> We will work to ensure that Afghanistan becomes a viable country that can actually help itself. <P> We should not have to rebuild Afghanistan. We should enable and empower the Afghan people to save themselves! <P> <P>

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>





This message was edited by LTRooster on 3-8-02 @ 6:23 PM

[reeshy]

As a person whowas down at the WTC 2 hours after it came down,(along with my brother and daughter) my first reaction was to take these peoples heads and put them on a pike!

Since then, I have calmed down and seen what our military is doing- What they are doing is the right thing in Afghanistan- we must hunt these scum down and execute them- nuff said!

P.S. as veteran of another war, at least this one has a purpose!

HOLA, Rooster Man!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.rollingmania.com.ar/rs_2001/keith/dibujos/images/rich7.jpg>
In The Presence of the Lord!





This message was edited by reeshy on 3-8-02 @ 6:41 PM

[Gvac]

Rooster, I could not possibly agree with you any more. We have already taken tremendous steps in setting up a temporary government in Afghanistan, and the people there are thankful for it, particularly the female population. Their treatment under the Taliban was nothing less than barbaric, and most Afgans see us as a liberating force, not an all-powerful foe there to impose our will on others.

And as far as "blind patriotism" goes, of course it is right to question the government, but right now, our troops need all the support they can get.

Any other issues on the table are a distant second in my book to the horrors our soldiers are facing on a daily basis.


<img src=http://gvac.50megs.com/images/9_11sig.jpg>

Thanks again, Rooster!

[Yerdaddy]

Why do you doubt that we will not help the oppressed people of Afghanistan to be led by legitimate leaders?

Because we didn't help them after the 80's. And my argument is that if we had taken that responsibility then, Bin Laden would not have been able to find safe harbor in Afghanistan. The warlords were petty and weak before the war with the Soviets. They didn't have the weapons to wage all-out war, therefore they were not a threat to us or thier neighbors, and less of a threat to ordinary Afghans. Thus Afghanistan had a civil society, (systems of government and economy that doesn't come at gunpoint). After the war they were armed to the tits and able to command enough power to dominate every aspect of the country and it deteriorated into anarchy after 23 years of war between these clowns. I believe we will make an attempt to help rebuild Afghanistan. But I predict a half-assed short-lived effort that is eventually sidelined by a lack of will, and other interests in the region. And then it will have been for nothing. Our allies in this war and that make up the bulk of the interim government, the Northern Alliance, has a record of human rights abuses only slightly better than the Taliban. They are unfit to form a civil infrastructure, and there are educated, moderate Islamic Afghans all over the world capable of doing that job, but I predict that they will be sidelined.

We will placate Pakistan while it shelters the thousands of Al Quaeda and Taliban members that have already fled back to the madrassas in Pakistan. Musharraf formally disbanded the ISI, a very promising move, but if he cycles the officers into the other armed services, then Pakistan will remain a huge, unstable, conservative Islamic nation that has nuclear weapons with a government that is susceptible to a fundamentalist overthrow and we are selling weapons to again. And Bush has said not one critical word about Pakistan to the US public. It criticized Iran for supporting warlords in Afghanistan - the same ones it has always supported - the Northern Alliance. But not one word about the country that kept the Taliban afloat, and that is continuing to harbor the Taliban - Pakistan.

We have already sent Green Beret advisors and diplomatic advisors to create an interim government there.

I'm sorry, but the Green Berets can't build a civil society. And the few diplomats they have sent aren't the people to do that job either. They haven't sent people from the State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor - the ones who would be sent if that was the mission.

As a country it is time we understood the rest of the world instead of looking at it as a playground and we're the toughest guy around. It's not that simple, I'm sorry. Did we not kick the everloving shit out of Iraq's military, which was one of the largest in the world at that time? And 9-11 still happened! War will not cow these people! It just does not work that way. Our government doesn't think of the world in simplistic terms, and that's why we have so many government agencies that deal with foreign policy, (State, Defense, USAID, etc.) But what those agencies do is guided by politics, and when the US public doesn't understand something, that's when partisan politics directs policy, or business interests do, or geopolitical power games do. That's when things get over-simplified, like now. Listen to every speech Bush has given since 9-11 and you will have learned nothing about East Asia. Because he does not want us involved in the decision-making. But if, and only if, the US public takes this opportunity to demand that we take responsibility, then we will.

We will work to ensure that Afghanistan becomes a viable country that can actually help itself.

I wish. But I doubt it.

Let me also say that my #1 goal in my work on South Asia is to prevent another terrorist attack on America. I fully support the troops on the ground. But I know that there is more to foreign policy than making war. And fucking up in between wa

[mozfan]

I can't be disgusted any more by the Michael Moore, "Democracy Now" WBAI bullshit.


There are different rules for countries like ours. We have to be perfect. 9/11 was not about poor, dirty muslims in the 3rd world, it was about spoiled, billionaire pricks from Saudi Arabia who are JEALOUS that the East doesn't call the shots in the world, the West does.


Meanwhile, back-stabbers like Colin Powell now have the gall to criticize Isreal for protecting their own!

"If you declare war against the Palestinians and think you can solve the problem by seeing how many Palestinians can be killed - I don't know if that leads you anywhere,'

Nice, real nice. So, Afghans had fuck all to do with 9/11 other than the regime that was controlling them
"hired" UBL as their military chairman, or whatever the phrase was. For that much, I feel sorry for them, rawker, and it is indeed regrettable that Afghan civilians had to die.

What I ask of Powell and others (especially the anti-semites that populate continental Europe and the UK) is that if we can kill Afghans in order to get at terroists and their training bases, then try not to characterize the defense of Israelis as "seeing how many Palestinians can be killed", you're supposed to be diplomatic, you dumb shit!!!


If Israel gets fucked (which they are) then so too will the US. Undeveloped countries and any entity that doesn't exist as a state have ways of waging war on proper nation-states: it's called terrorism, and the P.A. is getting away with it daily. Meanwhile, Israel is asked for perfection and accused of apartied.

The same will happen to us. Other countries will eventually either give up the self-congratulatory leftism and join the bandwagon and get rid of this bullshit or let us go down fighting.

[Captain Rooster]

Yerdaddy, do you think we went into Afghanistan in the 80s to help Afghanistan?

We didn't, we entered Afghanistan to keep the Russians out, nothing more. We do not owe them anything; they owe us. Without us, they would be speaking Russian today!

Why does America owe the world favors? Why do we not close our borders and become homogeneous like many of the other countries of the world?


<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

[Yerdaddy]

Yerdaddy, do you think we went into Afghanistan in the 80s to help Afghanistan?

Read my first post. I don't think we were in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people, based on the evidence.

Why do we not close our borders and become homogeneous like many of the other countries of the world?


Because our economy depends on the global economy, just like every other industrialized nation. We depend on the Middle East and South America for oil. We depend on third world labor for manufacturing in nearly every sector of the economy. We depend on the technological skills of immigrants from all over the world. Even our domestic corporations have been lobbying the government for years not to enforce the borders because they need the workers. We have never been an isolationist country and we never will be.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Mxyzptlk]

Without us, they would be speaking Russian today!


Would that have been such a bad thing?


<IMG SRC="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~cdobol/images/mxyz.jpg">,

[Captain Rooster]

Once again, what is our point?

USA !! USA!! USA!!!

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

[Yerdaddy]

Would that have been such a bad thing?

Although former Soviet republic, Kyrgystan, is doing a hell of alot better than Afghanistan, I don't think Afghans would have wanted that. Would they have rather had 23 years of war though?

The economy of Mxyzptlkistan is booming from the sale of moonshine candles.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Yerdaddy]

Once again, what is our point?

It's right there in the post.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/babystaple.jpg" >
BILLY STAPLES FAN SINCE DAY ONE

[Captain Rooster]

Ummmmm maybe

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

[PortugueseMark]

I have a great deal of respect for those first two people who posted. Excellent information and opinion.
So heres mine:
In the last 6 months the world has become a much worse place. Not only because of extremeism, but also due to American military action in the Phillipines, Georgia, Afghanistan, Colombia, etc etc.
Unfortunately for every citizen who tries to believe in a government, they are all corrupt.. no matter what party. Which means the current administration and others.. are using what happenned as a banner to spend incredible and insane amounts of money on toys that destroy (Osprey for example). Meanwhile city schools (not just New York) are more than 100 years old and in shambles. Millions have no health insurance, and social security will only exist if those other Enron's don't gamble it away.

Actually I'd like to ask a question. Missile Defense: This program is currently being heavily researched my the gov. I think 200 million dollars were just set aside (why not, right?) What bothers me is that first of all, no one ever asked the people! The money is being spent as if we don't matter. What do you all think of this?

For me-- if this is democracy. Than I'm really disappointed. If government represents us, than why does it makes decisions against our will?

Spare me the patriotic speech about go live somewhere else. I'm one step ahead... I don't live in the states anymore. And we have plenty of "freedom and democracy" out here (But I will go back when my work out here is finished.)
Hey and much respect to this thread.. cause everyone seems to respect everyone.

"They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn.
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn." - Ralph Chaplin

This message was edited by PortugueseMark on 3-9-02 @ 6:00 AM

[Yerdaddy]

Thanks for the props PortugueseMark. I differ with you on some points, though. I don't assume that we have a military that does wrong wherever it goes in the world. With some exceptions, we have a professional military with civilian oversight, transparency, and accountability. They really do lay their asses on the line for us and we should be thankful that they do.

I do have a problem with policies that put the military in the position of training foreign militaries that have no accountability and commit human rights violations on their own people with impunity. If you read the State Dept. human rights reports on Colombia, for example, it reads like a laundry list of security forces killing civilians, right-wing paramilitaries killing civilians, and left-wing guerillas killing civilians. They're all involved in the drug trade, although the military to a lesser extent or the US Congress would have never approved of the $1.3 billion aid package last year. Our military is down there working with the Colombian military which is fighting the FARC and the ELN, but working with the paramilitaries, (AUC), which is also fighting the guerillas, but killing 5 villagers for every guerilla. Even if they wipe out the FARC and the ELN, what is the AUC going to do? Become accountants? They'll take over the drug trade, while sending their leaders into politics.

But as long as Monsanto keeps up the campaign contributions and lobbying for the contract to sell enough Roundup to spray an entire country, and defense contractors do the same from the revolving door of the military, government and industry, we'll keep up this silly-ass "war on drugs." Meanwhile farmers will continue to grow cocoa because they can't compete with ADM and ConAgra forcing themselves into Colombia's markets with suitcases of cash and promises of favorable US policies from the US.

And for this the military gets the bad wrap? That's too easy. The guys in the field are just doing their jobs. Sure they could refuse to go, but you can't expect them to read "Foreign Affairs" and "The Economist", learn to fly a helicopter, and take care of a family, etc. The military is confident that they can do anything they're asked to do, as they should be. But they shouldn't be asked to do what they were never meant to do - solve our drug problems. Colombia needs political and market reforms, so that people have the opportunity to make an honest buck. Make economic aid contingent on that and they'll straighten their shit right out. Then if they get their own military under civilian rule by throwing some of those officers in the clink for a few decades, then the people will help them get rid of the guerillas that haven't decided to get one of these new jobs the new economy offers.

But as it stands, we're putting the military in a position of maintaining an economic situation that favors US corporations. The majority of the US population knows that the "war on drugs" is a joke. But do they stand up and demand recovery programs be made available to EVERYONE in prison? Nope. When I was in recovery, I saw hard-core cons in meetings crying because they didn't want to use drugs and leave their kids again. They were scared because they didn't have drug-treatment programs in jail - they had drugs. Recovery programs work - but they don't make a profit.

As for Georgia and the Philippines, they have much more professional militaries than Colombia, and some fucked up extremist groups to deal with. They both have serious political corruption problems, but the militaries aren't killing people on a massive scale. I have no problem with military cooperation there.

As for missile defense, I just want to add this: it creates an arms race that gives the advantage to our enemies. Even if it could reliably "hit a bullet with a bullet", which it can't, it gives enemies the incentive to build a better decoy. It's pretty fucking hard to build long-range missiles with warheads, only a handful can do it, and these dumb-ass countries that we're talking about being the threats are certainly

[PortugueseMark]

Let me start with todays thing: WASHINGTON, March 9 -

"They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn.
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn." - Ralph Chaplin