14 Americans die in Afghanistan . . . What's not to protest about this Afghan policy?

[bigtree]

I will continue to protest against this president who is keeping our soldiers bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. It make no sense for American soldiers to fight and die in Afghanistan. There's no overriding national security interest there and it's an abomination of our nation's values and constitution to continue to sacrifice soldiers and resources to defend the corrupt Afghan government's continuing manipulation of their staged elections (just as it is in Iraq).

I weep for the lives caught in the way of this American military imperialism. It's a sad reflection on our efforts to replace the last warmongering administration to have our military still operating under the bulk of the last bunch's demonstrably flawed assumptions about the use and efficacy of our military forces abroad. War is peace . . . and the rest.

I pretty much lied to my peace-loving friends who expressed misgivings about supporting this president's election to effect the end of the unbridled and misguided militarism. If I had told these folks the new president I'd begged them to support would essentially be feathering out Bush's plan for Iraq and multiplying our 'enemies' in Afghanistan with an escalated occupation I'd be shown the door. There is really no argument I can make now to convince them that the new administration is moving to reverse all of that. Too big to fail, war of necessity . . . and the rest.

I fucking hate this shit. These Democratic politics have, so far, resulted in more of the same old bullshit. Chess kills and we are hapless subjects and supporters of the same military industrial establishment we spent years railing against under the republicans. Where's the revolution? Sign me up.


well i dreamed i went out a wanderin'
i heard promises become fables forgotten
i saw bridges stretchin' out across the water
and towers pushing taller

i knew my reality was clearly defined
by the fences put up around my mind
i watched them thicken into walls over time
taller than any boarder line
i saw civilizations deemed insignificant
i saw people's history tatooed on their skin
i saw families taken from their land
dynasties shattered and stolen

and i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution

in all the burdens of centuries accrue
that get passed along to every generation's youth
and all the allegories told in leiu of truth
i watched them grow wild and spread like the flu

i saw the rise of an untamed industry
i watched machines paint a paper economy
i saw my own self stand right in front of me
and i didn't do a thing

i saw poisons pushed in the street
and prescription pills mingling in the mezzanine
with a whole host of wealth of doctors and pharmaceutical companies
still poor people were dying from disease

and i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution

and i broke down at the break of dawn
I saw new meaning in the clouds above the Pentagon
as real as the hollocaust as stong as the Parthanon
visions of Sudan that rock of Vietnam

i stood silent upon a flooded levy
and stared at the ruins of a merchant city
and the president who came to dine with the nobility
he didnt do a thing

i saw three ships come sailing in
through the passage of the
i saw children coming home in coffins
millions marching on washington

and i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution
i asked when, when... is a revolution
i asked when... is a revolution


- Brett Dennen "I Asked When"


(I wear your 'unrecs' with pride)

[SIMPLYB1980]

1. These men and women gave their lives to protect you, me and the Afghani people.

:patriot: And are willing to continue to do so.

[mullard12ax7]

2. I'd prefer they didn't

I'd prefer they enforce just policies rather than illegal wars.

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Afghanistan is not an illegal war.

:eyes:

[mullard12ax7]

9. Right, and no one was ever tortured

Hey guess what, I hear they moved the WMD to Syria.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. LoL!

:crazy:

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Which law is the war in Afghanistan in violation of?

:shrug:

[wuushew]

37. How is the original authorization of military force still valid?

The people we are shooting at were 10 years old in 2001. S.J. Res 23 called for force against people, not the idea of terrorism. Do you believe the originally specified(9/11) people to be alive and well in Afghanistan today?





Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and two,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United a States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Because it gave authority to the President to make the determination:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Apparently the President has determined that the Taliban harbored those responsible for the terrorist acts.

[bigtree]

3. There is NO threat to America from Afghanistan

. . . which can be effectively defended against by our American forces. That concern is at the heart of any justification for the use of the 'awesome' force of our nation's military abroad. It's not our military's choice alone (not even their primary choice) to determine the level and scope of our military involvement abroad. In this flailing effort, the contradictory and counterproductive effect of our military presence and activity makes all of that patriotic hooha about 'defending Americans and Afghans' a lie.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. Wrong.nt

[bigtree]

8. heh

hoorah

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Have you seen Rethink Afghanistan?

It's excellent. Lays it all out very clearly. The filmakers talk to our troops, their commanders, Afghan people and several other experts.

We do not need to be there and the people don't want us there. Plus al Qaeda is not there.

Obama needs to end this and bring our troops home now.

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. Yes, and I found it lacking. But rethinking is good.

This is going to end bad for a lot of you who think you voted to get out of Afghanistan.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. I voted for change I could believe in

:)

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. So did I.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_96.php

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

[Sinti]

14. I don't mean to pick on you, but can you elaborate? None of us know what the threat is apparently

You cannot blame us for being blind if you're unwilling to turn on the lights.

[tekisui]

17. Don't hold your breath.

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. Why do you want the baby Afghans to die?

:sarcasm:

[Flaneur]

28. Why do you?

[harkadog]

33. You are quite the intellectual

[Bragi]

7. Agreed /nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. These men and women were cannon-fodder in a lost war.

But, no doubt, a monument will be built to them so the politicians can use them as examples to stir up the populace for the next war.

[Echo In Light]

36. The numbers of willingly duped keep shrinking, thankfully.

More realize there isn't any 'democracy & freedumb' to "defend," but rather, want no part of being an expendable mercenary for vested, corporate interests.

[daedalus_dude]

12. How do you know that?

Those people would just as soon fire upon us if ordered to do so. How do you know that there aren't any DUers that have relatives who died at the hands of American soldiers.

And before you reply with the usual "but they are not the ones who should be blamed" line: I would suggest leaving it up to the victims who they blame.

[mike_c]

20. that's utter bullshit....

Those men and women are serving as enforcers for imperialist fascism. They're throwing away their lives to ensure profits for the U.S. war industries and military contractors. There is nothing honorable about what they're doing.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW!

[SIMPLYB1980]

23. OH NOES!!!111!! NOT THE FASCIST IMPERIALIST!!!111

[blues90]

24. No they gave their lives for corporate interests

Iraq had nothing to do with it , they never attacked us. If Afganistan had anything to do with 9/11 then we at the time had the world ready to help us find them, we did not need to send soldiers over there.

If the ME had no oil we would never be there in the first place.

[RetroLounge]

26. That is such a bunch of bullshit

Like everything else you post.

RL

[MadHound]

41. Excuse me, but what are they protecting me from?

Especially when virtually every action they take in that theater creates more and more people who are pissed at the US and are willing to join Al Qaeda to get their vengence. I see no Afghan troops on our borders, I see no Afghan missiles landing on our country. All I see is our army ruining a country and killing innocents for oil and empire.

Tell me, who are these men and women protecting me from? Osama? Don't make me laugh, the man is dead. Al Qaeda or the Taliban? Sorry, but you can't wipe our a guerilla group with typical war tactics, you have got to wage a war of ideas. So who are we being protected from?

Meanwhile we continue to kill innocents in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, tell me, how is that protecting them?

Bring the troops home, now.

[Mari333]

47. they died for nothing, they died for multinational corporations to continue

to reap the benefits of war companies, oil companies, oil interests and pipelines.
war is a scam and a racket.
they died for nothing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Pawns in the bosses' chess game, casually sacrificed for political ambitions.

[elocs]

11. You have a point with combat deaths, copter crashes can happen anywhere.

I agree that we should get out of Afghanistan and that it is a no-win situation, but I wouldn't use deaths from a copter crash to justify my viewpoint.

[bigtree]

16. you're inviting the disconnect

. . . between the flawed mission which keeps them bogged down and engaged there and what is admittedly an accident. It's all part and parcel of the same folly. The arrogance we have to assume that we can move man and material to war against our fellow humans without consequence. I don't accept those consequences without protest (accident or not). Neither should the American public who has indicated their exasperation with the continuing opportunistic military missions abroad.

[kenny blankenship]

18. 3 copters 2 separate incidents, 1 overstretched empire running on fumes and worn out parts

[mike_c]

19. proudly recommended....

Spot on.

[robdogbucky]

27. Ever notice

That the first thing out of one of the eternal wars' cheerleaders is related to challenging your patriotism?

Never mind the myriad commonsense points you listed in your heartfelt post, Bigtree, you forgot to get down on your knees.

I do not know why they cannot debate point for point, but it goes hand in hand with all the other "techniques," taught for spin control. Never make a direct answer. Shift the "debate," to other things (emotionally charged issues work best) and always spin toward something that will look like it is a correction needed to flawed reasoning. Of course, obfuscation and the resulting confusion work well also. I wonder how much they get paid?

Nor do I know why these folks can't get Afghan (Afghan people and most other things "of Afghanistan") and Afghani (Afghan currency) straight? I guess it is part and parcel to not knowing the difference between war and peace, up and down, right ant wrong, etc.

Onward, through the fog.

Out of Afghanistan now.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. I haven't challenged anyones patriotism.

Oh well enjoy.:eyes:

[haroldweeks]

31. We are there, Obama inherited it, we cannot leave a mess

So although we should get out as soon as possible we cannot leave a mess.

[bigtree]

32. we should accept the reality

. . . that there's going to be a 'mess' behind all of our militarism there, no matter what course we decide in the future. More to the point, the president's stated 'goal' to 'eliminate' and 'defeat al-Qaeda' in the country and the region is nothing but the same shadow-boxing against an ideology that Nixon and others used to support lingering on in Vietnam and Cambodia in pursuit of 'peace with honor'. To be fair, this president stated a few weeks ago that he's not interested in some face-saving mission in Afghanistan. However, his stated intentions against 'al-Qaeda' have yet to be defined in a way which doesn't just include any, and all resistance to our military forces' advance on Afghan territory. The present posture is an invitation to a wider war than what was initially defined in the authorization to use military force - the original mandate as a pursuit of those directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. This U.S.-led nation-building that's been included in the mission just plays into the hands of those in the militarized resistance who are looking for an American target to justify their own positioning for power and influence in their homeland.

We need to redefine the mission in a way which adheres to our own constitutional directions for the use of our military forces. The threatened and ongoing escalation of force is taking our nation further away from any rational or sensible military policy with regard to any 'threat' from the remnants and specters of the original al-Qaeda or their sponsors, and promises an even broader definition of America's 'enemies' who directly precede the line we draw in the sand with our invading and occupying forces. It's time to step away from this American imperialism. The grudging vengence of our occupying military forces against the fugitive 9-11 suspects and their supporters will not be in the interest of a stable Afghanistan or Pakistan, at least in the foreseeable future. Our full effort, as you say, should be to 'get out as soon as possible'. In that effort, we should first cast out these outworn notions about the wisdom or efficacy of our nation's military in these nation-building pipe dreams.

[harkadog]

34. How many decades are you willing to stay there?

To clean up the neverending "mess"?

[EFerrari]

38. There is no way to avoid leaving a mess.

When occupying forces leave, it's a mess.

[unhappycamper]

39. Thanks Mods. n/t

[JCMach1]

40. This story has me paranoid right now as my cousin is an engineer/helicopter crew in Afghanistan now

Am keeping my fingers crossed...

[bigtree]

42. that's what I hate the most

. . . the realization that these young (and old) lives are so at risk from this folly.

The military has said that this doesn't mean that there is some untenable danger to helicopters there, but it's understandable to worry. It's one of the most important jobs in the conflict to support the copters which are essential to carrying out essential services as well as provide for whatever offensive action the military has planned.


this in February from Danger Room at Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/contracted-heli/

Rent-a-Helicopters

___When the Marine Corps returned to Afghanistan last year, they brought a Marine Air-Ground Task Force with a pretty significant complement of helicopters (pictured here). But NATO and U.S. forces have looked to contracted aircraft to fill some of the gaps. NATO decided to lease civilian helicopters in late 2007; and the Army hired Blackwater Worldwide Xe to do "low cost/low altitude" airdrop of cargo pallets to isolated combat outposts.

Carson helicopters, a firm that operates heavy-lift helicopters for firefighting and construction, recently signed a deal with to haul supplies for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The Mail Tribune, a southern Oregon paper, reports that the company will provide seven Sikorsky S-61 helicopters, along with parts and maintenance, to a partner company contracted by the Pentagon. Their partner? While Carson would not say, the Mail Tribune cited court documents and Department of Defense records that show the contract is with Presidential Airways, a subsidiary of the company formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide.

and this: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html

While 5% of U.S. deaths in Iraq have been caused by helicopter crashes — 216 out of 4,348 — the total is 12% in Afghanistan — 101 of 866 — even before Monday's losses . . . The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage.

[JCMach1]

45. Seems as if my cuz dodged a bullet... one of the copters

was from his unit. :(

[bigtree]

46. we'll keep him in our thoughts

. . . as we work to get these folks out of there. Glad he's okay.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

43. K&R